Solve : Should I switch to 64bit??

1.	Solve : Should I switch to 64bit??
Answer» My laptop (dv6647cl) came with a 32bit OS but I wanted to see if it's possible to run a 64bit OS on it. I checked with HP support and they gave me conflicting answers on it. Here are my system specs: System Model: HP PAVILION dv6500 Notebook PC Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor TK-55 (2 CPUs), ~1.8GHz Memory: 2048MB RAM Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 7150M / nForce 630M Would I get any better performance from my computer by switching to 64bit?Most if not all hardware from the last five years should support 64 bit, so hardware shouldn't be a problem. Some software might not support it HOWEVER. Go over the PROGRAMS you intend to use and do a search for it.Quote from: foxhound on June 28, 2010, 02:26:27 PM Would I get any better performance from my computer by switching to 64bit? NoMS recommends at least 4 GB of RAM for a 64 bit OS.I don't see a benefit of using a 64 bit OS (as of now)IMO, NO! You only have 2GB of memory.Apparently my response was too ambiguous Thanks for the response guys. Fortunately, I'll be upgrading the ram soon( 4GB max ). I really do a lot of multitasking, hopefully 64bit will be of some use. Quote from: foxhound on June 28, 2010, 03:47:17 PM Thanks for the response guys. Fortunately, I'll be upgrading the ram soon( 4GB max ). I really do a lot of multitasking, hopefully 64bit will be of some use. Probably not.What do you mean probably not? Surely there is a lot to gain by switching to 64bit. I may have issues with drivers/software but I'm sure there are workarounds for it.You will probably see a bigger performance increase in upgrading to 4 GB of RAM than upgrading to a 64 bit OS. Depending on how and where you buy your software, probably cheaper too.With Crysis' 32-bit executable I get about ~40fps on High settings. with the 64-bit executable I get a near constant 60fps. If the software is written well to take advantage of 64-bit it will go faster. However, you can't run any 64-bit executable if you don't have a 64-bit OS. Also, since Windows x64 and it's many components are 64-bit executables and libraries they will largely run faster. Windows x64 doesn't take any more memory then the 32-bit versions. As I've noted previously, the fact that handles take 64-bits rather the 32-bit is hardly even relevant. Many folks claim that the only reason to ever use a 64-bit OS is to access more the 3.5GB~ of RAM, but this is utter nonsense. you can access up to 32GB of RAM (or maybe it was 64, it was a lot, anyway) with Windows Server 2003, which is a 32-bit OS. But Windows Vista/7 x64 is both cheaper and still "in service" so to speak. Also, a 64-bit processor has the ability to handle 64-bit instructions, which have register sizes that are twice as large. This helps many games, which often use 64-bit data types (for some reason) which take 2-4 instructions to process on a 32-bit processor but only one on a 64-bit processor. Also, many people would have you think that 32-bit programs run slower on a 64-bit OPERATING System. This is true for the Itanium processor, but with any consumer-oriented 64-bit system this is not true. the AMDX64 architecture in common use runs 32-bit code natively; the only "emulation layer" required is the WoW (Windows on Windows) set of libraries, which, like the 16-bit version of the same name that ran on 32-bit systems, is more designed so that you can do things like copy and paste and perform other operations between tasks; the actual instructions still run natively without any sort of "translation" by either the OS or the processor. Either way, 2GB is PRETTY much the bottom rung for either the 32-bit or the x64 version of Vista or windows 7; Wether you stay with 32-bit or move to x64 is largely irrelevant because most of your speed is stifled by constant disk swapping. Therefore, as rthompson says, you would probably find a larger speed increase by adding more RAM. On the other hand, upgrading to windows x64 shouldn't cost a dime. All windows licenses apply to both the x64 as well as the 32-bit version of the OS, from what I understand.Quote Windows x64 doesn't take any more memory then the 32-bit versions. As I've noted previously, the fact that handles take 64-bits rather the 32-bit is hardly even relevant. Can't believe you said that. So then, a 64 bit handle is no bigger than a 32 bit handle? Smoke and mirrors! Quote from: Geek-9pm on June 29, 2010, 01:15:42 AM Can't believe you said that. So then, a 64 bit handle is no bigger than a 32 bit handle? Smoke and mirrors! It takes 8 bytes instead of 4. Each handle takes twice as much memory. but that pales in comparison to what the pointers are pointing AT which are almost always much larger blocks of memory regardless of the size of the pointer.

Answer»

My laptop (dv6647cl) came with a 32bit OS but I wanted to see if it's possible to run a 64bit OS on it. I checked with HP support and they gave me conflicting answers on it.

Here are my system specs:

System Model: HP PAVILION dv6500 Notebook PC
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor TK-55 (2 CPUs), ~1.8GHz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 7150M / nForce 630M

Would I get any better performance from my computer by switching to 64bit?Most if not all hardware from the last five years should support 64 bit, so hardware shouldn't be a problem. Some software might not support it HOWEVER. Go over the PROGRAMS you intend to use and do a search for it.Quote from: foxhound on June 28, 2010, 02:26:27 PM

Would I get any better performance from my computer by switching to 64bit?

NoMS recommends at least 4 GB of RAM for a 64 bit OS.I don't see a benefit of using a 64 bit OS (as of now)IMO, NO!
You only have 2GB of memory.Apparently my response was too ambiguous Thanks for the response guys. Fortunately, I'll be upgrading the ram soon( 4GB max ). I really do a lot of multitasking, hopefully 64bit will be of some use. Quote from: foxhound on June 28, 2010, 03:47:17 PM

Thanks for the response guys. Fortunately, I'll be upgrading the ram soon( 4GB max ). I really do a lot of multitasking, hopefully 64bit will be of some use.

Probably not.What do you mean probably not?

Surely there is a lot to gain by switching to 64bit. I may have issues with drivers/software but I'm sure there are workarounds for it.You will probably see a bigger performance increase in upgrading to 4 GB of RAM than upgrading to a 64 bit OS. Depending on how and where you buy your software, probably cheaper too.With Crysis' 32-bit executable I get about ~40fps on High settings. with the 64-bit executable I get a near constant 60fps.

If the software is written well to take advantage of 64-bit it will go faster. However, you can't run any 64-bit executable if you don't have a 64-bit OS. Also, since Windows x64 and it's many components are 64-bit executables and libraries they will largely run faster.

Windows x64 doesn't take any more memory then the 32-bit versions. As I've noted previously, the fact that handles take 64-bits rather the 32-bit is hardly even relevant. Many folks claim that the only reason to ever use a 64-bit OS is to access more the 3.5GB~ of RAM, but this is utter nonsense. you can access up to 32GB of RAM (or maybe it was 64, it was a lot, anyway) with Windows Server 2003, which is a 32-bit OS. But Windows Vista/7 x64 is both cheaper and still "in service" so to speak. Also, a 64-bit processor has the ability to handle 64-bit instructions, which have register sizes that are twice as large. This helps many games, which often use 64-bit data types (for some reason) which take 2-4 instructions to process on a 32-bit processor but only one on a 64-bit processor.

Also, many people would have you think that 32-bit programs run slower on a 64-bit OPERATING System. This is true for the Itanium processor, but with any consumer-oriented 64-bit system this is not true. the AMDX64 architecture in common use runs 32-bit code natively; the only "emulation layer" required is the WoW (Windows on Windows) set of libraries, which, like the 16-bit version of the same name that ran on 32-bit systems, is more designed so that you can do things like copy and paste and perform other operations between tasks; the actual instructions still run natively without any sort of "translation" by either the OS or the processor.

Either way, 2GB is PRETTY much the bottom rung for either the 32-bit or the x64 version of Vista or windows 7; Wether you stay with 32-bit or move to x64 is largely irrelevant because most of your speed is stifled by constant disk swapping. Therefore, as rthompson says, you would probably find a larger speed increase by adding more RAM.

On the other hand, upgrading to windows x64 shouldn't cost a dime. All windows licenses apply to both the x64 as well as the 32-bit version of the OS, from what I understand.Quote

Windows x64 doesn't take any more memory then the 32-bit versions. As I've noted previously, the fact that handles take 64-bits rather the 32-bit is hardly even relevant.

Can't believe you said that.
So then, a 64 bit handle is no bigger than a 32 bit handle?
Smoke and mirrors! Quote from: Geek-9pm on June 29, 2010, 01:15:42 AM

Can't believe you said that.
So then, a 64 bit handle is no bigger than a 32 bit handle?
Smoke and mirrors!

It takes 8 bytes instead of 4. Each handle takes twice as much memory. but that pales in comparison to what the pointers are pointing AT which are almost always much larger blocks of memory regardless of the size of the pointer.

Solve : Should I switch to 64bit??

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment