32 bit vs 64 bit

[pcslookout]

Has anyone ever done any benchmarks to compare if either one is faster than the other? Like when using just 32 bit applications and 64 bit applications. ? Obviously only 32 bit programs in a 32 bit OS and 32 bit and 64 bit applications in a 64 bit OS. Seems like some people think 32 bit OS is faster when running 32 bit applications in it rather than running them in a 64 bit OS. The question is what if that program has a 64 bit version is that faster than the 32 bit version in either OS and are 32 bit applications really faster in a 32 bit OS vs a 64 bit OS ?

 

[inhotep]

Here are at least two reasons why 64bit will be faster than 32bit:
1) 64bit OS can use more than 3.5GB of RAM. With 4+GB ram, OS and applications will run faster/smoother. With 6GB ram or more, most users can totally turn off virtual memory.
-32bit cannot use more than 3.5GB ram, thus it will use virtual memory/page files which swaps between your hard disk and RAM which is slower.

2) 64bit applications will eventually replace 32bit as 32bit replaced16bit apps and OS. 64bit meaning it can handle more/complex instructions than 32bit per cycle. Again, look back when 16bit became obsolete. Just make sure you have good hardware, with lots of ram with 64bit OS and apps. And remember 64bit instructions also takes up more space than 32bit.

If a machine can run 64bit OS there's no reason to install the 32bit OS. More 64bit apps will be released.

 

[Nothinman]

Seems like some people think 32 bit OS is faster when running 32 bit applications in it rather than running them in a 64 bit OS.

Lots of people think lots of things but that doesn't mean it's true. There's a tin bit of overhead when running 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows because WOW64 has to do some fixups with file locations, registry locations, etc but the actual running of the binary is 100% native on the CPU just as it would be in 32-bit Windows and the WOW64 overhead is going to be so small that I doubt you could measure it.

The question is what if that program has a 64 bit version is that faster than the 32 bit version in either OS and are 32 bit applications really faster in a 32 bit OS vs a 64 bit OS ?

Well a 32-bit OS can't run a 64-bit binary but vice versa works fine so that limits your benchmark field a bit. But there's no way to tell if a 64-bit binary is going to be faster than it's 32-bit counterpart without just going out and testing it. Some will be faster and some will be slower, it depends on what the binary does.

1) 64bit OS can use more than 3.5GB of RAM. With 4+GB ram, OS and applications will run faster/smoother. With 6GB ram or more, most users can totally turn off virtual memory.
-32bit cannot use more than 3.5GB ram, thus it will use virtual memory/page files which swaps between your hard disk and RAM which is slower.

No OS can turn off virtual memory and still run, no the pagefile is not virtual memory.
32-bit OSes that support PAE properly can use up to 64G of physical memory. There's a little bit of overhead with PAE but it's so small that you'll never notice.

2) 64bit applications will eventually replace 32bit as 32bit replaced16bit apps and OS. 64bit meaning it can handle more/complex instructions than 32bit per cycle. Again, look back when 16bit became obsolete. Just make sure you have good hardware, with lots of ram with 64bit OS and apps.

What an instruction can do per-cycle is totally dependent on the CPU hardware and not at all related to whether it's 32-bit or 64-bit.

And remember 64bit instructions also takes up more space than 32bit.

Which means 64-bit binaries are generally larger and take up more memory and in some cases run slower because of that.

 

[pcslookout]

Very interesting. When do you think 64 bit will become the standard ?

 

[Nothinman]

Hardware-wise it already is, software-wise is another story since it takes a very long time for most people to upgrade software. Especially in the closed-source world where it costs money and there's a lot more incompatibilities.

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

1) 64bit OS can use more than 3.5GB of RAM. With 4+GB ram, OS and applications will run faster/smoother. With 6GB ram or more, most users can totally turn off virtual memory.
-32bit cannot use more than 3.5GB ram, thus it will use virtual memory/page files which swaps between your hard disk and RAM which is slower.

No OS can turn off virtual memory and still run, no the pagefile is not virtual memory.
32-bit OSes that support PAE properly can use up to 64G of physical memory. There's a little bit of overhead with PAE but it's so small that you'll never notice.

-I totally turn off virtual memory for my PC because I have enough to do so. I'm referring my 64bit Vista Ultimate. I have 6GB of ram.

2) 64bit applications will eventually replace 32bit as 32bit replaced16bit apps and OS. 64bit meaning it can handle more/complex instructions than 32bit per cycle. Again, look back when 16bit became obsolete. Just make sure you have good hardware, with lots of ram with 64bit OS and apps.

What an instruction can do per-cycle is totally dependent on the CPU hardware and not at all related to whether it's 32-bit or 64-bit.

-Not all related but it matters. At the same MHZ, newer CPUs will crunch 64bit instructions bester than older CPUs running at the same MHZ.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: inhotep


-I totally turn off virtual memory for my PC because I have enough to do so. I'm referring my 64bit Vista Ultimate. I have 6GB of ram.

You don't understand what Virtual Memory really is. This topic has been beaten to a pulp here. You can not turn off virtual memory.

-Not all related but it matters. At the same MHZ, newer CPUs will crunch 64bit instructions bester than older CPUs running at the same MHZ.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with being 32-bit vs 64-bit. Newer CPU's will obviously be more efficient/faster then older ones with no regards to being 64-bit or 32-bit.

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: inhotep


-I totally turn off virtual memory for my PC because I have enough to do so. I'm referring my 64bit Vista Ultimate. I have 6GB of ram.

You don't understand what Virtual Memory really is. This topic has been beaten to a pulp here. You can not turn off virtual memory.

-Not all related but it matters. At the same MHZ, newer CPUs will crunch 64bit instructions bester than older CPUs running at the same MHZ.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with being 32-bit vs 64-bit. Newer CPU's will obviously be more efficient/faster then older ones with no regards to being 64-bit or 32-bit.

Ok please show me what "Virtual Memory" is. Is it not the "Virtual Memory" adjustment setting in Performance Options? Where it says "Virtual Memory A paging file is an area of the hard disk that Windows uses as if it were ram" Total paging file size for all drives: 0MB.

If an application is designed for 64bit, it will run faster on new hardware than 32bit of the same software. But also depending on the quality of coding, like whether it is more optimized to take advantage of the ability to exe bigger codes. Most 32bit apps will run on 64bit systems, sure you may not see increase in speed and it may be difficult to compare too. Current intel CPUs in market is 64EMT, extended an additional 32bit memory addressing. Some people say that is not a true 64bit CPU.

All I'm saying is a system can run and optimized to run 64bit apps, which the size of the code is doubled, will be faster than 32bit. Heck, just wait, especially if you play games, the improvement in AI for instance, of a true 64bit.

 

[pallejr]

I think it is rather obvious that people referes to the paging file when they talk about "disabling virtual memory".

The other definition of virtual memory is how the cpu handles memory access, which has very little to do with the paging file.

 

[Crusty]

When you run an application the operating system presents to the application a continuous block of memory addresses it can use. This is not physical ram, this is not a page file it's virtual memory. The operating system will determine where to actually store the data the application is requesting to be stored depending on what's available in the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory has a LOT more information.

If an application is designed for 64bit, it will run faster on new hardware than 32bit of the same software. But also depending on the quality of coding, like whether it is more optimized to take advantage of the ability to exe bigger codes. Most 32bit apps will run on 64bit systems, sure you may not see increase in speed and it may be difficult to compare too. Current intel CPUs in market is 64EMT, extended an additional 32bit memory addressing. Some people say that is not a true 64bit CPU.

All I'm saying is a system can run and optimized to run 64bit apps, which the size of the code is doubled, will be faster than 32bit. Heck, just wait, especially if you play games, the improvement in AI for instance, of a true 64bit.

I'm not even going to begin dissecting this, mostly because I can't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[inhotep]

Ok if you read the wiki carefully you'd see this:

"Note that "virtual memory" is not just "using disk space to extend physical memory size". Extending memory is a normal consequence of using virtual memory techniques, but can be done by other means such as overlays or swapping programs and their data completely out to disk while they are inactive. The definition of "virtual memory" is based on tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses."

"The definition of "virtual memory" is based on tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses."

I'm saying 1, if you have 0MB allocated for virtual memory, how can OS use it to "swapping programs and their data completely out to disk while they are inactive"?

2nd, 32 vs 64 does matter, for hardware and software. It is not as evident yet. It took awhile for 16bit apps and hardware to became obsolete.

My first computer still had one 16bit slot, 4 PCI 32bit, and AGP.

Did you know what 16bit hardware were able to do compare to 32bit? same will apply with 32 going to 64.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: inhotep
Ok if you read the wiki carefully you'd see this:

"Note that "virtual memory" is not just "using disk space to extend physical memory size". Extending memory is a normal consequence of using virtual memory techniques, but can be done by other means such as overlays or swapping programs and their data completely out to disk while they are inactive. The definition of "virtual memory" is based on tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses."

"The definition of "virtual memory" is based on tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses."

I'm saying 1, if you have 0MB allocated for virtual memory, how can OS use it to "swapping programs and their data completely out to disk while they are inactive"?

That's exactly what I said above. It doesn't matter WHERE the actual store comes from for the data, every application sees a full empty range of addresses to store data.

If you set "virtual memory" to 0mb that means you have 0 physical ram, 0 swap space, 0 anything to store data for applications. You can not do that. How can you run a computer without any memory!?

You can certainly disable your swap file, but that's not disabling virtual memory.

Swap file/page file(whatever you want to call it) is not virtual memory.

 

[inhotep]

you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

My virtual memory is 0MB and my machine runs faster than ever. My 6GB ram is not virtual, it is real.

End.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: inhotep
you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

My virtual memory is 0MB and my machine runs faster than ever. My 6GB ram is not virtual, it is real.

End.

I give up. Continue thinking and believing what is wrong.

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: inhotep
you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

My virtual memory is 0MB and my machine runs faster than ever. My 6GB ram is not virtual, it is real.

End.

I give up. Continue thinking and believing what is wrong.

You should give up being stubborn and take a critical writing class because it teaches critical thinking. You have to accept that you learned something about the hardware which you didn't know before.

In addition, my experience is from me reading critically and actually put my knowledge to testing things, like turning off the virtual ram (Fake ram on hard drive).

Most people would look at your statement about virtual memory and just ignore you: "If you set "virtual memory" to 0mb that means you have 0 physical ram, 0 swap space, 0 anything to store data for applications. You can not do that. How can you run a computer without any memory!? "

Added: Better yet, take some computer science courses too.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: inhotep

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: inhotep
you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

My virtual memory is 0MB and my machine runs faster than ever. My 6GB ram is not virtual, it is real.

End.

I give up. Continue thinking and believing what is wrong.

You should give up being stubborn and take a critical writing class because it teaches critical thinking. You have to accept that you learned something about the hardware which you didn't know before.

In addition, my experience is from me reading critically and actually put my knowledge to testing things, like turning off the virtual ram (Fake ram on hard drive).

Most people would look at your statement about virtual memory and just ignore you: "If you set "virtual memory" to 0mb that means you have 0 physical ram, 0 swap space, 0 anything to store data for applications. You can not do that. How can you run a computer without any memory!? "

Added: Better yet, take some computer science courses too.

It's too bad your previous posts are all filled numerous grammar and spelling mistakes or else I might actually take you seriously.

 

[nerp]

Wow. Someone has a hard on for being wrong. Disabling the pagefile and trying to turn off virtual memory in windows is a n00b mistake.

 

[inhotep]

I'm not writing a ten page paper about my thesis here ok? Your linguistics, including your grammar, is not perfect either, so don't change the subject. Your inference of ""virtual memory" to 0mb that means you have 0 physical ram, 0 swap space, 0 anything to store data for applications. You can not do that" says it all, because you are totally wrong. My machine has 0MB virtual memory so of course I have 0 swap space. But I still have 6GB ram for everything else and it runs faster than ever. Why? Because I have enough physical RAM to make this happen.

And for nerp, the most RAM you have is 4GB, which I wouldn't turn off virtual memory off for either. My opinion is from my experience testing the size of virtual memory with 1GB, 2GB and 6GB ram. Some day 6GB won't be enough ram for me to turn off the virtual memory on my hard disk but for right now it works great.

Have you guys actually played around with virtual memory allocation? If it didn't work well for you it may not be the case that it won't work well for others.

 

[George P Burdell]

Originally posted by: inhotep
I'm not writing a ten page paper about my thesis here ok? Your linguistics, including your grammar, is not perfect either, so don't change the subject. Your inference of ""virtual memory" to 0mb that means you have 0 physical ram, 0 swap space, 0 anything to store data for applications. You can not do that" says it all, because you are totally wrong. My machine has 0MB virtual memory so of course I have 0 swap space. But I still have 6GB ram for everything else and it runs faster than ever. Why? Because I have enough physical RAM to make this happen.

And for nerp, the most RAM you have is 4GB, which I wouldn't turn off virtual memory off for either. My opinion is from my experience testing the size of virtual memory with 1GB, 2GB and 6GB ram. Some day 6GB won't be enough ram for me to turn off the virtual memory on my hard disk but for right now it works great.

Have you guys actually played around with virtual memory allocation? If it didn't work well for you it may not be the case that it won't work well for others.

I SAID GOOD DAY!!!

 

[Nothinman]

you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

Not at all. The CPU can only access data directly from memory so anything stored in the pagefile has to be paged back into memory to be used. You can't trick anything into directly accessing a file on disk as if it were memory.

Please get a copy of Inside Windows or Understanding the Linux kernel and read the chapter(s) on memory management before you comment further.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: inhotep
you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

My virtual memory is 0MB and my machine runs faster than ever. My 6GB ram is not virtual, it is real.

End.

Microsoft has you confused because they call swapping "virtual memory". Educate yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?h...ure&btnG=Google+Search

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: inhotep
you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

My virtual memory is 0MB and my machine runs faster than ever. My 6GB ram is not virtual, it is real.

End.

Microsoft has you confused because they call swapping "virtual memory". Educate yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?h...ure&btnG=Google+Search

Please read the post for whom I'm responding to. Of course it has to swap. Swap between physical RAM and virtual.

Added: Context context context. In the context of this discussion, pagefile = virtual memory.

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

Not at all. The CPU can only access data directly from memory so anything stored in the pagefile has to be paged back into memory to be used. You can't trick anything into directly accessing a file on disk as if it were memory.

Please get a copy of Inside Windows or Understanding the Linux kernel and read the chapter(s) on memory management before you comment further.

Man, please understand the context for the discussion between Crusty and I.
Your response to my quote is a quote I got from Crusty's source on virtual memory from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

Our discussion was about the virtual memory adjustment in Performance Options, Advanced, Virtual Memory size for Windows.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: inhotep

Originally posted by: Nothinman

you don't get "tricking programs into thinking they are using large blocks of contiguous addresses" means that it's tricking the program to use part of the hard drive as RAM.

Not at all. The CPU can only access data directly from memory so anything stored in the pagefile has to be paged back into memory to be used. You can't trick anything into directly accessing a file on disk as if it were memory.

Please get a copy of Inside Windows or Understanding the Linux kernel and read the chapter(s) on memory management before you comment further.

Man, please understand the context for the discussion between Crusty and I.
Your response to my quote is a quote I got from Crusty's source on virtual memory from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

Our discussion was about the virtual memory adjustment in Performance Options, Advanced, Virtual Memory size for Windows.

No it wasn't. I was pointing out that a page file is NOT VIRTUAL MEMORY. It can be part of the whole VM system. You don't understand what Virtual Memory is, and that's the problem.

 

[Nothinman]

Microsoft has you confused because they call swapping "virtual memory". Educate yourself:

Technically it's paging since it's done on a per-memory page basis, I don't think anything but some old mainframe systems like OVMS did swapping.

In the context of this discussion, pagefile = virtual memory.

Stop that, it only confuses an already complicated subject.

Our discussion was about the virtual memory adjustment in Performance Options, Advanced, Virtual Memory size for Windows.

I understand what you're getting at but using the incorrect terms doesn't help and only makes it look like you really don't understand the subject.