64-bit: More than just the RAM

sidewinder · Aug 29, 2008

roy69 said:
not wanting to be picy but the equations you are all using is wrong.
It is actually (2^32)-1

It's "picky", since we are being picky...

If you are going to be a geek, be an accurate geek. It really is 2^32 (4,294,967,296) bytes of address space. The highest address byte is (2^32)-1 because the count starts at zero. So the range is 0 - 4,294,967,295.

So you distinction only makes a difference when you are actually addressing the bytes or converting from decimal to hex or binary. That's why 0xFF = 255 = 11111111. 8 bits equals a byte which can store any of 256 unsigned integers from 0 to 255. And you distinction makes no sense when discussing the number of bytes in an address space or when doing calculation of address space size based on the bit size of a processor.

S-

skunksmash · Aug 29, 2008

cmon ppl.....lets keep it friendly!!

KBolt · Sep 10, 2008

Just so some "Nit-Picker" doesn't call you out on this someday, we need to get your terminology straight. There is no such thing as x32, the 32bit instructions are known as x86 and 64 bit is x64. When talking "bits" then it's 32bit and 64bit, but when you put an "x" in front, you're now talking architecture instructions and that's x86 and x64.
I know you're just using it in a contextual form (x32) but in places like this there's always someone who'll jump on you for that little gaff (not me tho!!) just an FYI..

Indeed...but not yet :zip:

One "thing" more :
I do not understand educated, highly professional statements, like "erh..64 IS BETTER THAN 32...no doubt...erhhh...because the article said so"..... :shock:

...***
I don't even try to understand. Waste of Internet space.

"Better" is rather wide consept. Especially when we are comparing these two systems (32bit vs 64bit).
Those who say "64bit is naturally better.." do not understand a *** about IT...usually. One point in "betterness" is the environment where the OS is going to perform. Industry was once mentioned in the article. What was said in the text was partly ***. Those, who do something with robotics etc., understand what I am trying to say...
It's FAR from true that 64bit is always better. Very far.
Average user will never have any visual or physical experience about "better and faster 64bit environment" over fast 32bit system. Never.
Most users will only gain ***** when automatically buying (or downloading..) 64bit Vista for their "extreme rigs".

Sad trueth is that most users do not understand even their hardware. Mostly they don't have any idea WHAT they are going to do with their HW (exept play games..). Almost surely they have no idea how the hardware can really perform and when the performance is truely needed.
It's just a must to get 64bit OS..because boy from the next house has it and he said it's always better...and so said his father too.

I would recommend to be sceptical when reading *** tests/articles and waiting a bit (like some others above..).

In the future when
- the software really becomes out 64bit (NOT converted to 64bit..coded to solid 64bit system) and
- the hardware that truely supports the same environment (NOT only thru converted 32bit drivers..) and
- the prices of the devices needed to perform will drop extremely
then it's logical to get the 64bit OS too.

Now a decent 64bit, well performing "PC" with decent software will cost..more than enough for 99.9% of potential users. They are sometimes called "Servers" or engineering workstations.
And yet...what is "decent" or what "performance" really means ? More that a gamer needs (or is capable) to understand.

P.S. Off-topic but still...

One of the most ridiculous comparisons today is widely used FPS-value.

"This Card_X gets 180 FPS when using 32bit Vista but with 64bit OS the card really FLIES...getting HUGE 188 FPS..". :shock:

...OH...WHAT A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE !

My imagination has not found any other as "reliable" and as relevant "fact" to buy something than those tests.

EDITED BY: Brink
Removed language and insults.

dmex · Sep 10, 2008

KBolt said:
I do not understand educated, highly professional statements, like "erh..64 IS BETTER THAN 32...no doubt...erhhh...because the article said so"..... ...***
I don't even try to understand. Waste of Internet space.

Those who say "64bit is naturally better.." do not understand a *** about IT...usually.

KBolt,

If you dont understand 64bit then dont try fool yourself or others into believing its worse than 32bit...If there are all these "educated, highly professional statements" about 64bit being better than 32bit dont you think it would be better? Have you done your own tests to see the difference? Judging by your reply and the section I quoted above all I see is you have absolutely no idea about the differences between the two and would rather insult others and use abusing language about something you have never bothered to understand or have a clue about.

I can explain the differences quite easily for you, 32bit only runs your PC at 32 words at a time while 64bit runs your PC at 64 words at a time

The major difference is having every component and program able to to use double the capacity of every component to run programs at once while also giving that program a major performance boost in execution time and major boost in calculations used in every last program since the 1970`s. (thats the most basic of basic explanation about the differences and there are hundreds more improvements and changes that benefit everyone)

While you might think there are no differences or reasons to use 64bit or thinking there are no available 64bit applications available for normal users and uses, You will find by understanding 64bit and using 64bit that it has something for everyone and also how its there to make the things you do faster, more secure and better.

Many Company's and Developers are spending millions to get their software and hardware upgraded and updated for 64bit desktop machines as they also understand the major improvements over 32bit and how everyone can benefit from the changes

Quote: '64-bit' CPUs have existed in supercomputers since the 1960s
64-bit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do not need to use abusive language or insults in your reply...Especially about a subject you have no idea about, please read the http://www.vistax64.com/general-discussion/118651-forum-rules.html about acceptable language and also more documentation about 64bit from its creators before trying to convince people there's no reason to use it

Steven

rasmasyean · Sep 10, 2008

I think KBolt was being sarcastic about "highly professional statements". That said, he is saying that for most users, the benefits of 64-bit are negligible and not worth the potential incompatibilities.

I still think that for many of these "most users", they will get the benefit from expandability to over 4GB at least, if not all those other technical performance increases. One of the factors that separate Vista from all previous 64-bit systems, is SuperFetch...and in some cases in conjunction with sleep mode.

What most people CAN benefit from is the multitasking performance boost given by Vista with more RAM. Maybe some people will upgrade later on when they have more money and RAM is less expensive than dirt. And the default sleep mode means people save time when their computers are switched on and ready in 5 seconds (with everything SuperFetched).

"Time is Money, Friend!"

Even the Vista Team says this...

[FONT=&quot]“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs....[/FONT] PC Accelerators built into Windows Vista, such as Windows SuperFetch, improve performance by keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its job more efficiently. "
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/07/30/windows-vista-64-bit-today.aspx[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Understanding how SuperFetch uses RAM to enhance system performance…
Understand how SuperFetch uses RAM to enhance system performance | Microsoft Windows | TechRepublic.com

Adrian Wainer · Sep 11, 2008

KBolt said:
Just so some "Nit-Picker" doesn't call you out on this someday, we need to get your terminology straight. There is no such thing as x32, the 32bit instructions are known as x86 and 64 bit is x64. When talking "bits" then it's 32bit and 64bit, but when you put an "x" in front, you're now talking architecture instructions and that's x86 and x64.
I know you're just using it in a contextual form (x32) but in places like this there's always someone who'll jump on you for that little gaff (not me tho!!) just an FYI..

Click to expand...

Indeed...but not yet

One "thing" more :
I do not understand educated, highly professional statements, like "erh..64 IS BETTER THAN 32...no doubt...erhhh...because the article said so"..... ...***
I don't even try to understand. Waste of Internet space.

"Better" is rather wide consept. Especially when we are comparing these two systems (32bit vs 64bit).
Those who say "64bit is naturally better.." do not understand a *** about IT...usually. One point in "betterness" is the environment where the OS is going to perform. Industry was once mentioned in the article. What was said in the text was partly ***. Those, who do something with robotics etc., understand what I am trying to say...
It's FAR from true that 64bit is always better. Very far.
Average user will never have any visual or physical experience about "better and faster 64bit environment" over fast 32bit system. Never.
Most users will only gain ***** when automatically buying (or downloading..) 64bit Vista for their "extreme rigs".

Sad trueth is that most users do not understand even their hardware. Mostly they don't have any idea WHAT they are going to do with their HW (exept play games..). Almost surely they have no idea how the hardware can really perform and when the performance is truely needed.
It's just a must to get 64bit OS..because boy from the next house has it and he said it's always better...and so said his father too.

I would recommend to be sceptical when reading *** tests/articles and waiting a bit (like some others above..).

In the future when
- the software really becomes out 64bit (NOT converted to 64bit..coded to solid 64bit system) and
- the hardware that truely supports the same environment (NOT only thru converted 32bit drivers..) and
- the prices of the devices needed to perform will drop extremely
then it's logical to get the 64bit OS too.

Now a decent 64bit, well performing "PC" with decent software will cost..more than enough for 99.9% of potential users. They are sometimes called "Servers" or engineering workstations.
And yet...what is "decent" or what "performance" really means ? More that a gamer needs (or is capable) to understand.

P.S. Off-topic but still...

One of the most ridiculous comparisons today is widely used FPS-value.

"This Card_X gets 180 FPS when using 32bit Vista but with 64bit OS the card really FLIES...getting HUGE 188 FPS..". ...OH...WHAT A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE !

My imagination has not found any other as "reliable" and as relevant "fact" to buy something than those tests.

EDITED BY: Brink
Removed language and insults.

Tervetuloa, Mites Menee? Hi and wellcome KBOLT. If you have used bad language, I do not see the call for it, I have absolutely no problem with people using bad language when the situation would call for it, and I can not see any legitimate reason for bad language in this case. That said it appears that English is not your first language and in different cultures, language is used in different ways so I will put it down to an honest mistake on your part. Also I would say that many foreign nationals pick up quite a bit of their language skills from watching popular Hollywood movies, unfortunately since quite a few of these movies, use bad language for no other reason than their makers believe it will pull in more revenue, many foreign nationals can come up with the false impression that bad language is acceptable in normal conversations, which it isn't except if one is part of minority groupings such as e.g. gang members in Los Angeles. Anyway no criticism of you intended on that point, just something I thought you would like to know. As for your criticisms of 64 bit, a lot of it is what is known as "puting up the straw man and knocking him down", in that most folks around here would be well aware of the limitations of 64 bit operating systems in delivering performance and other gains, when they are used with 32 bit application software, however the big issue is that 32 bit operating systems are constrained by the 4 Gigabyte RAM barrier and that is why we are going to need 64 bit computing.

Nakemiin Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

sidewinder · Sep 11, 2008

Adrian Wainer said:
...however the big issue is that 32 bit operating systems are constrained by the 4 Gigabyte RAM barrier and that is why we are going to need 64 bit computing.

Adrian,

It's not a 4GB RAM barrier. It's a 4GB address space limit with non-server 32-bit Microsoft Operating Systems. The distinction is not so subtle and it would help if those that wish to be subject matter experts on the limit would get the terminology and concept correct.

If your system has 4GB of RAM installed, anyone running 32-bit Vista on appropriate hardware, the most RAM your system is likely to have addressable is 3.2GB. The more likely scenario is 3GB or less. With multiple video cards, it gets even worse.

S-

Adrian Wainer · Sep 11, 2008

sidewinder said:
Adrian Wainer said:

...however the big issue is that 32 bit operating systems are constrained by the 4 Gigabyte RAM barrier and that is why we are going to need 64 bit computing.

Click to expand...

Adrian,

It's not a 4GB RAM barrier. It's a 4GB address space limit with non-server 32-bit Microsoft Operating Systems. The distinction is not so subtle and it would help if those that wish to be subject matter experts on the limit would get the terminology and concept correct.

If your system has 4GB of RAM installed, anyone running 32-bit Vista on appropriate hardware, the most RAM your system is likely to have addressable is 3.2GB. The more likely scenario is 3GB or less. With multiple video cards, it gets even worse.

S-

I am fully aware that a 32 bit operating system runs in to problems even trying to utilize the full 4 gigabytes of RAM, now installed in many popular mass market computer systems. From my perspective, it is frankly ir-relevant whether a 32 bit operating system can utilize 3.2GB or 4.0 GB, in that even if one is taking a nominal figure of 3.00 GB as the max address space for a 32 bit system, what we are talking about is a difference of 1.00 Gigabyte between 3.00 Gigabytes and 4.00 Gigabytes and the issue with the MS 64 bit systems i.e. the 64 bit version of XP and the 64 bit version of Vista, is that they can address 128 Gigabytes. If the address limit for 64 bit systems was only slightly above 4 Gigabytes say 6 Gigabytes, I would make it a point to define at exactly how many gigabytes to two decimal places, the 32 bit versions of XP and Vista are limited to, but since even if the relevant 32 bit systems could address the whole 4 Gigabytes installed, which in reality they can not but if they could, one by utilizing a system with 8 Gigabytes installed under a 64 bit operating system, would be doubling one's potential addressable memory. I was quite deliberately being generous to 32bit operating systems, in terms of setting a nominal limit of 4 Gigabytes for them, for the reason I do not believe it is worth going to 64 bit operating systems merely to utilize what they can do in making better use of 4 Gigabytes of RAM. I have never made a claim here to be an expert and therefor it would be un-reasonable for anybody to assume, what I would say round here would be the statements of an expert. It appears to me we have a fundamental difference of approach, in evaluating the worth and applicability of 64 bit operating systems and it is quite understandable in the circumstances, my comments may have seemed slipshod to a person such as yourself who would take an entirely valid but quite different approach to this issue, I thank you for going in to detail on a number of issues as regards the addressable memory constraints on Vista and XP 32 bit operating systems, as a person new to these issues reading your remarks can only be the wiser for having read them, for they are well presented and relevant.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

greenjoker · Sep 14, 2008

At first i have some issues because of driver support.
I have found all the drivers and games work great.
It is working great and i fixed the live TV stutter issues
by update the bios.

Eutichus · Sep 22, 2008

Does the 64bit OS Requires different hardwares?

Brink · Sep 22, 2008

Hi Eutichus,

Usually nothing other than a 64 bit CPU, but you would need to use a 64 bit driver version for the device though. 32 bit device driver versions will not work in a 64 bit Vista.

Hope this helps,
Shawn

Eutichus · Sep 22, 2008

Thanks

sidewinder · Sep 22, 2008

Eutichus,

Hold on. Vista x64 might require different hardware. At least from a CPU and motherboard perspective and I am sure there are still other pieces of hardware that are not Vista x64 compliant.

If your system is using a 32-bit only CPU or a motherboard that does not support Vista x64, then yes, Vista x64 requires different hardware.

S-

Scotteq · Sep 22, 2008

sidewinder said:
Eutichus,

Hold on. Vista x64 might require different hardware. At least from a CPU and motherboard perspective and I am sure there are still other pieces of hardware that are not Vista x64 compliant.

If your system is using a 32-bit only CPU or a motherboard that does not support Vista x64, then yes, Vista x64 requires different hardware.

S-

Well - Probably not an issue, since CPUs have been X64 capable since 2003 (AMD - Opteron), and 2004 (Intel - P4 Desktop - Notebooks had to wait for Core2). But yes, if your computer is older than that then switching to a 64 bit OS won't work.

But if you're buying new today, then basic hardware support of X64 is a non-issue. The question is whether your devices have drivers available. MSFT now require both 32 and 64 bit drivers for devices displaying the Windows logo. So again, if you're buying new it shouldn't be an issue.

sidewinder · Sep 22, 2008

Scotteq said:
Well - Probably not an issue, since CPUs have been X64 capable since 2003 (AMD - Opteron), and 2004 (Intel - P4 Desktop - Notebooks had to wait for Core2). But yes, if your computer is older than that then switching to a 64 bit OS won't work.

But if you're buying new today, then basic hardware support of X64 is a non-issue. The question is whether your devices have drivers available. MSFT now require both 32 and 64 bit drivers for devices displaying the Windows logo. So again, if you're buying new it shouldn't be an issue.

Agreed....probably not an issue. But I have come across people trying to install Vista x64 on 32-bit only systems (rare) and people trying use old interface cards that would not work with Vista x64 (even more rare). That's why I brought it up....

S-

Brink · Sep 25, 2008

Windows x64 Watch List

Written by David Handlos on Thu 25th Sep 2008 18:07 UTC

A Windows developer and Sysadmin has compiled a "Watch List" of the small but annoyingly important things to keep in mind when moving from 32 bit Windows to Windows x64 (64 bit).

Introduction

Like many others in the IT world, I tend to wear a lot of hats in my job. Often, I'm both an application developer and a system administrator. I'll develop an application and then optimize the operating system for it. And again, like many others in IT, I like to use new technology when I can, especially if it can save me time down the road. So, once I had the opportunity to look into the 64-bit editions of Windows (also known as "x64"), I jumped at the chance.

In order to take advantage of the benefits of these x64-based Windows environments, I've begun to look closely at the differences between them and the traditional 32-bit Windows systems. And frankly, what I've found so far has blown BOTH of my hats clean off. While most of the differences between the two look pretty subtle, they are significant. Whether you are trying to develop 64-bit applications for the x64 world, or just trying to migrate your existing 32-bit applications or scripts over, there are several things that need to be taken into account before you make the 64-bit plunge.

Read more at the Source: Windows x64 Watch List

SCSIraidGURU · Oct 27, 2008

Most of the new hardware sold today is 64-bit.

rasmasyean · Nov 2, 2008

SCSIraidGURU said:
Most of the new hardware sold today is 64-bit.

Age of 64-bit has arrived, Age of 32-bit is vanishing!
Soon, no more 32-bit computers will ship... *plays the world’s smallest violin*

Out of the 11 HP laptops listed as "new arrivals" at Best Buy, 9 come with 4GB of memory and 64-bit Vista. Ironically, the other two new-arrival HP systems come with "Windows Vista Business downgraded to XP Pro."

In other words, you get either XP or 64-bit Vista: 32-bit Vista is not offered standard at all in this list of new arrivals.

64-bit Vista finds a home on consumer laptops | Nanotech - The Circuits Blog - CNET News

rasmasyean · Nov 2, 2008

Some info on a popular title in 64-bit…

[FONT=&quot]Adobe Photoshop® Extended and Acrobat® Pro natively support 64-bit editions of Windows Vista. Adobe Premiere® Pro, After Effects®, Soundbooth®, Encore®, and Adobe OnLocation™ are certified on 64-bit Windows Vista.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Adobe - Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection: System requirements

Adobe CS4 is 64-bit only on Vista. OSX have to wait for CS5 or something like that when they catch up.
BetaNews | Adobe CS4 will be 64-bit, but only on Windows

To put things in perspective, this is what 64-bit does...

What are the advantages of 64-bit computing?
In early testing of 64-bit support in Photoshop for Windows®, overall performance gains ranged from 8% to 12%. Those who work with extremely large files may realize noticeably greater gains in performance, in some cases as dramatic as ten times the previous speed. This is because 64-bit applications can address larger amounts of memory and thus result in less file swapping — one of the biggest factors that can affect data processing speed.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/faq/?promoid=DRHXB

[/FONT]

Marauder7 · Nov 16, 2008

Hello! Newbie here. Just wanted to add my 2 cents. I've been running Vista 64 for 6+months now on a gateway FX7026 and I can't believe how stable it's been. Not a single crash or BSOD and only 1 program that didn't like it, a game called Shattered Union by 2K who seem disinterested in helping me with the problem.

Other than that Vista 64 has been nothing but a pleasure to use. Some ppl say they have problems with it but they only have 2 gigs of ram. I've got 4 and it's running smooth as silk

Gateway FX7026 - Q9300 2.5 ghz quad core, Geforce 8800 GT oc, 4 gigs DDR2 ram

64-bit: More than just the RAM

My Computer

im coming for cake

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

ɠɛɐǨ

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

New Member

My Computer

My Computers

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

Plays with his WEI

My Computer

My Computer

My Computers

New Member

My Computer

My Computer

My Computer

New Member

My Computer