64 Bit Versus 32 Bit

[barkis]

Now then, I have decided to build myself a more up to date Desktop machine, as someone has expressed an interest in owning my present rig.

I have a problem in deciding on 32 or 64 bit. Since I will be also installing Vista, I will have to decide which one.

Has anyone got a Vista 64 bit OS, and if so, have you encountered any probs with drivers. I know hardware manufactures were a bit slow out of the blocks accomodating the new Vista OS, but has the situation improved sufficiently to go the 64 route?.

If anyone in the group was going to build a machine, what would you do?.

Mucho Grazias Ron.

[Whippy]

I'm sure other people will be able to give a better answer but I was looking at getting a new machine recently but I was going to get one with XP simply because Vista doesn't run any 16 bit code and I still use programs that run it. You would have thought that manufacturers would have been a bit more on the ball with updating their drivers but it's still a bit on the slow side I understand. You know you can get 64 bit versions of XP y'know..

[GordonCopestake]

Unless you have specific programs that need 64 Bit then go for 32 Bit as it has much better support for drivers and the like. Also I would stick with XP for now as there are still some issues with software compatability with Vista (which is the software houses' problem not Vistas problem).

If I was building a machine from scratch I would use a multi core AMD as a base, with a gig or more of RAM and a 500gig hard drive. Although that being said i'm lazy and am more likely to just buy a machine from Dell or someone.

[Akyra]

It depends what kind of programs you want to run, and what you want to do with your computer. Did your previous setup forfill your needs?

[hairymunky]

If I was building a machine from scratch I would use a multi core AMD as a base, with a gig or more of RAM and a 500gig hard drive. Although that being said i'm lazy and am more likely to just buy a machine from Dell or someone.

Just bought a new Dell machine, a dual core AMD beastie

It worked out cheaper just buying a machine, rather than doing a self-build like I usually do...

At least Dell let you have a say as to what actually goes into your machine...

[barkis]

Thanks for your input guys.

Yes XP has been trouble free from day one, and I have to say I am loathe to abandon it, but, unfortunately I bought an OEM version which means it has to go with the motherboard/computer. That being the case, I thought I would progress to Mr Gates latest creation. As Vista is reputedly a much more secure environment, (And I am security conscious, I have had one frightener) it sort of tips the scales.

My prime goal is to improve my video editing, therefore a fast setup facilitates real time editing.

I have not definitely plumped for an Intel dual core, I have a liking for AMD. Also, the 32 bit option would seem to be a safer bet, at least in the short term. Cheers gents, I reckon I feel confident enough to begin proceedings. We have a Computer Fair in town tomorrow evening, so I will browse the vendors looking for bits and pieces.

Ron.

[daz]

I have Vista 64

1) Drivers - more available every day, but you may have to wait if its an older card / device. My onboard sound does not yet have a driver!

2) XP is available in 64 bit

Having used Vista for a couple of months, I don't do anything different than I did with XP and I wonder why I upgraded!!

In fact, I am thinking of putting in a hot-swap bay and restoring back. Then I can switch between the two as I want.

[themos]

Get multi-core, multi gigabytes, run a 32 bit desktop and virtualise a 64 bit machine. If you buy AMD64 and use ACML, you are probably running some code I wrote 8)

[proflight2000]

I wont get vista as I am paranoid and I certainly do not want micro$oft knowing what I do with my machine every minute of the day, spyware, gawd vista is full of it and all owned by the company thats making it. Plus I want to run what ever i like on my machine, not be controlled as to what I can run, micro$oft are now like the Sky of the pc world.

[barkis]

I wont get vista as I am paranoid and I certainly do not want micro$oft knowing what I do with my machine every minute of the day, spyware, gawd vista is full of it and all owned by the company thats making it. Plus I want to run what ever i like on my machine, not be controlled as to what I can run, micro$oft are now like the Sky of the pc world.

Are you running Linux then PF?. I do share your opinion on MS, they are a bit Invasive, and I turfed Sky out months ago. Unfortunately I do not have the courage to go Linux, I have never heard enough Whoopies!, to sway me.

Ron.

[barkis]

I have Vista 64

1) Drivers - more available every day, but you may have to wait if its an older card / device. My onboard sound does not yet have a driver!

2) XP is available in 64 bit

Having used Vista for a couple of months, I don't do anything different than I did with XP and I wonder why I upgraded!!

In fact, I am thinking of putting in a hot-swap bay and restoring back. Then I can switch between the two as I want.

Thanks Daz, I may stick with XP Pro, as I said, I have had not one iota of trouble from it.

Ron.

[flapjackboy]

Personally I reckon 64 bit is better, but it depends on a lot of factors. What kind of hardware will you have in the new rig? And will 64 bit be compatible with all your software? Almost all of my programs work on XP Pro x64 (which I run), but it doesnt like it when you try to run 16 bit programs especially. Compared to 32 bit XP which I used to run on the same hardware, everything seems to run a little bit better and smoother; as I said, it depends on a lot of stuff. Drivers for anything remotely new shouldnt be a problem though.

[barkis]

Get multi-core, multi gigabytes, run a 32 bit desktop and virtualise a 64 bit machine. If you buy AMD64 and use ACML, you are probably running some code I wrote 8)

Cheers Themos, ACML?, is that akin to Intels Hyperthreading? Your knowledge is far in excess of mine if you are a programmer.

I don't want to step out of my league here.

Thanks for the Input.

Ron.

[themos]

is that akin to Intels Hyperthreading?

No, it's the equivalent of Intel's MKL, Math Kernel Library, the number-crunching software bits tuned to the chip.

[barkis]

Personally I reckon 64 bit is better, but it depends on a lot of factors. What kind of hardware will you have in the new rig? And will 64 bit be compatible with all your software? Almost all of my programs work on XP Pro x64 (which I run), but it doesnt like it when you try to run 16 bit programs especially. Compared to 32 bit XP which I used to run on the same hardware, everything seems to run a little bit better and smoother; as I said, it depends on a lot of stuff. Drivers for anything remotely new shouldnt be a problem though.

Thanks FJB, I will re read all the comments I have received on this matter, before I start buying the components.

I suppose logically, 64 bit is the way to go, but I want mainly to avoid any driver and software isssues. As you say, If I buy wisely, there should be no problems.

Cheers mate.

Ron.

[barkis]

is that akin to Intels Hyperthreading?

No, it's the equivalent of Intel's MKL, Math Kernel Library, the number-crunching software bits tuned to the chip.

Thanks for that Themos, I am a bit wiser now. (I think).

[russ]

Just wondering why AMD would be the first choice for a CPU. AMD are currently in the middle of a nightmare. Their processors are hopelessly out of their depth. Normally they would rely on price cuts to get them through a hard time but Intel have firmly shut that door. So AMD processors are currently short on performance but no cheaper than their Intel counterparts.

[themos]

You'll be buying into dead technology with the Athlon.

All technology, in these matters, is obsolete. You are buying something that will serve you adequately for 3 years, whether it's Intel or AMD. It just comes down to performance/price.

You could even be buying into a dead company.

And you might not care. The best bargains come from such places.

AMD currently need a miracle, they need a processor that will have the impact of the original Athlon

I would not subscribe to such an apocalyptic statement. Furthermore, there's "proper" 4-core chips coming from AMD in 2007.

But bottom line, there's no real reason to choose an AMD processor right now.

It all depends on the price. My main home computer runs on 4x200Mhz 1997 PentiumPros, it cost me £10.

PS: Guess what this computer runs on. Clue: It's not Intel.

[russ]

All technology, in these matters, is obsolete. You are buying something that will serve you adequately for 3 years, whether it's Intel or AMD. It just comes down to performance/price.

That's right, but why knowingly buy into one that has already been surpassed. Especially when the alternative costs the same or less. I just buy into whats ever best at the time of purchase. Last time was Athlon, this time a Core 2 Duo. It makes sense, unless of course it's a matter of principal to not buy Intel.

I would not subscribe to such an apocalyptic statement. Furthermore, there's "proper" 4-core chips coming from AMD in 2007.

You're right it was a bit dramatic, hence I deleted it. But all AMD's hopes are pinned on the K8L core due in october. For their sakes and ours I hope it's a success. Ever market needs healthy competition to progress. AMD have done a spanking job over the years considering their budget compared to Intel.

It all depends on the price. My main home computer runs on 4x200Mhz 1997 PentiumPros, it cost me £10.

Absolutely. But if you are wanting to do a specific task, such as Video Editting, then you want the best for your money. An AMD CPU will do it no worries but an Intel will do it better, in the case of the Core 2 Duo, a lot better.

Russ

[themos]

but why knowingly buy into one that has already been surpassed.

You've answered it yourself: cost. You could throw the financial difference at more memory or storage or, god forbid, software

[russ]

Ah but what cost are we talking about. Core 2 Duo start from £85 - 90. Athlon X2 start from £65. That's a difference of £20 which will buy nothing worthwhile. But at that end of the processor market the Core 2 has a worthwhile performance lead, certainly more than £20.

What would be your reason for not choosing an Intel processor right now, given that the difference in price is negligible?

I do like a good debate, so sorry if I'm being stubborn. But I can't honestly see a reason for choosing the AMD. Unless the PC is secondhand, in which case the AMD wins hands down over of a P4.

Russ

[themos]

It's hard to answer because I've never seriously considered buying a new CPU! Changing the software can easily give you 10-30% boost in performance which, I am guessing, is the difference in performance we are talking about. Adding RAM can totally transform your machine, too. You just have to identify the bottleneck in your workload. Right now, my workload (at home) is Registax4 on Windows XP. I am uncomfortable with it because I have no idea what code is running in there. How much scope is there for optimisation? Does it even use any Intel Performance Libraries? Have I tweaked my XP setup appropriately or am I wasting resources? That stuff has a lot more impact on performance than the CPU specs. For instance, I might be able to run Registax4 under wine (a Windows emulator under Linux). Would I be better off running it on the four 200Mhz CPUs in my 1997 Compaq (upgraded with 2GBytes) rather than struggling with an under-rammed Celeron laptop? The workload, by the way, parallelises trivially because I have lots of avis and there's a lot of tweaks to try.

OK, ok, I'm a software guy...

[russ]

[GordonCopestake]

I do tend to shy away from bleeding edge technology as there is regularly a high price to pay for the latest and greatest. This doesn't affect just the CPU market but most markets. I enjoy looking on ebay and seeing CPU's that when they first came out were £500 each and now sell for about £10 if you are lucky. Buying a few steps down the ladder tends to give the best "bang for the buck" and in computers you tend to not have to wait long.

I am pleased that the trend is moving towards multi-core CPU's and not sheer MHz as it was for many years. The MHz trap just makes programmers lazy (sorry thermos). If something is too slow, instead of optimizing the code, why not just recommend a faster CPU? In the good ol' days we had 640K of RAM, 32MHz and still managed to get useful work done! How did we manage without multi-GHz CPU's and gigs of RAM?

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Some of us had to put up with 32K of RAM Gordon, and 100K disc size. Good old days or what?

Captain Chaos