XP 64bit or 32bit?

[Tasandmnm]

I am upgrading my PC with a new case, Asus M2N32 SLI Deluxe, AMD X2 4600+, EVGA Geforce 8800 GTS, 2 gigs Corsair XMS, etc etc. I was using XP Pro 32 on ym old P4 PC, should I go with XP 64 or will it really matter? My old PC was destroyed in a 3 foot fall so I do have quite a bit of info on my old hard drive that I will be importing to my new PC if that makes any difference. Also if I go with XP Pro 64 I am assuming I will have to buy a new disk...unless MS includes a copy of 64 on XP Pro disk which I highly doubt

 

[dclive]

Unless you have over 3.5G or so of RAM, there's currently little point to running an x64 OS.

 

[Tegeril]

And unless you enjoy pain, there is less of a reason to run XP 64bit.

 

[Nothinman]

Unless you have over 3.5G or so of RAM, there's currently little point to running an x64 OS.

Personally, I find using the "x64" moniker more painful than running a full 64-bit OS.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Tegeril
And unless you enjoy pain, there is less of a reason to running XP 64bit.

So true. At least my license will allow a clean installation of vista

 

[Boyo]

Stick with the 32-bit. You don't want to deal with 64's driver problems.

 

[Tasandmnm]

Thanks for all the input guys, I will definitely be staying with 32 bit

 

[Comanche]

I hope that I am not too late here, but XP 64 is the way to go. It really is better than the 32 bit version. I have had mine up and running for well over a year now.

If you should decide that 64 is the way to go, you might have to look for a few drivers, but most all of them are out there now.

As far as the memory thing is concerned. You don't need 3/5 gb of memory. 1 gb will work, 2 will work even better, and with the right hardware, you can go as high as 4.

Check out the forums at Planet AMD 64

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Comanche
I hope that I am not too late here, but XP 64 is the way to go. It really is better than the 32 bit version.

Better how?

 

[Dravic]

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Comanche
I hope that I am not too late here, but XP 64 is the way to go. It really is better than the 32 bit version.

Better how?

its built off the better server 2003 code base, and just had sp2 released for it.. i've got a year plus on it, and its been great.

all my parts are main stream though

x2 3800
2 gig ram
7800gt
asus a8n-e

 

[InlineFive]

Vista is also built off of the Server 2003 code and 64-bit driver support is far better then Windows XP x64 will ever be because Microsoft made it mandatory for manufacturers to release both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

If your apps will run on Vista I say go that route.

 

[daveshel]

Originally posted by: Dravic

Originally posted by: daveshel

Originally posted by: Comanche
I hope that I am not too late here, but XP 64 is the way to go. It really is better than the 32 bit version.

Better how?

its built off the better server 2003 code base, and just had sp2 released for it.. i've got a year plus on it, and its been great.

I was hoping for some examples of how the better manifests itself.

 

[dclive]

Exactly. I don't see how x32 and x64 are different except that x64 is a bigger number and except that x64 allows for (more easily) running more memory. Unless you've got 3.5GB of RAM (or more) I don't (currently) see a point to x64.

 

[Comanche]

The boot up time seems to be a bit quicker. That might be my imagination, but just seems that way. Playing games I notice that it has load times a bit better.

The biggest thing that I like is that most of the mal ware that is out there is written for xp 32. Like I say, most. It is an added security feature.

Because it supports more memory, it can handle more processes, more open windows. I am running 2 GB and it has never been sluggish.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Comanche
The boot up time seems to be a bit quicker. That might be my imagination, but just seems that way. Playing games I notice that it has load times a bit better.

Boot up times shouldn't change at all. If anything, X32 should be marginally faster since no compatibility layer needs to load, but, regardless, they shouldn't be significantly different.

The biggest thing that I like is that most of the mal ware that is out there is written for xp 32. Like I say, most. It is an added security feature.

See comment below.

Because it supports more memory, it can handle more processes, more open windows. I am running 2 GB and it has never been sluggish.

Sure --- if you actually have that memory over and above 3.5GB (or so). If you just have 2.0GB in both machines, both computers (x32 and x64) will handle that memory in identical fashion - no difference.

X64 won't cause any of these changes, and is still just as vulnerable to most (if not all) viruses. It still runs a 32 bit compatibility layer and a 32 bit version of MSIE exists on the machine, which is a prime way to get infected.

 

[noping]

Originally posted by: Tegeril
And unless you enjoy pain, there is less of a reason to running XP 64bit.

One of the "pains" that I ran into when running x64 was the lack of a real software firewall solution, something that I personally need as I'm on my university's network. Also, requiring updates (or x64-specific versions) to things like anti-virus software.

Originally posted by: Boyo
Stick with the 32-bit. You don't want to deal with 64's driver problems.

I had been running x64 for over a year up until last week, and I never ran into serious driver issues. I had to dig around for x64 drivers for my Chaintech AV-710 sound card and my iP1700, but that's about it - everything else was either taken care of during initial setup (Marvell Yukon onboard NIC, 32-bit installer doesn't detect this) or readily available (nForce, ForceWare).

Seeing as how the OP doesn't have a copy of x64: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition trial software

Give it a try, if you don't like it, stay with 32-bit. I liked it well enough, though I had no reason to be running it.

 

[Nothinman]

Exactly. I don't see how x32 and x64 are different except that x64 is a bigger number and except that x64 allows for (more easily) running more memory. Unless you've got 3.5GB of RAM (or more) I don't (currently) see a point to x64.

The main difference is the amount of VM each process can address but there are other differences like in long mode there are 8 more GPRs and 8 more SSE registers available which can make a noticable difference depending on the type of work the process is doing.

Sure --- if you actually have that memory over and above 3.5GB (or so). If you just have 2.0GB in both machines, both computers (x32 and x64) will handle that memory in identical fashion - no difference.

Not totally correct. On Windows each process is limited to 2G of VM (the other 2G is reserved for the kernel) and that includes memory taken up by the process itself, mapped libraries, mmap()'d files, etc so you end up running out of VM around 1.5-1.8G of VM usually. On a 64-bit system each 32-bit process is allowed up to 4G of VM since 32-bit processes can't come close to touching the amount of VM available there's no need to steal any from them for the kernel.

Boot up times shouldn't change at all. If anything, X32 should be marginally faster since no compatibility layer needs to load, but, regardless, they shouldn't be significantly different.

The compatibility layer in XP64 is virtually nonexistant since the differences between the two operating modes is so small. And the same compatibility layer exists in XP32, just there it lets you run 16-bit apps.

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Exactly. I don't see how x32 and x64 are different except that x64 is a bigger number and except that x64 allows for (more easily) running more memory. Unless you've got 3.5GB of RAM (or more) I don't (currently) see a point to x64.

The main difference is the amount of VM each process can address but there are other differences like in long mode there are 8 more GPRs and 8 more SSE registers available which can make a noticable difference depending on the type of work the process is doing.

But when we look at performance differences (say, at Toms Hardware or similar sites) we see almost no difference...

Sure --- if you actually have that memory over and above 3.5GB (or so). If you just have 2.0GB in both machines, both computers (x32 and x64) will handle that memory in identical fashion - no difference.

Not totally correct. On Windows each process is limited to 2G of VM (the other 2G is reserved for the kernel) and that includes memory taken up by the process itself, mapped libraries, mmap()'d files, etc so you end up running out of VM around 1.5-1.8G of VM usually. On a 64-bit system each 32-bit process is allowed up to 4G of VM since 32-bit processes can't come close to touching the amount of VM available there's no need to steal any from them for the kernel.

Correct. I should have mentioned this. However, this is something most people simply won't see. Also, with 2G of memory, it's just not significant.

Boot up times shouldn't change at all. If anything, X32 should be marginally faster since no compatibility layer needs to load, but, regardless, they shouldn't be significantly different.

The compatibility layer in XP64 is virtually nonexistant since the differences between the two operating modes is so small. And the same compatibility layer exists in XP32, just there it lets you run 16-bit apps.

Summary: I just don't see a significant difference. Fair to say, for most applications?

 

[Nothinman]

But when we look at performance differences (say, at Toms Hardware or similar sites) we see almost no difference...

The same can be said of a lot of things, like the difference between 2G and 4G of memory yet a lot of people are still buying 4G of memory for no real reason. Some things like A/V encoding can get a noticable boost from being 64-bit and having access to those extra registers. But since you need to bench 32-bit vs 64-bit binaries other things like the quality of the compiler comes into play too, also since the OP is talking about Windows and 99% of the software will be closed source so you're stuck running 32-bit versions of just about everything anyway.

Summary: I just don't see a significant difference. Fair to say, for most applications?

It's also far to say that most applications never use more than 100M of physical memory, and in a lot of cases that's being very generous, so most people will never see a significant difference between say 512M and 1G of memory but people still buy 1G and more.

Personally I don't see a reason not to run a 64-bit OS, but then I'm running Linux so virtually all of my software is already 64-bit clean.

 

[Madwand1]

FWIW, I've found and illustrated some significant file system and network performance differences between XP-32 and XP-64 here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=27&threadid=2028479&enterthread=y