32 Bit or 64 Bit Vista for E6300?

They are basically the same performance wise. It evens out, maybe x64 has a very very very slight edge but you won't notice anything. The thing is, there is barely any 64 bit software to take advantage of the x64 OS. There will be more coming out in the future, so if you have all the drivers you need in 64 bit then go for it. I personally did and am having no issues ;)
 
If you want 32bit performance use C2D, if you want 64bit use AMD. Intel and 64bit = no no.
 
Problem with 32bit is it's memory limitation. You can only have a MAX of 4GB of addressable memory space, this includes memory on your video card too. I have 4GB of ram on my rig and a 512MB video card. Under 32bit, windows can only see 3.25GB of my 4GB RAM, under 64bit I get to use all of it.
 
When intel first added 64bit instruction set to the P4, it was far inferior to AMD's approach. I don't think the problem still carries forward to C2D processors however.
 
Thanks for the answers guys. Guess I will check for drivers and then if I can find them all make the upgrade.
 
If you want 32bit performance use C2D, if you want 64bit use AMD. Intel and 64bit = no no.
Click to expand...

Bad Answer , That is just too funny, considering that for desktops, Intel licensed the AMD 64 bit instruction set (They dont advertise it too much, wonder why ? )

They are basically the same performance wise. It evens out, maybe x64 has a very very very slight edge but you won't notice anything. The thing is, there is barely any 64 bit software to take advantage of the x64 OS. There will be more coming out in the future, so if you have all the drivers you need in 64 bit then go for it. I personally did and am having no issues
Click to expand...

Good Answer

Problem with 32bit is it's memory limitation. You can only have a MAX of 4GB of addressable memory space, this includes memory on your video card too. I have 4GB of ram on my rig and a 512MB video card. Under 32bit, windows can only see 3.25GB of my 4GB RAM, under 64bit I get to use all of it.
Click to expand...

Good Answer
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605


------------------


running XP Pro-64 bit I agree completely. With any copy of Vista its the drivers that matter, and 64 bit causes more issues, it might support your year old fancy printer but it may not support all the fancy functions and turn it into a crappy printer. So if your peripherals have 64 bit vista drivers from the manufacturers and are fully featured, you are good to go for 64 and it has the best long term utiliy, but if there is a problem the 32bit version will do you fine too. But then again, look at my sig. :eek:
 
Serge84 said:
If you want 32bit performance use C2D, if you want 64bit use AMD. Intel and 64bit = no no.
Click to expand...

Absolutely baseless. As BillParrish stated, Intel licensed the AMD 64 bit instruction set.
 
It's not a total fabrication, just an exaggeration. The benchmarks I've seen, showed Intel taking a bigger performance hit in 64 bit apps than AMD. Although it wasn't enough to change which processor was better in most benchmarks.
 
BladeVenom said:
It's not a total fabrication, just an exaggeration. The benchmarks I've seen, showed Intel taking a bigger performance hit in 64 bit apps than AMD. Although it wasn't enough to change which processor was better in most benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Yes Intel lags 1~5%(at most!!!) behind AMD in 64bit apps, nothing you'd notice at all...
Serge's biased BS would have you believe that Intel has NO capability of running 64bit apps at all... He's one of HF's biggest AMD-roid...:rolleyes:
 
mzs_biteme said:
Yes Intel lags 1~5%(at most!!!) behind AMD in 64bit apps, nothing you'd notice at all...
Serge's biased BS would have you believe that Intel has NO capability of running 64bit apps at all... He's one of HF's biggest AMD-roid...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What do you really miss out on not having 64bit with?

So to make sure I understand this 32bit vs. 64bit. 64bit uses more memory so suckier for Intel?
 
Glow said:
What do you really miss out on not having 64bit with?
Click to expand...

Amount of system memory is the biggest advantage of 64-bit that I can see. Other than that, not very much except the hassle of finding the right drivers :).
 
BladeVenom said:
It's not a total fabrication, just an exaggeration. The benchmarks I've seen, showed Intel taking a bigger performance hit in 64 bit apps than AMD. Although it wasn't enough to change which processor was better in most benchmarks.
Click to expand...

On older Pentium 4s, yes, back when Intel first implemented EMT64. On current processors it's either non-existent, or more like 1-2%, and that falls in the margin of error. So it's pointless to state that Intel is slower in this field than AMD.
 
The average performance improvement we have seen from Athlon 64 FX-62 equaled 16%, while Core 2 Extreme X6800 demonstrated only 10% average performance boost. This way, there is a certain difference: AMD K8 turns out 6% mode efficient in 64-bit mode than Intel Core. However, this difference cannot compensate for the 20% performance advantage of the Intel Core 2 Duo over the Athlon 64 X2 working at the same clock speed,
Click to expand...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-64bit_7.html
 
The key phrase to me in that statement was:

"However, this difference cannot compensate for the 20% performance advantage of the Intel Core 2 Duo over the Athlon 64 X2 working at the same clock speed"

So the efficiency advantage in 64-bit is completely nulified by the IPC disadvantage.
 
I say, go 32bit...

64 bit just isn't ready for showtime yet. Not in the Windows world at least.
 
Arcygenical said:
I say, go 32bit...

64 bit just isn't ready for showtime yet. Not in the Windows world at least.
Click to expand...

Unless you're looking to run 4GB+ of RAM. I just did a 32-bit install and it went fairly smoothly compared to how bad I thought it was going to be. Even found drivers for most of the hardware I was using.
 
The thing is, with Vista using ram the way it does (super fetch) and games consuming more and more ram, 4GB is going to be considered the "sweet spot" here before long. In the end, it comes down to what you will be using the machine for. I've got dual monitors, I'm a gamer and a pretty heavy multi-tasker so 4GB works very nicely for my needs. I use Virtual PC 2007 quite a bit and have it running often on the 2nd monitor with a full 1GB dedicated to it and I still have plently left to run any game I want on the primary. I bascially decided to go for the 64bit version and deal with the bumps and bruises along the way. There have been a few, but for the most part it has worked out pretty well for me. Only two of my devices didn't have support and that was my scanner and USB capture device. YMMV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top