Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit

Newby question here:

They say some processors are capable of 64 bit preformance while older ones are onlycapable of 32.

I have no idea what this means or what level of computer user should be concerned about this.

I am going to be doing some basic gaming and perhaps some live recording with my new PC and wonder if this is a consideration.

Best regards,

Jeff

 

GET 64 BIT.!!! its the future of our computers.. there is no point in buying a 32 bit processor that you cant use in 2 or 3 years..

 

If it's a new pc, then most probably the processor's 64 bit. (Intel core 2 duo, AMD X64). Anyway, with what you are doing, you'd hardly know the difference. Gaming is dependent on the graphics card, video recording on the graphics card(mostly), and hard disk speed. And till now, only 64 bit hardware's available. There's no real software that are 64 bit, apart from the operating systems. If I were you, I wouldn't worry too much. 64 bit software isn't going to be mainstream in a couple of years. All 64 bit computers still ship with 32 bit OS.

 

GET 32 BIT!!!!! 32 bit is more compatible with current technology. 1 bit is 8 bytes. There are little wires on your motherboard and every tiny little one can can carry one bit. This means that 32 bit systems have 32 little wires and 64 bit ones have 64 little strips of metal.

Alot of people (like me) still program anything for a 32 bit system and they are largely incompatible. Get 32 bit and don't listen to that guy above!

 

Dude, what?

First off, a BYTE is 8 BITS. You've got it backwards. And that's only on current architectures... different systems call a byte a different value. A bit is a singular on/off, 1/0, true/false, binary value.

Secondly, just because there are "64 little wires" (not always the case, as almost all data transfer is serial any more, especially on system buses, and not parallel), that doesn't mean anything is worse for any reason.

64bit CPU's are 100% compatible with NO speed slowdown when running 32bit code. So there's no penalty for getting a 64bit CPU, and you have the option of using a 64bit system in the future if you find that's what you need. Unless you're really strapped for cash, I'd highly recommend a 64bit CPU, as they often even have optimizations that will make your 32bit programs run a bit faster.

See the notebook in my sig, the HGL-30? It has a 64bit CPU. I run a 64bit version of Kubuntu most of the time, and boot into a 32bit version of Windows to play games, and everything is perfectly compatible.

 

I agree with Mattireland. 32-bit processors are far from obsolete; 64-bit hardware has yet to reach its full potential as the software just doesn't exist yet.

EDIT: Pitabred also makes the good point that a 64-bit CPU doesn't hurt.

 

Matt, check your sources before you spew out information that is incorrect. And jd1655, listen to Pitabred, he knows what he's talking about. While it is true that 64 bit applications are far from mainstream as of yet, having a 64 bit processor will certainly help performance when these apps do roll along.

 

Yeh, I have to say I'm sorry about that - I'll be having words with the ICT teachers at school about that.

But I have to say I do stick by what I said about getting a 32 bit processor - some software IS still incompatible with 64 bit. When I said don't listen to the guy above I meant soledadaztec18 - not offence other dude - your cool.


Pitabred is cool and he knows alot so I would never directly disagree with him because he's helped me out alot, but I would certainly consider going 32 bit.

 

Software is incompatible with a 64bit OPERATING SYSTEM. But it's not incompatible with a 64bit CPU. You can run a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU with no issues, as I am doing on the notebook in my sig. It's all 32bit software on there, with no compatibility issues. But I also run a 64bit version of Linux, which just changes the mode of the processor when I boot into it. Nothing permanent, nothing to worry about. That's the great thing about 64bit CPU's... they run everything except 16bit code

In short, 64bit CPU's will generally be your top of the line processors, and run faster than anything you will find that's 32bit. The ONLY reason to go with a 32bit processor is if you want to save money. Choosing a 64bit or 32bit version of Windows, that's another matter entirely, and I would suggest staying with the 32bit version of Windows unless you're feeling adventurous.

 

Wow. I feel like an expert now.

It seems the 64 bit is a good bet if I don't need to pay much more (in this case $100-$150). 64 bits will allow me to run any program or operating system that is presently widely in use, and will also allow for newer ones to be used in the future. Also should help overall performance today.

Thanks for the responses.

 

Dude, you're awesome.

Waiter, give the man another Sam Adams. Always a good choice.

 

well written software is compatible with both. It's only if your software does ugly hacks that you aren't supposed to do in the first place (primarily casting pointers to or from ints) that you run into problems. (this doesn't apply to kernel-mode software like drivers or an OS, which has to be written specifically for 64-bit)
Second, as long as you run a 32-bit OS, your CPU will run in 32-bit mode, and be 100% completely and absolutely, with no exceptions whatsoever, compatible with 32-bit software.

*If* you have a 64-bit CPU *and* you run a 64-bit OS, you may run into the occasional compatibility problem. But you can always run a 32-bit OS and everything will be fine. The 64-bit extensions on the CPU will simply be disabled then.

 

I feel stupider just reading some of the posts in this thread....

 

32 vs 64 is a non-issue, especially for notebook(99% of the time).

If there is minimal price difference(say less than 50 bucks), get the 64 for peace of mind being future proof(which given my experience of notebook dated back to P75 era was never needed). Beyond that, I would say use money to get more RAM or a faster GPU would yield more bang for the bucks. Paying beyond 100 for 64 bits, I would say forget it unless there is already an immediate need of it(which also means extra $$$ for OS unless you go with linux, more compatability issue for drivers)

 

To be honest, 64bit OS makes me feel no speed improvement at all. I ran video encoding and re-encoding on both systems, not much difference.

In fact, you really have less choice these days. New CPUs are all in 64 bits now, like it or not. And they perform better not because 64 bits technology, but improved design. There will be no new 32-bit CPU coming out for main stream.

 

all the newer and more powerfull cpus are x64. Just because you have a x64 cpu doesnt mean you cant run x86 programs.. (or else you would be able to run almost nothing) If you have a x86 cpu that means its old and very slow compared to any of the current x64 offerings.

A64, Opteron, Pentium M, Turioin, Core2Duo, ect are all x64 cpu's. The last big wave of x86 was probably pentium 4 and they suck compared to any of what I just listed in both power and heat/wattage levels.

 

"But I have to say I do stick by what I said about getting a 32 bit processor"
This is what I agree with Matt on. As a personal choice, I don't think 64-bit hardware would affect my decision. If it is 64-bit, good. If not, it's no big loss.

 

Like I just said tho the last cpu made that was 32bit was a Pentium 4 as far as I know, and you DONT want one of those.

The x64 cpus still have the x86 processes they just have the addition of x64 aswell.

Dont think of a 64bit cpu as 64bit and 32 as 32. Think of 64 as a 32 + 64 bit because thats really how it works.

But 32bit is 32bit only and much slower than the current x64 cpus. Not because 32 vs 64 but because they are old cpus and not nearly as powerfull or effeciant as the modern x64 varity.

 

core duo is 32 bit(Yonah), Pentium M(Banias, Dothan) is 32 bit. Pentium 4 actually has 64 bit version(in the name of Pentium D but that is only a desktop processor so not relavent for notebook).

core duo is not much slower than core 2 duo, about 10% clock for clock and the highest bin of core duo matches highest bin core 2 duo, in terms of GHz(I am talking about mobile, not the desktop series core 2 duo which is a bit higher in terms of GHz).

 

Pentium M was x64 last I checked. I'll have to go double check to correct myself.

core duo is a choped down core 2 duo they removed the x64 process... I guess they want to appeal to more budget minded people.

 

no, core duo is not a choped down. It is mostly an enhanced Pentium M(duo core). core 2 duo is a major re-design(and aimed to cover the whole spectrum rather than just notebook which is what Pentium M and core duo was for), though still along the Pentium M line but adds 64 bit mainly because it is needed to cover the server and workstation market.

In fact, core duo will soon disappear because of core 2 duo(reaching price parity soon), other than specialized market like embedded etc.

 

Pentium M is 32 bit only.

Core (not Core 2) is more of a souped-up Pentium M. It's not derived from Core 2, which is a new architecture.

 

Where in the world do you get your information? No one uses Core Duo in embedded applications. Every single thing you said is inaccurate as Jalf pointed out.

 

I said going forward, Intel is pulling Core Duo based CPU from the market(and replaced with Core 2 Duo, just check the price gap) but will continue to make them using that architecture as core solo or ULV based parts that is not targetting the generic notebook market. We see this all the time for its whole x86 history. I should not used the word "embedded" but more like "special purpose device" to reduce confusion. As my "embedded" wasn't meant for things like cell phone, router but more like "non-PC or no one care what CPU is inside device"

Everything I said is inaccurate ? Such as ?

Jalf seemed to be saying the same thing I said other than this "embedded" thing which you have read it the way I was not meant to say, but that is still my problem as I chose the wrong word.

 

Aside from the embedded thing, I thought it was pretty accurate. On the other hand I'm sure the military can use modified Intel Core Duo chips in some of their embedded systems, specifically communications and targeting systems built into aircraft and the like. I don't know if they do though, some of that information is classified.

P.S. Get your facts straight before targeting someone for a put down. Jalf was not talking about chimpanzee's post, rather he was addressing the user to whom chimpanzee was replying to.

 

don't worry about it. just about any new computer made today(and for nearly the last year) has a 64bit intel or amd processor in it, and just about every one comes with windows XP 32bit or windows Vista 32bit.

FYI the last processor designed by Intel as a sole 32 bit processor was the Core Duo released in January 2006, and as stated before it was a juiced up Pentium M on the new 65nm silicone. it was used to keep Intel from loosing more market share to AMD while Intel finished its new Core 2 Duo ships. since then it has been replaced by the 32bit/64bit Core 2 Duo in July 2006. the Core Duo name is the only similarities between the Core duo and the Core 2 Duo besides the pin count, which make the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo interchangeable. its also true that the Pentium D was Intel's first 64 bit back in 2005.

AMD has been making 64 bit processors since 2003 when they released the Athlon 64, which stomped the pentium 4 at the time.

 

To harness the power of 64 bit, one should have the 3 essentials. 1) a x86_64 CPU, 2) a 64bit OS, and 3) applications written in full 64bit (Optional). 32bit softwares running on a 1 and 2 showed slight speed increases.

I am running Vista x64 and Core2Duo. The 64bit flight has not taken off yet.