brock4282

Hi, I am wondering if it is worth having 64 bit Vista or not? I play a lot of modern games, benchnarking and general web browsing. Will i loose performance in 32 bit applications if i use 64?
Also can i just check im right, x86 = 32 bit and x64 = 64 bit?

Thanks guys,

__________________

Muhahahaha

Yeah, x86 = 32-bit. This comes from the names of the various generations of 32-bit Intel processors: 386, 486, 586, and 686. Once 64-bit came around, people just called it x64.

Although I haven't used 64-bit yet, I think it will definitely be worth it. If you don't know, 64-bit means that it processes 64-bits at once, rather than only 32-bits, so theoretically it should be twice as fast. Also, you can have "unlimited" memory by today's standard (the limit is 2^64 = 16 ExaBytes = 18 Billion GigaBytes, hence "unlimited").

(Actually, the limit will probably be just a few GB for a while, such as 8, 16, 32, etc. because there are only four slots and the available modules are only so big. Thus the chipsets are made to handle the max that you could possibly have, given the size of the modules available at the time.)

Of course, this is just theory, but you get the idea. I'm planning on getting Vista Ultimate x64 myself in a few months, when I can afford it. I've heard that the driver support is great compared to 64-bit XP. I think everyone with a 64-bit CPU should go for it, just to support adoption by all hardware and software vendors, if nothing else. Even if I can't afford Vista, I definitely plan on installing a 64-bit version of Linux into my dual-boot when I get the chance.

I'm not sure if you would lose performance in 32-bit applications or not. Hopefully someone can tell you their first-hand experience with that.

__________________
Cell/MP3/PDA/GPSr/Internet: iPhone 3G 16GB | Minimum $70 AT&T plan for only $55/month

brock4282

Im almost certain it is but is a pentium D 940 64 bit?

__________________

KloroFormd

I've noticed absolutely no difference in performance between x64 and x86. I use x86 currently, since I only have 1GB RAM.

__________________
Current Settings: 2.625GHz

I did Latty's Linux Challenge and I now still use Linux!

brock4282

Oh and thanks by the way, i think im gonna bite the bullet and go 64 bit!

__________________

KloroFormd

---Scratch this post. I read wrong.---

__________________
Current Settings: 2.625GHz

I did Latty's Linux Challenge and I now still use Linux!

Muhahahaha

Most applications are currently 32-bit, so for most things you won't notice a differrence, epecially gaming. However, if you are a programmer and you write something CPU intensive, then you would definitely notice a difference because you would compile it into 64-bit with a 64-bit compiler. Also, most applications in Linux should show a difference because applications are distributed as source code that is compiled during installation.

__________________
Cell/MP3/PDA/GPSr/Internet: iPhone 3G 16GB | Minimum $70 AT&T plan for only $55/month

Muhahahaha

I'm not so sure on this.

AFAIK, all Intel processors since the first 64-bit P4 processors handle 64-bit the same way. Remember the instruction sets in CPU-Z? I still have exactly one 64-bit instruction set on my Quad, and it's the same as the one I had on my P4 640.

Anyone have any sources on this?

__________________
Cell/MP3/PDA/GPSr/Internet: iPhone 3G 16GB | Minimum $70 AT&T plan for only $55/month

KloroFormd

I run Linux. I've noticed no difference between a x64 and x86 distro in terms of performance.

__________________
Current Settings: 2.625GHz

I did Latty's Linux Challenge and I now still use Linux!

KloroFormd

I was reading an early spec sheet of the EMT64 that claimed to use multiple CPU cycles to execute 64-bit code. It's changed, my bad.

__________________
Current Settings: 2.625GHz

I did Latty's Linux Challenge and I now still use Linux!