32bit vs 64bit OS

Messages
227
Location
Phoenix, AZ
With an AMD x64 5200 and 4 GB (max) RAM, would a x64 OS - I'm leaning toward Win XP - gain me any (noticeable) processing speed? The most taxing thing I do is video encoding. TIA
 
Messages
1,053
Location
FL
I'm not sure 4G is enough RAM for 64bit OS. It's getting close to the minimum. I think you'd probably want more memory, but with 4G being your limit. I use 64 bit linux where I work (just recent upgrades). 64 bit executable IMO push my 4G machine over the top. I have to run the 32 bit versions until I get an 8G upgrade.
 
Messages
16,125
Location
Silicon Valley
The whole idea of 64bit OS is to address more than 4GB of memory. If you don't have 64bit, your limit is 3GB in Windows and 4GB theoretical. I've read somewhere that there is a 5-10% overhead on running 64bit code compare to 32bit, all else being equal (which rarely is). IMO if you are at 4GB, a switch to 64bit OS may make your system slower than just giving up 1GB and run a 32bit OS.
 
Messages
43,739
Location
Ontario, Canada
From my experience, 64-bit XP is actually faster than 32-bit XP. And in regards to the "minimum RAM" comment???? You could run it on 64MB of RAM if you wanted to. Not that I'd advise it, but the "mimimum" memory requirement for XP, 32 OR 64-bit isn't very high (Microsoft states 1GB of RAM minimum for XP64, but I imagine it will install on much less, similar to the 32-bit version). digitalSniperX1, could you please elaborate on your "over the top" bit? I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying to say....?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Messages
43,739
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: PandaBear
The whole idea of 64bit OS is to address more than 4GB of memory. If you don't have 64bit, your limit is 3GB in Windows and 4GB theoretical. I've read somewhere that there is a 5-10% overhead on running 64bit code compare to 32bit, all else being equal (which rarely is). IMO if you are at 4GB, a switch to 64bit OS may make your system slower than just giving up 1GB and run a 32bit OS.
Its not. Even on 2GB of RAM machines, running XP32 vs XP64 back-to-back, XP64 feels more responsive.
 
Messages
5,215
Location
Houston, Tx, USA
There is no question that certain processing jobs will complete faster if the program is written such that the architectural advantages of the x86_64 chip can be exploited. I would do more research into whether the video encoding program you use can take advantage of the chip before making a decision. Also, 4GB doesn't sound at all unreasonable. Your 5200 will take pretty good advantage of it... They excel at number crunching. Just keep track of your ram load and if it's more than around 60-75% utilized when you're doing your most labor intensive stuff then it might be time for a new build. I'd be willing to bet that processor load will reach 100% before ram gets anywhere close. Again, the whole thing really hinges on whether your video encoder can run efficiently on x64 archetecture. If not, you're better off with good ol' 32.
 
Messages
11,284
Location
Spring HIll
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Its not. Even on 2GB of RAM machines, running XP32 vs XP64 back-to-back, XP64 feels more responsive.
+1 XP64 was noticeably smoother & quicker on an older HP AMD 3500+ laptop I have compared to running XP32 on the same machine. However, why run XP32 at all? Grab a copy of Vista 64 with SP2, you'll be a happier camper.
 

chuckerants

Thread starter
Messages
227
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I'm not too impressed with Vista. I was running Vista Ultimate 32 on my laptop and a lot of my little applets no longer worked - just a pita. My thinking is that with XP x64, all of the driver issues may be resolved (?). Though now that I do some research, that may or may not be the case. So far, I also can't find if the video encoder I use can take advantage of the 64 bit OS. Either way, it's gotta be faster than the 841 minutes my P4 1.6 took to encode a DVD9 to DVD5.
 Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
 Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Its not. Even on 2GB of RAM machines, running XP32 vs XP64 back-to-back, XP64 feels more responsive.
+1 XP64 was noticeably smoother & quicker on an older HP AMD 3500+ laptop I have compared to running XP32 on the same machine. However, why run XP32 at all? Grab a copy of Vista 64 with SP2, you'll be a happier camper.
 
Messages
989
Location
Iowa
I have 64-bit Vista with 4 GB of RAM. It runs pretty well for the most part. It seems to run better on Windows 7 though.
 

chuckerants

Thread starter
Messages
227
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Well, I fiddled with the HP Pavillion I just picked used had AMD 64 X2 5200 with 2 GB RAM. It can be upgraded to 8gb RAM, but I misunderstood the web site as it meant to say 4GB recognized in 32 bit OS. I installed XP x64 and the encoder wouldn't even run, so I installed XP Pro 32 bit instead. The encoder converted the same DVD9 in 138 minutes whereas the P4 took 861 minutes - not bad for a $160 PC. I'll probably get another 2 GB RAM soon and a PCIe x16 video card and this should last me a few years.
 
Messages
1,053
Location
FL
I'm not sure why that's true. The address bus on these micros is ultimately what limits RAM access and it's been 36 bits (at least) for quite some time. 2^36 = 64GB. If the OS limits it to 4GB, then that's the OS..not the microprocessor. It's been some time since I worked in this area so I could be wrong.
 
Messages
1,053
Location
FL
I am an integrated circuit designer. I do run single applications that execute fine on a 2G machine running a 32 bit executable and a 32 bit version of linux. The same application with a 64 bit executable will swamp my workstation (RSS > 4G and VIRT >>> typical) now running the 64 bit OS. If I run a 32 bit version on the same 64 bit OS, it does use more memory than the 32 bit OS (some 30%), but won't venture out to disk all the time. Now is this a function of the application, the 64 bit compiler, the OS or something else? I'm not entirely sure. Having said that, there only 64 bit native data type I know of is double precision floating point. Some applications are floating point intensive. Many are not. Most data types are handled nicely in 32 bits or less. In a 64 bit machine/OS..is the the compiler wasting memory with 64 bit instructions/data that are more efficiently handled by 32 bit instructions/data? I'd have to do a bit of study to answer that.
 
Messages
11,284
Location
Spring HIll
I wish DEC's 64-bit architecture was the lay of the land. It was blazing fast years ago, NT & Win2000 beta ran on it. Great stuff. It ran CAD apps such as Pro/E uber fast in it's day. Good to hear that you have something that works well for you. I would be interested in seeing the exact same DVD conversion with Win7 Beta 32-bit and that AMD PC you have. Win7's disk drivers offer quicker I/O than any previous version of Windows. Great for disk-intensive apps.
 
Messages
11,454
Location
Illinois
I've been using a 64bit OS since the mid/late 1990's. So all just now moving to 64 bits, welcome back to the previous century, LOL.
 

chuckerants

Thread starter
Messages
227
Location
Phoenix, AZ
In the brief time I had XP x64, I seemed to have had some problems with my PC. I may try Win 7 x64 as a dual boot, but for now, I'm staying with Win XP Pro x86.
 Originally Posted By: javacontour
I've been using a 64bit OS since the mid/late 1990's. So all just now moving to 64 bits, welcome back to the previous century, LOL.
 
Messages
12,578
Location
Middlesex County CT
 Quote:
I've been using a 64bit OS since the mid/late 1990's. So all just now moving to 64 bits, welcome back to the previous century, LOL.
Funny, the last company making a 64-bit OS is having the most problems with it...
 
Messages
625
Location
West, Ky.
Windows XP 64 was basically a rushed deal, alot of drivers till dont support it, some software refuses to run on it. As a result of this it has never been all that popular and now with XP in the Extended support phase this is unlikely to change. If you testing the waters for 64bit I would encourage you to test the new Windows 7 , or Vista O/S's out. 64 bit programs do take more memory but not as much as what some believe. It will depend heavily on the number of pointers used in the software that your running. More pointers more memory addresses to keep track of and since your double the memory space assessable you end up taking twice the size. This is only the adresse to that memory though, and not the information that you wish to store inside of it, so typically a memory usage increase of ~10-13% is typical in my experience. Hope this doesn't ramble too much. (Night Shift last night)
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,578
Location
Middlesex County CT
Apple successfully jettisoned 3 architectures (6502, Motorola 68K, PPc) and still is a viable company. MS needs to jettison 32-bit OSs and tell software developers of the timeline in which this will happen. There should, at this time, be no 32-bit Vista. But they will have legacy 32-bit junk around for years much like their legacy 16-bit code....
 
Messages
43,739
Location
Ontario, Canada
 Originally Posted By: adam123
Windows XP 64 was basically a rushed deal, alot of drivers till dont support it, some software refuses to run on it. As a result of this it has never been all that popular and now with XP in the Extended support phase this is unlikely to change. If you testing the waters for 64bit I would encourage you to test the new Windows 7 , or Vista O/S's out. 64 bit programs do take more memory but not as much as what some believe. It will depend heavily on the number of pointers used in the software that your running. More pointers more memory addresses to keep track of and since your double the memory space assessable you end up taking twice the size. This is only the adresse to that memory though, and not the information that you wish to store inside of it, so typically a memory usage increase of ~10-13% is typical in my experience. Hope this doesn't ramble too much. (Night Shift last night)
XP 64 IS Server 2003 x64. With an XP GUI on it and looser default security settings. There is still plenty of support for it. The problem is support for consumer-level devices, which due to the server OS base of the operating system, always has, and likely will remain quite limited. That being said, I have a number of boxes running it, and with a little work, no driver issues, even for some legacy hardware.
 
Top