32Bit vs 64Bit?

[trickson69]

I have some questions about 32bit software vs 64bit software.

Like what OS is faster 32bit or 64bit? What OS do you use for speed and reliability?

Is 64bit software slower and unreliable? When will 64bit software become the "norm" ?

Can an over clock be more stable with 32bit over 64bit software? In other words would you be able to hit higher more stable clocks from one over the other?

What about the RAM is it affected from one over the other?

I ask this because I am still seeing 32bit software and OS's being sold and used. And it would seem ones with 32bit software are faster and more reliable (less pron to crashing due to and overclock).

Over all is 32bit still faster and more stable than 64bit?

 

[EarthDog]

https://www.techsupportalert.com/content/32-bit-and-64-bit-explained.htm

1. Faster depends... I have used 64bit software since W7 64.
2. No and NO?
2a. Its becoming the norm
3. Not sure on that. If there is a difference I would bet it to be negligible. Stick with 64bit or you can't use more than 4GB of RAM in the first place.
3a. See 3
4. Yes, see the link I provided. 32bit only supports up to 4GB

I don't think there are TANGIBLE differences in peformance (there may be in some applications and tests of course), but I would imagine that those results are a search away............

EDIT:

 

[trickson69]

Thank you for this.
One thing is certain, the transition time is way longer than it should be.
Ten years+ since AMD introduced the 64bit CPU (the first one I might add) and still seeing 32bit software is this just laziness on the developers part?
I thought that 64bit was faster just didn't understand how.

 

[EarthDog]

The problem is not everyone had 64 bit CPUs. They just came out back then. But there is a pretty decent chunk of software that is 64-bit. Perhaps more in the professional space than what an average PC user sees. But yeah, look in your PC and look at Program Files and Program Files (x86). The x86 are 32bit apps while the generic label is 64. My Program Files is loaded with apps (less than my x86 folder, but there are A LOT I have).

 

[trickson69]

I really hope there will be a day when I will not be seeing that Program File (x86) That will be a great time. Mine is just loaded it's like when bother? The programs are all 32Bit not even taking any advantage of the new tech at all. Hindering the performance of not only there software but MY computer! Some day can't get here fast enough. LOL.

Wasn't the Athlon XP the first CPU to have the 64Bit instruction set? That was a very very long time ago like 18 years the time line is not adding up.
Program developers are slow and lazy IMHO.

 

[(G{in}[AK)TION]]

No. It was the athlon 64. You Need to go read up on some CPU history. The reason why 64 bit was not common back then was because not everyone had a 64 bit processor. But in today's world, with almost everyone single CPU supporting 64 bit, windows 64 bit is now the norm because people like you and me have more than 4-8gb of ram. 32 bit windows only supports up to 4gb.

One of the main reasons for that program files (x86) folder existing is because not all programs don't need to use more than 4gb of ram and are compiles as 32 bit instead. In order for a program to be 64 bit, extra work is needed to make sure it works correctly as 64 bit.

https://www.howtogeek.com/194119/why-are-most-programs-still-32-bit-on-a-64-bit-version-of-windows/

And if you are wondering about Google chrome or other programs like it

https://www.howtogeek.com/199307/ho...he-32-bit-or-64-bit-version-of-google-chrome/

Takes time. Eventually, 32 bit won't be as common as 16 bit is nowadays. Nonexistent.

 

[trickson69]

Yeah it was one of them models. Sorry for NOT having the clearest memory my RAM chips are old!
And just because they don't need more ram is that the lazy reason? If 64bit computing is faster and more efficient then that would seem to be a lazy thing at this time.

 

[mackerel]

32-bit can be faster as there is less data to move around. Simple tasks might benefit from this. This is also in part why ultra-low performance systems tend to be 32-bit only. It can have a smaller footprint.

64-bit can be faster as it also enables much newer instruction sets that wont work with 32-bit code. It does more work on more data. It depends on where the limits are which one might be faster, but in general modern 64-bit systems have enough power you wont be short on power regardless.

 

[Lochekey]

As for RAM overclocking I have found 32 bit to be slightly more stable but that is only when pushing the absolute extreme edges.

If you are talking about RAM overclocking for normal systems then there really is no difference.

 

[Alaric]

My x86 and Program Files folders have a lot of "duplicates". I just assumed a lot of software installed both to cover all the bases, and determined which shortcut to offer based on assessment after install.

 

[EarthDog]

Indeed it does. There are not many exclusives there, for what I imagine to be compatibility reasons.

 

[orion456]

32-bit can be faster as there is less data to move around. Simple tasks might benefit from this. This is also in part why ultra-low performance systems tend to be 32-bit only. It can have a smaller footprint.

64-bit can be faster as it also enables much newer instruction sets that wont work with 32-bit code. It does more work on more data. It depends on where the limits are which one might be faster, but in general modern 64-bit systems have enough power you wont be short on power regardless.

64-bit can be highly inefficient. Imagine pulling data from the memory that is simple text. Text is defined as 8 bit, so you are moving 64 bits of info to extract 8 bits of information. You then manipulate that information as 8 bits and store it back again as 64 bits.

Now you can say, well lets pack that 8 bit information into a 64 bit form (so you can put 8 text symbols into one 64 bit word). In that case moving the 64 bits will be more efficient, but now you have to decode/encode that information every time you want to use it or manipulate it, and that is costly in computer time.

So the answer is: 64 bit is faster if you are doing 64 bit things, but 8 bit is faster if you are only doing 8 bit things like text. To assume 64 bit is better because, well its new, falls into the usual trap where faster, bigger, better is always best, NOT.

 

[Bill Dimwit]

On big thing to note with 32bit vs 64bit. At lest for windows is 16bit app support. 64bit versions of windows can not run 16bit apps. Wile today that's not a big deal, but if you play old games or run legacy software you run into a something with a 16bit installer.

Also the Athlon 64 was not the first 64 bit CPU by a long shot. Intel had the Itanium before it, IBM had the power3 before them, and there were a handful of RISC and MIPS CPUs that were 64bit going back to early 90s. The Athlon 64 was the first (as far as I know) x86 CPU the was fully 64bit.

 

[wingman99]

When I switched from 32bit to 64bit OS it used a lot more space on my HD.

 

[Janus67]

When I switched from 32bit to 64bit OS it used a lot more space on my HD.

It did for additional drives, kernel, applications, etc that covers both versions of the OS.