What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

32bit or 64bit for gaming?

Zero82z

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
5,409
Location
Montreal, QC
Its threads like this that have really kept me quiet around because to many people are pushing stuff and talking more out their ass than anything.

People have been saying "64bit is the way to go" since Windows XP x64 came out and how far in progress have we really made? Very little.

Very few games support more than 1 processor let alone 2 and most applications aside from a few rare take advantage of 2 let alone 4.

Most software is also written in 32bit code so it doesn't take any advantage of 64bit or extra memory you have.

The only thing running a 64bit OS is gonna do for you is allow you to see 8gb of memory instead of 4gb of memory.

And just because 8gb of memory is so cheap doesn't mean its needed.
And what exactly is the downside to using a 64-bit version of Windows? There are few programs that do take advantage of it, but for those few programs there is a definite improvement. Office 2010 is also one of those programs, and it actually runs much better in 64-bit mode. The only advantage you gain from using 32-bit Windows is the ability to run 16-bit software, which is completely useless for the vast majority of people (and can be done through virtual machines running under a 64-bit host OS if it's really necessary). Vista and Windows 7 serial numbers work with both 32 and 64-bit versions, so there's no extra financial investment either.
 

enaberif

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
11,391
Location
Calgahree, AB
And what exactly is the downside to using a 64-bit version of Windows? There are few programs that do take advantage of it, but for those few programs there is a definite improvement. Office 2010 is also one of those programs, and it actually runs much better in 64-bit mode. The only advantage you gain from using 32-bit Windows is the ability to run 16-bit software, which is completely useless for the vast majority of people (and can be done through virtual machines running under a 64-bit host OS if it's really necessary). Vista and Windows 7 serial numbers work with both 32 and 64-bit versions, so there's no extra financial investment either.

And what is the upside of using 64bit? There isn't any.

Unless your running MORE than 4gb of ram and actually USE it.. there is absolutely no need.
 

Zero82z

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
5,409
Location
Montreal, QC
Picture this scenario. You're building a new PC. You bought Windows 7 and you have both the 32-bit and 64-bit install discs. You can install either one of them. Would you really choose the 32-bit version?
 

enaberif

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
11,391
Location
Calgahree, AB
Picture this scenario. You're building a new PC. You bought Windows 7 and you have both the 32-bit and 64-bit install discs. You can install either one of them. Would you really choose the 32-bit version?
Your really asking ME that?
 

DCCV44.2223

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
264
Location
Vancouver
And of those programs that most end users would use?
Didn't think I'd even consider moving over to 64-bit until Windows 8+ either, but then with the pending 3TB HDDs I now have to reconsider, along with UEFI mobos...

But for your *average* home user, I'd agree that 32 bit will probably be enough for awhile.
 

enaberif

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
11,391
Location
Calgahree, AB
Didn't think I'd even consider moving over to 64-bit until Windows 8+ either, but then with the pending 3TB HDDs I now have to reconsider, along with UEFI mobos...

But for your *average* home user, I'd agree that 32 bit will probably be enough for awhile.
You don't need 64bit for 3TB hdds :whistle:
 

m1dget

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
706
Location
Terrebonne, Qc
Its threads like this that have really kept me quiet around because to many people are pushing stuff and talking more out their ass than anything.

People have been saying "64bit is the way to go" since Windows XP x64 came out and how far in progress have we really made? Very little.

Very few games support more than 1 processor let alone 2 and most applications aside from a few rare take advantage of 2 let alone 4.

Most software is also written in 32bit code so it doesn't take any advantage of 64bit or extra memory you have.

The only thing running a 64bit OS is gonna do for you is allow you to see 8gb of memory instead of 4gb of memory.

And just because 8gb of memory is so cheap doesn't mean its needed.
Thank you. Finally I see some sense in this thread :thumb:

64 bits, especially for a Windows OS is simply useless, unless as you said (and I said earlier in the thread) you really need it for something precise OTHER than gaming there's no problem in having more than 3-4GB of ram.

Hardware guys with more than 4GB of ram for gaming and 'casual' computing purpose are excused though... it's maybe that they don't know better or, well, that they are hardware guys and just like the idea of their computer having more than 4GB of ram because it fits well in a signature. ;)

And what exactly is the downside to using a 64-bit version of Windows? There are few programs that do take advantage of it, but for those few programs there is a definite improvement. Office 2010 is also one of those programs, and it actually runs much better in 64-bit mode. The only advantage you gain from using 32-bit Windows is the ability to run 16-bit software, which is completely useless for the vast majority of people (and can be done through virtual machines running under a 64-bit host OS if it's really necessary). Vista and Windows 7 serial numbers work with both 32 and 64-bit versions, so there's no extra financial investment either.
There's not much improvement to see in programs that were written in 64 bits but not optimised for it. If you have the same number of instructions on any given piece of code, either 32 or 64 bits, it will run at the same speed and that is what is happening currently with about any software available on the market.
Though if you have highly optimised complex mathematical/cryptographic/tweaked software (as in do more with less instructions because you know tricks to make it run faster) that can take fully advantage of a 64 bits architecture for example, it will run multiple time faster.
Also just as a pointer, if you think that you would need a 64bits OS for having more than 4GB of addressable space, well I don't know why you are even arguing with anyone on that subject. :haha: (but that's just my opinion)

...now if you want to start a discussion on badly ported drivers and kernel code, this 32 vs 64 bits thread might be a bit more interesting and might be settled in a few posts instead of going on indefinitely with useless -opinions- ;)

Didn't think I'd even consider moving over to 64-bit until Windows 8+ either, but then with the pending 3TB HDDs I now have to reconsider, along with UEFI mobos...

But for about any computer user I'd agree that 32 bit will probably be enough for a long time.
Fixed.


You don't need 64bit for 3TB hdds :whistle:
This thread keeps getting better and better eh? :haha:
 

technix

Banned
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
735
Whatever. The future is 64-bit or at least, this is the trend. There's no need for 32-bit operating systems now. RAM being sold in kits of 4GB is the standard and from what I understand, the 32-bit OS is not going to utilize it all so it's rather pointless to buy 4GB at the price RAM is if it's not going to be usable. If you're not doing much with your computer, by all means, go with 2GB and 32-bit but with Windows 7, Linux or even Mac, I'd say 4GB is min. and you might as well go with 64-bit.

Alas, I can't comment on games/gaming and 32-bit v.s. 64-bit operating systems (talking Windows here) but I'm guessing the gaming industry/creators are working on games for 64-bit or already have them out. The other thing, I suspect, is that a lot of 32-bit software will have mechanisms in place that is compatible with 64-bit Windows OS. Right?

Anyway, I'd definitely choose 64-bit Windows 7 with no hesitation whatsoever. The only issue, as I see it, is which version out of the HP or Pro. I would only consider Pro for the Remote Desktop and Server/Domain uses. But, maybe there's an alternative software source out there that can do a sufficient job? I don't even know if I'd even use that function but seems like an interesting option. I don't think there's a lot of XP-only software that I would need the XP 'compatible' feature and I read that there's workarounds. The 32-bit OS option seems rather limiting, too.
 

Latest posts

Twitter

Top