Next Generation Emulation banner

64 or 32

  • 64

    Votes: 32 97.0%
  • 32

    Votes: 1 3.0%
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
I m meow desu! ^_^
Joined
·
4,455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Do you think 64bit will be a complete replacement of 32bit very soon?
Which one is better choice?
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,570 Posts
64bit all the way for me. I've haven't run into any problems... at least not any that don't have some type of workaround for. Most apps that do have problems are pretty old and I don't really use them anyway.
 

·
I m meow desu! ^_^
Joined
·
4,455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I will add another 2GB to surpass 32bit limit and use 64 too soon!
Thanks Guys!
 

·
I m meow desu! ^_^
Joined
·
4,455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Come on Fadingz Windows 7 64bit minimum system requirement is 2GB. ;p
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
Oh believe me, you can still run 7 and Vista with 1 GB of RAM, my friend's running it.
It's just hell slow, haha.
(he had 4 GB, but 3GB died lol)
There's a difference between running Windows Vista or Windows 7 on 1GB, versus running a 64-bit version on that much. Is it possible? Sure, just like it's possible to run Windows XP on 128MB RAM, or maybe like on 64MB would be a better comparison.

I'd say 4GB is the real minimum for 64-bit, but 3GB, or maybe even 2GB would suffice if need be, but I also say 4GB is the standard nowadays for a primary PC. Microsoft lists 2GB as the minimum for 64-bit, and we all know what to do when a minimum is listed. Ideally, double it. I pretty much agree with Spyhop on this one. I can see their next OS lacking 32-bit entirely (it'll run 32-bit stuff obviously, but be 64-bit itself).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
64-bit Arch works fine with 128MB of RAM. :p

As long as I'm using Windows XP, I'll of course be using its 32-bit version. But when I move on to using Linux after XP support dies, I'll no doubt go 64-bit.
 

·
ヒット激しく速く
Joined
·
19,429 Posts
Oh believe me, you can still run 7 and Vista with 1 GB of RAM, my friend's running it.
It's just hell slow, haha.
(he had 4 GB, but 3GB died lol)
There's a difference between running Windows Vista or Windows 7 on 1GB, versus running a 64-bit version on that much. Is it possible? Sure, just like it's possible to run Windows XP on 128MB RAM, or maybe like on 64MB would be a better comparison.

I'd say 4GB is the real minimum for 64-bit, but 3GB, or maybe even 2GB would suffice if need be, but I also say 4GB is the standard nowadays for a primary PC. Microsoft lists 2GB as the minimum for 64-bit, and we all know what to do when a minimum is listed. Ideally, double it. I pretty much agree with Spyhop on this one. I can see their next OS lacking 32-bit entirely (it'll run 32-bit stuff obviously, but be 64-bit itself).
I had vista ultimate (it was X86) on my previous computer just when i got it (athlonX2 5000+, 1 gb DDR2 kingmax, ATi X1550) and it worked satisfying unless gaming is involved (actually Blood Rayne 2 worked ok, as well for emulation), i tried X64 but there was a performance impact so for that amount X86 is better. the only thing in which i disagree with Zedeck is that saying that 4GB is a standard for a primary PC, IMO that's still around 2GB (although yeah 4gb would be recommended).

Btw voted X64.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
windows 7 64-bit here with 1 gig of ram, also i have vista 32bit, and 7 wins all the way i just have a problem with the ati xpress 1100 (laptop) drivers, when in fullscreen in a game it doesn't stretches the image, with that out everything works very smooth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,330 Posts
64-bit. Like everyone else has said, it'd be foolish to stick to 32-bit editions if you have a 64-bit processor these days.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
the only thing in which i disagree with Zedeck is that saying that 4GB is a standard for a primary PC, IMO that's still around 2GB (although yeah 4gb would be recommended).
I think the market disagree with you. Most people going new now would get what? 4GB if a dual channel setup, or maybe even more, 6GB, if a triple channel setup. The only people getting 2GB now would be, wait, probably nobody, but really, nobody would get 2GB unless they really wanted to save some cash now and were planning on adding more later, or if the PC had a specific or limited role. I'm calling 4GB the enthusiast standard, not the number that most PCs have. There is a difference.

This isn't a fact, but I've often noticed the "standard" seems to gravitate towards RAM that is around $100, give or take (usually a bit more). That's how much people seem to be willing to spend on RAM. When 1GB was standard, it was $100. When 2GB was standard, it was $100. For goodness sake, you could have gotten 4GB for half that, $50, for the past year or so, and it was still just $100 even two years ago when I built my PC, so there's little reason to be on 2GB if for that alone. Everybody knew RAM prices would skyrocket, but they sat content since "another 4GB is always just another $50" or "it's not needed right now".

However, 4GB is showing improvement already. Before you mention about how it brings no raw performance increase to almost everything, no, it doesn't, but that was never what RAM's purpose was for. By time it's doing that, you have serious lack of RAM issues, not just subtle ones. It's purpose was to ensure you had enough, preferably alot and extra, for a smooth and snappy PC experience. 2GB isn't insufficient, and I'm not saying it isn't or can't be smooth or snappy, so don't read into that more. That depends on individual needs, but with the RAM drops we've had the past two years, it jumped up the standard of the market. Alot of people wanted that so called "alot of RAM" (I know I did), so many are already with that amount, but even for those that aren't, the standard has still moved up without them.

When you combine the following... 64-bit computing, Windows 7 (64-bit) using ~1GB of RAM on it's own, games themselves showing improvement with more RAM, and applications getting larger, 2GB will just barely be squeaking by anymore, if at all. I'm not saying your PC, which may have 2GB, isn't cutting it, or that you're running out. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that's not the standard amount anymore. 2GB was the standard, but some people seem to have stopped paying attention. That was a while ago.

I mean, Battlefield 2 showed loading improvement with Windows XP with 2GB, (Windows XP!, which uses a few mere hundred MBs of RAM), and this was many, many years back, which means games are using more than 1GB these days if they can. Crysis already loads in less than half the time with 4GB versus 2GB, and it even helps minimum frame-rate (as does 8GB over 4GB, if I remember right). Many upcoming games are probably going to want to run ideally with the maximum 2GB (or 3GB) that a 32-bit application is limited to. Sim 3 uses about it's maximum of 2GB (and as a side note, alot of the "common Sims gamers" are even calling 2GB too little, and all they play is that game!). What does that tell you? Windows 7 is the upcoming standard, and it will want 1GB to run itself, maybe more in the future as we get more SPs, updates, and our startup list grows, etc. As I said, 64-bit wants more RAM, and then you want some extra on top of all of this. 4GB is what I figure puts you in the sweet spot to be ready for this upcoming list of demands, and maybe it may last for a decent while since many programs are, and will continue to be for a while, primarily 32-bit. Even that, though, will come to pass, but it's already the standard at least, if you ask me anyway. I mean, 2GB is the minimum most OEMs (at least here) are offering anymore at all for almost all of their models. What does that tell you?

I feel like I've pretty much done this post before. Oh, wait...
 

·
I m meow desu! ^_^
Joined
·
4,455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Wow what a surprise everyone is using 64 bit unlike when vista release many hate 64
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top