Question:
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
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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..
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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.
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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!
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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.
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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.
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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.
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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.
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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.
Answer:
Re: Processors: 64 bit vs. 32 bit
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.