New Gaming PC W/windows7 32bit .Should I have gone 64???

[riddla420]

I just recently built a gaming /media PC and installed windows 7 Ultimate 32bit w/4GB Ram. Would I be able to ,or Should I ,Upgrade to 64bit so I can Add more Ram ,and more overall system power. It is a Core i7 860 /Intel DP55KG /NvidiaGTX275 system. Any suggestions would be appreciated!!

 

[Thrax]

I would most certainly go 64-bit with that system. You have incredibly modern hardware, and will have no trouble with drivers and (likely) applications.

 

[Core]

I'm gonna go pick up some chicks. Should I drive my trusty old Ford Pinto, or my new Mercedes-Benz C300?

The Benz, son. Always the Benz.

 

[riddla420]

I did not realize I could not Go beyond 4GB ram When I installed 32Bit . Forgive me Core ,for I am Old ,and I built this Rig For my 11 year old son to have fun with !!!

 

[clifford_cooley]

I hope your son can have fun with that system because there is not much higher systems to play with.

 

[Core]

I did not realize I could not Go beyond 4GB ram When I installed 32Bit . Forgive me Core ,for I am Old ,and I built this Rig For my 11 year old son to have fun with !!!

Didn't mean to come across condescending. I apologize if I did. All I'm saying is that with such great hardware, I see no reason to limit yourself with a 32-bit OS.

 

[Nibiru2012]

I did not realize I could not Go beyond 4GB ram When I installed 32Bit . Forgive me Core ,for I am Old ,and I built this Rig For my 11 year old son to have fun with !!!

You're not old! You're just getting better like a fine wine! Age is in the mind!

Oh by the way, take the Pinto and since you have "420" in your nickname, some of that too. Cruise the local trailer parks... you'll do fine! LOL

Nice system you built for your son. He's a very lucky young man!

 

[riddla420]

Hah!!! I actualy gave up on the 420 thingy years ago .It is my old ,Handle from The late 90's!!! No offense taken Core!!! Although ,I'd be scared shitless in that pinto ,would not want to get rear ended. I remember something about exploding fuel tanks from as little as a 30 mph rear ender!!! .So at this point ,using Win 7 32bit ,4GB corsair memory ,and 896 mb Video memory on the GTX275 ,the OS is not using or utilizing all of it??? I am absolutely going to install 64bit win 7 ,asap. Then I would like to add 4GB more Ram. I am just slightly concerned about the cooler master cpu cooler blocking the first ram slot closest to the CPU. I would have to remove 1 of the 2 fans on the CPU cooler. Again, for the Input!!! Thanx everyone

 

[riddla420]

Here is a screenshot of My clockspeed .Love the desktop controller that came with this MB .Made it easy for an old timer like me to OC !!!!!Crysis seems to be running Awesome at 1920x1080 w 2x anti alaising and settings on High.

 

[DOA]

Why 64 bit?

Stay with the 32 bit!
I really wanted to make a no BS test for my own use.
Wifey and I have two identical computers:
Asus P6T / Intel 920 OC to 3.0 / 6G 1600 ram / twin 300G raded Raptors / ATI 4850 / 24 inch Dell monitors and Logitech mouse, keyboard, speakers.

She has Win7 32, I have Win7 64. There is no difference in real world use. None, nada, nothing. We both run light Photoshop, play too much WoW and fairly heavy MS Office use. 2G of ram is "wasted" on her machine but you would never know.

Much reading and my own personal trials has convinced me there is not any currently program, OS or hardware reasons to run Win7 64 bit and you loose a ton of hard drive space. As Microsoft comes up to speed and 3rd parties re-program, 64 bit will be faster than 32bit. But not now or soon.

64 bit is for bragging rights and pioneering at this point. For the average joe 32 bit does not limit you in any way.

If you have real evidence to show it does I would love to see it so I can run your timed tests and feel good about running Win7 64 bit. Please do NOT bring theory into this as real world tests are what I am talking about.

 

[clifford_cooley]

64-Bit applications will be made as soon as the general public has 64-Bit operating systems on their PC's. For every person that decides to continue using the 32-Bit OS, it will take just that much longer for the 64-Bit OS to gain ground. I have decided to support the 64-Bit age regardless of system performance. Which by the way, I don't see any performance loss so why not support programming advancement.

This makes about as much since to me as one of the other threads I was reading months ago. Someone was talking about games running better on a dual core than quad core. He was making decisions to purchase the dual core instead of the quad because of these benchmarks. To me this didn't make any since. Was he looking into the next years, when gaming does support quad core? Would he then wish he had of purchased the quad? Why restrict yourself now for better performance, when in the long run you will see better performance without the restriction.

 

[Nibiru2012]

there is not any currently program, OS or hardware reasons to run Win7 64 bit and you loose a ton of hard drive space

Using the x64 version does NOT add that much more space to the hard drive, around 2-3GB more and that's it. Based on the sizes of current hard drives, that's a "drop in the bucket"

Also, running an x64 system is comparable to driving a 2 lane highway versus a 4 land highway. It runs faster and smoother.

I am beta testing Office 2010 x64 and it is a lot faster than Office 2007 32 bit.

 

[riddla420]

I have switched to 64bit and everything seems to be working out fine. It took me a few days to get all my Nvidia drivers ,and my Intel drivers straightened out ,but I am happy I did it . I just added a $42.00 160 GB Seagate Barracuda to load it on to . So I have a 1 TB HD holding all my old system files and Win7b 32bit ,and my 160 ,holding 64 bit ,and New drivers . I had to Back up Crysis ,and Reload it on my new drive ,as I used" STEAM" to Purchase it. So I had To make 9 Back up CD's ,and re load them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also , Now I will Add 4GB more Corsair 1600Mhz Ram to My System for a total of 8 GB + the 896MB of VRAM . I would think I would see some advantages Then!!! Thanx for all The help !!!!! It was very ........................Helpful!!

 

[DOA]

Using the x64 version does NOT add that much more space to the hard drive, around 2-3GB more and that's it. Based on the sizes of current hard drives, that's a "drop in the bucket"

Also, running an x64 system is comparable to driving a 2 lane highway versus a 4 land highway. It runs faster and smoother.

I am beta testing Office 2010 x64 and it is a lot faster than Office 2007 32 bit.

I think inadvertently you made my point. RIGHT NOW there is now reason except the reason given in that well thought out post about supporting 64 bit technology. Beta software? Freeways? and more like 4 GB off my tiny but uber fast 64GB SSD drive?
Where are the gains like the video card industry made from going wide? Not in Windows7, perhaps soon perhaps not in applications. Certainly not in gaming, although some would like to have you think so.

Pony up some URL to support if you disagree?
http://www.widowpc.com/2007/11/crysis_tips_and.php
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=5288581144&sid=1
and if you like the artificial RAM limits Windows puts on your OS...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

 

[Nibiru2012]

I have switched to 64bit and everything seems to be working out fine. It took me a few days to get all my Nvidia drivers ,and my Intel drivers straightened out ,but I am happy I did it . I just added a $42.00 160 GB Seagate Barracuda to load it on to . So I have a 1 TB HD holding all my old system files and Win7b 32bit ,and my 160 ,holding 64 bit ,and New drivers . I had to Back up Crysis ,and Reload it on my new drive ,as I used" STEAM" to Purchase it. So I had To make 9 Back up CD's ,and re load them !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also , Now I will Add 4GB more Corsair 1600Mhz Ram to My System for a total of 8 GB + the 896MB of VRAM . I would think I would see some advantages Then!!! Thanx for all The help !!!!! It was very ........................Helpful!!

Adding another 4GB of RAM won't be that much help for you, unless you do a lot of video editing, AutoCAD, Photoshop rendering, etc., or do heavy multi-tasking with multiple windows open.

It may make you feel better, but it's really just a waste of your money. The maximum most users ever really need would be 6GB total. I sincerely doubt that you'll see any difference at all.

Tom's Hardware did an excellent article about how much RAM is really needed.

Go HERE to read their article and the tests involved.

This is from their "Conclussions" page of the article:

Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the “sweet spot” for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.

We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.

If 3 GB worked so well, why do we continue to recommend 4 GB to 6 GB triple-channel kits for performance systems? Perhaps we’re just a little too forward-looking, but we can certainly imagine scenarios a typical “power user” could encounter where 3 GB might not be enough, even if today’s tests didn’t reveal any of them. For those folks, stepping up to a 64-bit operating system at the same time is undoubtedly the best course of action.

We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.

 

[catilley1092]

Stay with the 32 bit!
I really wanted to make a no BS test for my own use.
Wifey and I have two identical computers:
Asus P6T / Intel 920 OC to 3.0 / 6G 1600 ram / twin 300G raded Raptors / ATI 4850 / 24 inch Dell monitors and Logitech mouse, keyboard, speakers.

She has Win7 32, I have Win7 64. There is no difference in real world use. None, nada, nothing. We both run light Photoshop, play too much WoW and fairly heavy MS Office use. 2G of ram is "wasted" on her machine but you would never know.

Much reading and my own personal trials has convinced me there is not any currently program, OS or hardware reasons to run Win7 64 bit and you loose a ton of hard drive space. As Microsoft comes up to speed and 3rd parties re-program, 64 bit will be faster than 32bit. But not now or soon.

64 bit is for bragging rights and pioneering at this point. For the average joe 32 bit does not limit you in any way.

If you have real evidence to show it does I would love to see it so I can run your timed tests and feel good about running Win7 64 bit. Please do NOT bring theory into this as real world tests are what I am talking about.

"Bragging rights and pioneering"? 64 bit technology was "pioneered" years ago with XP Pro, what, 8 or 9 years ago? 64 bit is no longer the future. It is now, and it's high time that it is. I don't care about anyone's benchmarking, I know what I have and see. A 4GB 64 bit PC that runs circles around my older 32 bit crap. You can run what you want, but if you plan to run 32 bit, stock up on new parts while they are here. Windows 7 will be the last 32 bit OS that Microsoft releases. Even Linux has many 64 bit OS's in place. Windows 7 will be around for a while though, so enjoy while you can.

 

[Nibiru2012]

I think inadvertently you made my point. RIGHT NOW there is now reason except the reason given in that well thought out post about supporting 64 bit technology. Beta software? Freeways? and more like 4 GB off my tiny but uber fast 64GB SSD drive?
Where are the gains like the video card industry made from going wide? Not in Windows7, perhaps soon perhaps not in applications. Certainly not in gaming, although some would like to have you think so.

My goodness, you're just wellspring of "positive" comments! LOL

Oh by the way, Office 2010 x64 will be Gold or Final come June.

You're so worried about a measly 4GB of extra space on the 64GB SSD when most users may load about a max of 30-40GB on their C drives. IMO, that's nitpicking.

Widening the bandwidth in video cards was and is a boon to gamers. Yes, there are some issues with gamers and Windows 7 but that will soon be rectified by M$.

 

[DOA]

Thanks for the release date on Office. I am looking to upgrade my copy soon as I find the present user interface slow and arcane. The Office 2003 interface was much more logical to me and therefore faster to use.

During our discussions here we need to keep in mind a few points. Even though this is a Windows forum we cannot close our eyes to other OS. Only by comparison and contrast will we progress. 32 bit OS are NOT limited to addressing 4GB memory unless their creator decides they should be. Like the Y2K limit, it is a programming decision.Windows 200 server enterprise addressed 8GB with no problems. So why move to 64bit? If not to address more RAM then it must be for faster programs.

IRL sports cars outrun SUV's with ease - bigger is not faster unless they are made that way. i.e. the Cayenne.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/111508/are_you_ready_for_a_64bit_pc.html
is an older article that shows where they thought we would be today. We are not there.

 

[DOA]

"Bragging rights and pioneering"? 64 bit technology was "pioneered" years ago with XP Pro, what, 8 or 9 years ago? 64 bit is no longer the future. It is now, and it's high time that it is. I don't care about anyone's benchmarking, I know what I have and see. A 4GB 64 bit PC that runs circles around my older 32 bit crap. You can run what you want, but if you plan to run 32 bit, stock up on new parts while they are here. Windows 7 will be the last 32 bit OS that Microsoft releases. Even Linux has many 64 bit OS's in place. Windows 7 will be around for a while though, so enjoy while you can.

Cat, I respect your place here and opinions.
I am unclear what you mean by "stock up on new parts", did I seem to confuse 32 bit hardware and OS? I am talking all OS, not hardware.
Windows 7 may well be the last 32 bit OS but Windows 8 will have to run 32 bit applications flawlessly or have some type of emulation. There are even rumors of it being 128 bit.
The 64 bit "revolution" of 10 years ago offered by AMD never got off the ground. Intel was slow to the market and Microsoft has yet to find a way to use 64 bit to a profound advantage.
Please post your "runs circles around" benchmarks so I can see the error of my ways.

 

[catilley1092]

Cat, I respect your place here and opinions.
I am unclear what you mean by "stock up on new parts", did I seem to confuse 32 bit hardware and OS? I am talking all OS, not hardware.
Windows 7 may well be the last 32 bit OS but Windows 8 will have to run 32 bit applications flawlessly or have some type of emulation. There are even rumors of it being 128 bit.
The 64 bit "revolution" of 10 years ago offered by AMD never got off the ground. Intel was slow to the market and Microsoft has yet to find a way to use 64 bit to a profound advantage.
Please post your "runs circles around" benchmarks so I can see the error of my ways.

DOA, there was no offense intended here, it just appeared that you were still in the 32 bit era, you were doing some comparing with 64 bit, and didn't seem too impressed with it. You are right, it has took a long time to move forward, and I don't have the answer for it. I'm impressed with 64 bit technology, but we still have a way to go before the 32 bit programs are gone. My "runs circles around" benchmarks are factual, though. The 32 bit laptop in question here is a Dell Latitude D610, made in 2005, with a single core processor and 2GB RAM, versus a 2009 HP desktop with a dual core processor and 4GB RAM. So naturally, not even seeing the computers in question, you can see which is faster. I don't have any printout on it, at this stage in the laptop's life, it's a playtoy for me to load as many OS's on it as I can, and push it to the limit. I did consider overclocking it to make it compete, but was advised against it. But you did have another point, Windows 8 possibly having to still support 32 bit programs, and it's a good one. Why can't XP be shot out of the sky along with Win 2K this year, I don't know. But one thing that's certain, as long as XP is around, it's going to be a distraction, and that's (XP) the reason 32 bit will still be lingering around. I'm tired of all of these damn 32 vs 64 bit deals, and the next release could bring 128 bit to the table, as you said. I hope 32 bit dies first, here it will be we have 128 bit as an option, and there will still be diehards clinging to 32 bit OS's. I can't stand the thought of trying to walk someone through running XP Mode on a 128 bit OS, in order to get a program or printer made in 1998 to work. Microsoft most likely will wait until after 2014, the burial of XP, to bring forth it's 128 bit OS. I certainly hope so, as it will only lead to a 32 vs 64 vs 128 bit war on here, which one is best for me? It would be a total chaos around here.