• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

64-bit

motobecane10

motobecane10

beandip
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Location
the hills
Moto(s)
the kind with 2 wheels
Just seeking feedback from those more in the know. has 64-bit processors/hardware etc become mainstream for home use PC's or is 32-bit hangin in there??
 
Well I think technically speaking desktop processors are still 32 bit, but with 64 bit extensions.
 
ok, how long does it usually take when the newer tech is of the norm?

(--64 I had like one thing say no to me (some game patch or something I forgot) but eh, my out of touch current say so is 32 is out
 
Any modern processor you buy will support 64-bit W7.
 
64 bit pointers take twice as much memory :nerd

Not that it makes any significant difference for the average end user.

In terms of processors/hardware, afaik every desktop processor released post 2005 from intel/amd has supported 64bit.
 
Last edited:
UDRider said:
Umm, no. :wtf

Anyway a basic explanation of 32bit vs 64bit OS.

http://lifehacker.com/5431284/the-lifehacker-guide-to-64+bit-vs-32+bit-operating-systems
Click to expand...

Flying Pig said:
I hope you weren't being serious.... :nerd
Click to expand...

well...technically yes. Practically no (and I was being cheeky). I could argue though that most of the software running on 64 bit runs slower too (having to do with alignment problems and the extra clock cycles it takes to access mis-aligned data for non 64 bit optimized programs) :nerd
 
details

here's my current OS...XP home, 80G HD(paltry i know) 2G ram, Pent4 3.00GHz

my instincts tell me to add 2G of ram & massive amounts to my HD, retain the 32-bit system and replace XP with W7...yes or no???
 
motobecane10 said:
here's my current OS...XP home, 80G HD(paltry i know) 2G ram, Pent4 3.00GHz

my instincts tell me to add 2G of ram & massive amounts to my HD, retain the 32-bit system and replace XP with W7...yes or no???
Click to expand...

Win 7 on a P4 3.00GHz processor? Hope you have plenty of time on your hands :thumbup
Unless you have an application which really needs Win 7 then why change?
 
motobecane10 said:
here's my current OS...XP home, 80G HD(paltry i know) 2G ram, Pent4 3.00GHz

my instincts tell me to add 2G of ram & massive amounts to my HD, retain the 32-bit system and replace XP with W7...yes or no???
Click to expand...

a 32 bit system cannot address 4GB of memory(easily). See http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/dude-wheres-my-4-gigabytes-of-ram.html

To address 4GB of memory you need 32 bits of address bus. (Assuming individual bytes are addressable.) This gives us a problem - the same problem that IBM faced when designing the original PC. You tend to want to have more than just memory in a computer - you need things like graphics cards and hard disks to be accessible to the computer in order for it to be able to use them. So just as the original PC had to carve up the 8086's 1MB addressing range into memory (640K) and 'other' (384K), the same problem exists today if you want to fit memory and devices into a 32-bit address range: not all of the available 4GB of address space can be given over to memory.
For a long time this wasn't a problem, because there was a whole 4GB of address space, so devices typically lurk up in the top 1GB of physical address space, leaving the bottom 3GB for memory. And 3GB should be enough for anyone, right?

So what actually happens if you go out and buy 4GB of memory for your PC? Well, it's just like the DOS days - there's a hole in your memory map for the IO. (Now it's only 25% of the total address space, but it's still a big hole.) So the bottom 3GB of your memory will be available, but there's an issue with that last 1GB.
Click to expand...
 
scotinexcile said:
Win 7 on a P4 3.00GHz processor? Hope you have plenty of time on your hands :thumbup
Unless you have an application which really needs Win 7 then why change?
Click to expand...

is the P4 really that bad?? or is you makin fun of me. Honestly i don't really need W7 just as i don't really need 64-bit either....it's pretty much like scooters ya don't really need ABCD but ya sure lust after them.:)
 
motobecane10 said:
is the P4 really that bad?? or is you makin fun of me. Honestly i don't really need W7 just as i don't really need 64-bit either....it's pretty much like scooters ya don't really need ABCD but ya sure lust after them.:)
Click to expand...

Its really up to you. For a general idea of how the processor speed compares check out this chart

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

Basically, your P4 received a 491. I helped a friend recently build a new system with a i5-2500k (you probably dont need something that fast) for < $1k which comes in @ 7200 on the same chart at stock speed. That particular 2500k happily overclocks from stock 3.3Ghz to 4.4Ghz which probably adds another 15-20% to the score(8200ish or >)

Of course the numbers themselves are meaningless, but 491 vs 7200 gives you an idea of the difference between your processor and a modern one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top