BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 100d, 5h, 26m | CPU: 30% | MEM: 6732MB of 12287MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:36 pm 
Reply with quote
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Jun 23, 2008 6:34 pm

Posts
697

Location
NY, USA

Favourite OS
Win 10 64-bit
I'm wondering which is better to use... Is it true that for x64 operating systems you have to get specific x64 drivers for your hardware?

Thanks,
Mattarnster


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:53 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:51 pm

Posts
98

Location
Estonia

Favourite OS
Win8
Well if you have 64bit system and if you are not using old 16bit programs, then I suggest using x64.
And yes, 32bit drivers do not work in 64bit and vice versa. If those drivers are not available, you won't be able to use this hardware.
But most new PC's have all the necessary drivers for 64bit also (if you don't use some old hardware wich does not have any 64bit drivers.)

Some things 64bit:
Programs compiled for 64-bit processors will likely to run faster.
In x64, any driver that is not properly signed will not be able to enter the kernel and will fail to load. (well there are some workarounds for this wich may or may not work)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:02 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
Your asking two questions there, Is x64 better, yes, in much the same way that a Honda Civic Hybrid is better that a 1989 Ford Laser. Is it better to use, well, depends, if you have a x86 computer then for obvious reasons an x86 OS is probably going to be better to use.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:33 pm 
Reply with quote
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:09 am

Posts
2480

Location
Bristol, UK

Favourite OS
Windows 8
mattarnster wrote:
Which is better? x86 or x64. I'm wondering which is better to use... Is it true that for x64 operating systems you have to get specific x64 drivers for your hardware?


In a nutshell, well you can't really. Like mentioned above, if you don't run 16 bit apps, and you have the resources to use x64, go for it. (You can always run 16bit apps in a virtual pc or something). It really depends on what you use hardware and software wise.

If you want it plain and simple, yes 64 bit is better than 32 bit. I won't go into technicalities.

With drivers, like said, you can use 32bit drivers in 64bit. (e.g. wifi card drivers I only had in 32bit, and worked in 64bit)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:48 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:07 am

Posts
1252

Location
Los Angeles, California

Favourite OS
Windows 7 x64
For the most part, 64 bit is almost always better. The downside is that a few 32-bit programs does not run in 64-bit environment although most do. The future relies on 64 bit. Unless you have a specific problem (e.g. no x64 driver, or x64 incompatible programs), I recommend you to use x64.

_________________
Never leave home without PeerBlock, or you might not return at all.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:00 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2365
I remember that XP x64 was crap because it was practically impossible to find drivers for everything, at least it was like that at first. I only used it once though.

From my experience with Vista it's pretty unlikely that you'll run into any problems. Everything I've installed Vista x64 on has worked fine. If you have more than ~3GB of RAM and play games then go for 64-bit. There is no reason to stick with 32-bit unless you have some specific hardware or software that won't run in 64-bit, but it's pretty unlikely you'll come across some any more.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:26 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:37 pm

Posts
2381

Location
United States
That and a 64 bi OS can handle 64 bit integers much better (obviously). There really is no reason to be on 32 bit(except hardware limitations), if you use 16 bit apps most likely get dosbox and put it on! :P


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:23 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:22 pm

Posts
694

Location
New Zealand

Favourite OS
Debian GNU/Linux 7.0
When vista first released I would have taken the x86 path, now that more and more drivers for x64 have been made the driver problem is virtually gone, x86 will restrict you to 3.2gb of ram if you have 4 or more so that's a good reason to switch

_________________
Core 2 Quad Q8400, 8Gb DDR3, ATI HD4850, 1Tb Seagate, Windows 7 Ultimate X64


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:13 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:37 pm

Posts
2381

Location
United States
On most it is 3.5gb for 32 bit but I have heard of some being lower.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:54 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:16 am

Posts
276

Location
HERE

Favourite OS
Longhorn, Shorthorn, Vista, 7, 8
64 it if you have more than 4 gb and give more spaces hdd because 64 bit has bigger file than 32 bits.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:36 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:49 am

Posts
273

Location
Internet

Favourite OS
Windows for Workgroups 3.11
You can hack Windows to let you use more RAM in 32-bit by using Server files in the desktop OS. There's a post on it somewhere on the 'net. If there's interest I'll see if I can dredge it up (the 3.2-3.5GB thing isn't HW, nor is 4GB, it's higher, but I can't recall how high - I am explaining it badly because I'm rusty, I think it has something to do with paging).

I use 32-bit instead of 64-bit because:
- I have 2GB of RAM in my desktop, and 3GB in my laptop.
- I use lots of Win16 programs natively and don't want them in a VM, especially since Win7 now supports Aero on them.
- Many 32-bit games and apps have 16-bit installers from Win9x, and it is really annoying if the built-in wrappers don't cover your application (M$ included a few programs to let you install things that had 16-bit installers on 32-bit programs for certain installer brands, but if its custom, ur SOL).
- I want M$ to include NTVDM in 64-bit, the processor is capable, they are just lazy and don't think it's important, so I am boycotting 64-bit. As well, I want them to keep making x86 versions, so I use them to help support their development.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:02 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7857
RayBiez wrote:
Programs compiled for 64-bit processors will likely to run faster.


This is a general misconception. Most applications will NOT run faster because it's compiled for x64, they may actually run slower due to a somewhat larger overhead (more to load from harddrive = slower loading times). The only situations an x64 app will run faster than its 32bit counterpart is when the application actually uses specific x64 features such as extended registers, large memory areas (more than 2GB which is the largest memory heap a 32bit app can address by default) or need to swap extremely large amounts of data fast (like large databases etc).

The largest benefit a home end user will gain from x64 will most likely be only two, large memory area and more stable OS by itself. As pointed out in this thread Win64 (XP, Vista and Win7 64bit) does not natively support 16bit apps. Windows 7 has solved this by using XPMode. So why does MS compile some of their small apps to 64bit? Simple, to maintain stability by not using a 32bit compatibility layer. So you may see Notepad or MS Paint as 64bit yes, doesn't mean they really have to be 64bit.

But if you have less than 4GB RAM, you don't work with large apps such as databases or code specific x64 applications then you have no real use for 64bit Windows. You may gain some stability by using it, but that's highly individual from case to case (depending on driver stability, apps being used etc). And if you use 16bit apps then generally x64 OS is a big no-no, but you can always use XPMode (Win7 only) or VMWare or whatever for those if you can manage the "swap" between the OS:es. Remember that XPMode merges itself nicely into the OS, so it won't feel like you're running a separate OS.

Also, if your CPU has 64bit support then the rest of your system should be fast enough to run a 64bit OS as well. But don't think that 64bit is automatically faster. A little reminder is that more and more games are supporting 64bit, but they only support it so they can use more memory, the games these days can easily chew up 2GB so by using 64bit they can use even more.


Rioter wrote:
If you want it plain and simple, yes 64 bit is better than 32 bit. I won't go into technicalities.


Yep, and strawberries tastes much better than blueberries. I won't go into technicalities.... :P

It's just not that simple, in some situations x64 is not better than x86. One day x64 will be default for everything, but today it's on a need basis. If you don't need x64 and don't have proper drivers than clearly x86 is for you.


Rioter wrote:
With drivers, like said, you can use 32bit drivers in 64bit. (e.g. wifi card drivers I only had in 32bit, and worked in 64bit)


This is true, but the drivers still has to be signed. And there might be side effects since the drivers clearly didn't anticipate to be run in a 64bit environment so there could be memory addressing issues etc.


I know I've said a lot of stuff here that has already been said, but I just wanted to make certain things clear. 64bit is NOT always better today depending on your needs and hardware. But remember that 64bit will be required soon, Microsoft will drop their 32bit OS line and 32bit will be at first run as a compatibility layer, then most likely phased out into a VM (like XPMode, Win7Mode? :) ). But when the day comes when you only got 64bit as an option it will not be a problem since your hardware will be way outdated if it can't run 64bit (but mommy, I want to run XP on my 486 too!) and software and drivers will be well adapted for 64bit use already. Not many people complain about 32bit driver and software issues today, but they sure did when MS went 32bit with NT and Windows 95.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:55 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:49 am

Posts
273

Location
Internet

Favourite OS
Windows for Workgroups 3.11
mrpijey wrote:
large memory areas (more than 2GB which is the largest memory heap a 32bit app can address by default)


This limit can be lifted under x86 for many apps, using PAE extensions. For example Fallout 3 has a patch available to increase the limit to 4GB, so that it can take as much RAM as it wants from an x86 system. It basically is a third party hex edit of the EXE headers to let Windows know to let it allocate that. There may be some requirements in the programming, but x64 is certainly not required.

(BTW: I realize that you said by default, I am not trying to correct you, just add information)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:45 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7857
True, but because you patch the exe:s to allow larger than 2GB doesn't mean it will actually use it. PAE was just a kind of dirty fix to extend the memory area and it's been proven to cause issues with a lot of software that wasn't designed to go beyond its 2GB limitation. I've encountered several such applications myself so I wouldn't recommend patching anything, just use the apps as they are. Some do use PAE by default, but these apps are also usually validated for it. This is why I didn't mention PAE as a means to "avoid" upgrading to 64bit since it's simply a (extremely) short time solution.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:48 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:49 am

Posts
273

Location
Internet

Favourite OS
Windows for Workgroups 3.11
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm ... memory.htm

The link above covers the patching I was mentioning earlier regarding removal of the 4GB limit from x86 Windows - which is a software limitation, not a hardware one. There's a way to achieve these effects using files from Windows Server 2008 on a Vista box, but I didn't find that page this time.

The basic idea (now that I'm refreshed on the topic) is that yes, you can't address more than 4GB of RAM - but it's 4GB of RAM per process, not for the whole OS. You can use as much RAM as you want as far as 64-bit addressing allows, because 32-bit Windows supports 64-bit RAM addressing. You just need to hack the OS to actually see that RAM and then use PAE to extend apps to use it. Even without using PAE you can still have more 2GB address spaces than you had before, assuming you need that kind of computing power.

This link below I just found today while looking for the other one, it looks interesting.

http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/200 ... gb-memory/

I also found a patcher that seems to be by the same guy who made TCP-Z, universal TCPIP.SYS patcher, and universal UXTHEME patcher judging by the icon and interface:

http://www.twistysdownload.com/forums/s ... b-ram.html

I would very readily use these hacks, but my machines only have 2GB on my desktop, and 3GB on my laptop, so until I've got the money to upgrade it'd be useless.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:17 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7857
I wouldn't recommend this approach in any case, patching system files to artificially force the OS to use more addressing will only give you issues and more work in the long run. Yes you are right it's a software limitation, but it's a limitation imposed by Microsoft. As soon as they patch up the OS your patches will disappear and you might also have unforseen problems.

If you want to go 64bit then install a 64bit OS. If not then go with 32bit. It's not much of a hassle to reinstall your system if you need to upgrade, and your system will be as Microsoft intended it to be and you will save a lot of hair and health by not worrying and dealing with some dirty patches and the software issues that may follow with it.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:48 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:06 am

Posts
367

Location
whoops i live in europe now

Favourite OS
Windows XP
One thing is: 64 Bit OS's Can use like 14 exabytes of ram(i think)
32 Bit can only use a bit over 4 GB of ram

_________________
Oy m8 i forgot this forum existed lmao let me fix this signature real quick


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:41 pm

Posts
1350

Favourite OS
Windows 7\Slackware
x64(64 bit) is basically for machines with more than 3gb of ram. windows XP 32bit BSODs with 4gb ram :(

_________________
Previously known as effy11


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:06 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
effy11 wrote:
windows XP 32bit BSODs with 4gb ram :(


It shouldn't BSOD, just not recognise the extra RAM.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:47 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2407
mrpijey wrote:
I wouldn't recommend this approach in any case, patching system files to artificially force the OS to use more addressing will only give you issues and more work in the long run. Yes you are right it's a software limitation, but it's a limitation imposed by Microsoft. As soon as they patch up the OS your patches will disappear and you might also have unforseen problems.

If you want to go 64bit then install a 64bit OS. If not then go with 32bit. It's not much of a hassle to reinstall your system if you need to upgrade, and your system will be as Microsoft intended it to be and you will save a lot of hair and health by not worrying and dealing with some dirty patches and the software issues that may follow with it.


It might be possible to patch MxMemoryLicense(); in memory or by modifying the System Service Descriptor Table (KeServiceDescriptorTable) on startyp (Memory license function in Ntkrnlpa) by using a "trusted" boot kernel level driver.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:47 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:41 am

Posts
18

Favourite OS
Windows XP SP3
Probably stated before, but I'd start to head in the direction of x64. Assuming you are going to buy (or some otherwise get) Windows 7 Ultimate, you'll get a free XP VM to run any 16-bit applications. Though, the benefits of x64 won't be readily apparent for any activity that doesn't involve any calculation heavy tasks such as video encoding or decoding.

Probably already stated also: Yes, you need x64 specific drivers for your hardware. Thankfully, 7 sticker support will require drivers to work as-close-to-flawless as possible on both x86 and x64 platforms.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 9:37 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:45 am

Posts
53

Favourite OS
Windows Neptune
i think x86 is better.
because most of software supported x86
x64 isn't too good.. :?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 10:47 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:34 pm

Posts
104

Location
94.23.46.41

Favourite OS
7600
chevady1203 wrote:
i think x86 is better.
because most of software supported x86
x64 isn't too good.. :?

x86 software runs on x64.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:28 pm

Posts
7857
RJackson wrote:
x86 software runs on x64.


Well, more correctly, 32bit x86 software runs on x64. 16bit does not, which is why you have XP Mode or you need to use your own VM environment.

_________________
Image
Official guidelines: The Definitive Guide to BetaArchive :: Abandonware
Tools: Alcohol120% (Portable) :: DiscImageCreator
Listings: BetaArchive Database (beta)
Channels: Discord :: Twitter


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject: Re: Which is better? x86 or x64        Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:49 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:46 am

Posts
724

Favourite OS
Windows NT 4.0/Vista
comparison of Win32 and Win64

Win32 memory limit:4 Go
Win64 memory limit:128 Go

But I found something of Amazing:
Windows Home Server memory limit:1 To(1024 Go)!
But I don't know who need 1 To of memory in 2009


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS