x32 vs x64 Bit OS

[Nemix]

What Windows 7 is better?

x32 or x64?

Could you tell me the pro's and contra's of each one...

I have x64 currently and i wanted to learn from some 3ds max tutorials... but 3ds max didnt work well... and there are very few plugins for 3ds max

what i THINK... i'm not sure

x32 - compatibilty
x64 - perfromance...

If its better to get windows 7 x32 i will get it

 

[Deathshot]

I don't have any compatibility problems.

 

[Spunky]

64-bit is generally better. WOW64 is extremely efficient in my experience. I have yet to find an x86 app that won't run on x64.

 

[Sicron]

Few 32-bit apps do not work on the 64-bit version. 64-bit does have a bit more performance, and really, you would be future proofing yourself. Some programs these days are already 64-bit only (Adobe Premiere CS5 and After Effects CS5 for example). Unless you are using really specific and unique 32-bit programs, there is no reason to not get 64-bit.

 

[DiebytheSword]

In specific its 32 bit programs that use 16 protected mode memory. A very, very small subset of programs that ran on Windows 3x or 95 at the latest. Anything else does not have the dreaded "can never work" in 64 bit. This means you may see updates to 3DS Max that will fix its issues, but you will definately have to upgrade to 64 at some point in the future.

 

[kam!]

For his 3ds max issue, you can just use the x32 version of max, has nothing to do with the OS, but generally speaking for programs like max and photoshop, the 64 bit version is superior, because those programs love RAM (esp PS) and under x32 they are limited to 2 gigs, which means they will swap to disk when you do heavy work (and that usually makes the program feel really choppy, unless your storage subsystem is amazing ).


Been using a 64 bit OS for quite some time now, and apart from some very exotic applications (like a memtest installer that was still written for DOS, now updated to work under win 7 though) I've never had any issues. Well ok I was too stupid to read once, a VPN client had a disclaimer that the "stable" release causes BSODs under x64, and that I should dl a beta version, but I didn't read it and had quite some trouble removing the faulty driver again (since it would cause a bluescreen on boot).


But these are 2 issues in nearly 2 years, I've had more bluescreens in XP per month than in vista and 7 x64 so far

 

[Grega]

If you have a 64 bit processor, then use 64 bit wondows. Not doing so would mean that you just threw half your transfer speed out the window.

I have yet to have any problems with 64 bit OS aside from some hiccups with my sound card. But i got it to work anyhow. And mind you its a sound card that didnt even have XP driver support. That old. Works fine now.

Why i use it you ask. I have my headset plugged into it. Easy switching and only used for TS3 conversations. (i miss not having a second sound jack on my PC)

But yea go with what your CPU supports.

 

[Rocky]

Few 32-bit apps do not work on the 64-bit version. 64-bit does have a bit more performance, and really, you would be future proofing yourself. Some programs these days are already 64-bit only (Adobe Premiere CS5 and After Effects CS5 for example). Unless you are using really specific and unique 32-bit programs, there is no reason to not get 64-bit.

In specific its 32 bit programs that use 16 protected mode memory. A very, very small subset of programs that ran on Windows 3x or 95 at the latest. Anything else does not have the dreaded "can never work" in 64 bit. This means you may see updates to 3DS Max that will fix its issues, but you will definately have to upgrade to 64 at some point in the future.

These. At this point in time when x64 is only going to increase in usage, you'd be future crippling yourself by getting an x32 OS. x64 will run everything except the oldest of old DOS programs*, so unless you're using a lot of these, I'd go with x64.

*Leisure suit larry is unfortunately one of these, I couldn't get it to work, even using DOSBox .

 

[Optional]

If you have a 64 bit processor, then use 64 bit wondows. Not doing so would mean that you just threw half your transfer speed out the window.

I have yet to have any problems with 64 bit OS aside from some hiccups with my sound card. But i got it to work anyhow. And mind you its a sound card that didnt even have XP driver support. That old. Works fine now.

Why i use it you ask. I have my headset plugged into it. Easy switching and only used for TS3 conversations. (i miss not having a second sound jack on my PC)

But yea go with what your CPU supports.

The performance difference between 64 and 32 is less than 1% at best (I read benchmarks on Tom's Hardware a while back). The only difference is if you need more than 4 gigs of memory (video ram + system ram). Most applications are not optimized to properly utilize 64 bit OSes, so the difference is not statistically significant.

I also have never had any issues with my Win7 64 or my Vista 64 in terms of program compatibility. Well, actually, one indie program didn't support 64 bit operating systems, but some guys hacked it a month later so that it did. In my 3 or so years using 64 bit OSes, that's the only issue to ever come up.

As for eventually having to upgrade, 32 bit OSes are going to be around for quite a while longer. Support is going to be maintained for probably another 5 years, maybe more. I would not worry about it, unless you plan on using that same computer for at least that long.

 

[Grega]

The performance difference between 64 and 32 is less than 1% at best (I read benchmarks on Tom's Hardware a while back). The only difference is if you need more than 4 gigs of memory (video ram + system ram). Most applications are not optimized to properly utilize 64 bit OSes, so the difference is not statistically significant.

Just like almost all applications are not optimized for quad processors, yet quad is the new black.

I know the performance gain is mot much. It just increases the speed of data transfer from the CPU core to the memory from 32 bits to 64 bits. But that alone wont make your PC run twice as fast. But there is some gain from it.not to mention you can have more RAM ^^

 

[harSens]

As for what will actually cause our computers to become so out of date? 3D. It requires 3 different video inputs, thus 3 times the amount of texture memory, shadow/shader processing etcetra etcetra. It's very expensive and complicated to run 3D apps right now (Mostly the 3D TVs, but actually making your computer 3D capable is expensive and difficult too) but eventually 3D computers will be standard. In the last year we have seen 3D films go from a controversial topic to almost standard, especially for blockbuster films- because 3D cameras are ******* expensive, and once they become less expensive it will be absolutely standard because even low budget films will be in 3D, perhaps even home videos.

Not really. Your video card already runs in 3D essentially. It's relatively easy to hook up a 3D screen to any OpenGL application, all you need to do is hook up a z-channel. We did that stuff in the 90's in my university already. Why would 3D require 3x the texture memory of 2D? And even if it did require 3x the power and memory, all we need to do is wait a year or two to obtain it.

 

[harSens]

We have an active shutter glass system at work, that technology is at least 20 years old. Ours works with a normal videocard. It rapidly flips between left and right eye viewpoints, shutting the glass for the eye that isn't supposed to see the current image. So you need double the framerate and you need to calculate the view for two eyes, but that's not gonna cost you 3x the power and memory.

 

[Grega]

It'll half your FPS though ^^

Because each frame has to be rendered twice. Once for each eye

 

[kam!]

So you need double the framerate

That's what he said.


There's also passive systems, but I think they only work for projectors since they rely on polarization filters (and you need 2 projectors).

 

[Prozac]

So you effectively need to be able to move twice as fast as a regular FPS rate in order to half that to get that normal FPS rate?

Bingo! You need a steady FPS for each individual eye. However, this "little" change does give you an whole new dimension. Some people half a cup that's half full, others do not.

 

[DiebytheSword]

3-D has never really appealed to me because I suffer from exotropia, and thus much of my day is spent not seeing in 3-D.