Q6600 64bit vs. 32bit OS?

John wrote:

My new system is going to be centered on an Intel Quad core CPU, DDR3
dual channel. My question is, should I run a 64 bit OS to utilize the
chip's full potential or will a 32 bit OS give me the same
performance? I also realize the installed software must be optimized
for multi core CPU to receive any benefit like PhotoShop etc.. I see
alot of disgruntled Vista users out there, should I stick with XP Pro?

64-bit will allow you to install and use more than about 3,5GB useful RAM.
For regular use with regular applications I don't see the need to change to
64bit.
I suggest you keep your XP pro.

Greetings All,

My new system is going to be centered on an Intel Quad core CPU, DDR3
dual channel. My question is, should I run a 64 bit OS to utilize the
chip's full potential or will a 32 bit OS give me the same performance?
I also realize the installed software must be optimized for multi core
CPU to receive any benefit like PhotoShop etc.. I see alot of
disgruntled Vista users out there, should I stick with XP Pro?

Thanks in advance,
John

"John" wrote in message
...
Greetings All,

My new system is going to be centered on an Intel Quad core CPU, DDR3 dual
channel. My question is, should I run a 64 bit OS to utilize the chip's
full potential or will a 32 bit OS give me the same performance? I also
realize the installed software must be optimized for multi core CPU to
receive any benefit like PhotoShop etc.. I see alot of disgruntled Vista
users out there, should I stick with XP Pro?

Thanks in advance,
John

Not enough 64 bit applications to make use of the OS.

Some software can use multiple cores properly but few do.

I have heard driver support is better under Vista 64 bit than it has been
under other Windows 64 bit OSes, but as I understand it you simply cannot
install an unsigned driver, unless you intervene every time during boot so
the OS loads in some kind of troubleshooting mode.

I'm using an Nvidia 7950x2 VGA card and the picture quality of video clips
is worse under Vista 32 bit - (dual booting, so I can do a direct
comparison). I've used several different drivers, so I'm wondering if it's
to do with the copy protection schemes. I'm even using a compliant monitor.

In Vista, all of your settings are buried under an extra layer of pop up
screens, and for no apparent reason settings have been moved around, so you
need to search for them.

UAC, which is mean't to protect you from unauthorised exes running just
get's so annoying you turn it off.

Unless there is something in Vista you think you need, stay with XP. DX9
will be around for ages yet, and I've yet to hear rave reviews about DX10 in
any game. I don't think that will change because publishers aren't going to
cut out the majority of users who still use DX9 hardware.

There might be some great things under the hood of Vista, but they aren't
apparent to your average user.

In article , "SumGuy" wrote:

"John" wrote in message
...
Greetings All,

My new system is going to be centered on an Intel Quad core CPU, DDR3 dual
channel. My question is, should I run a 64 bit OS to utilize the chip's
full potential or will a 32 bit OS give me the same performance? I also
realize the installed software must be optimized for multi core CPU to
receive any benefit like PhotoShop etc.. I see alot of disgruntled Vista
users out there, should I stick with XP Pro?

Thanks in advance,
John

Not enough 64 bit applications to make use of the OS.

Some software can use multiple cores properly but few do.


Even if the apps dont, Windows XP makes use of them. thats a huge boost since
the app can take up much of what the first core offers whilst background tasks
in XP can use the second core.


I have heard driver support is better under Vista 64 bit than it has been
under other Windows 64 bit OSes, but as I understand it you simply cannot
install an unsigned driver, unless you intervene every time during boot so
the OS loads in some kind of troubleshooting mode.

I'm using an Nvidia 7950x2 VGA card and the picture quality of video clips
is worse under Vista 32 bit - (dual booting, so I can do a direct
comparison). I've used several different drivers, so I'm wondering if it's
to do with the copy protection schemes. I'm even using a compliant monitor.

In Vista, all of your settings are buried under an extra layer of pop up
screens, and for no apparent reason settings have been moved around, so you
need to search for them.

UAC, which is mean't to protect you from unauthorised exes running just
get's so annoying you turn it off.

Unless there is something in Vista you think you need, stay with XP. DX9
will be around for ages yet, and I've yet to hear rave reviews about DX10 in
any game. I don't think that will change because publishers aren't going to
cut out the majority of users who still use DX9 hardware.

There might be some great things under the hood of Vista, but they aren't
apparent to your average user.

Until Vista's SP1 comes out in January, I would stick with XP.

--
---------------------
DaveW

---------------------
"John" wrote in message
...
Greetings All,

My new system is going to be centered on an Intel Quad core CPU, DDR3 dual
channel. My question is, should I run a 64 bit OS to utilize the chip's
full potential or will a 32 bit OS give me the same performance? I also
realize the installed software must be optimized for multi core CPU to
receive any benefit like PhotoShop etc.. I see alot of disgruntled Vista
users out there, should I stick with XP Pro?

Thanks in advance,
John

"GMAN" wrote in message
...
snip
Some software can use multiple cores properly but few do.


Even if the apps dont, Windows XP makes use of them. thats a huge boost
since
the app can take up much of what the first core offers whilst background
tasks
in XP can use the second core.

That's going to happen under 32 bit as well as 64 bit isn't it?


snip

In article , "SumGuy" wrote:

"GMAN" wrote in message
...
snip
Some software can use multiple cores properly but few do.


Even if the apps dont, Windows XP makes use of them. thats a huge boost
since
the app can take up much of what the first core offers whilst background
tasks
in XP can use the second core.

That's going to happen under 32 bit as well as 64 bit isn't it?


snip



It should.

full potential. im running vista 32bi & vista 64 bit with a Q6600 (tested
the E6600 too) both with 4 gigs ram. 64 bit blows 32bit outta the water 13+%
increase. to bad drivers sux.. but 64 bit is a lot faster then 32 bit....


"John" wrote in message
...
Greetings All,

My new system is going to be centered on an Intel Quad core CPU, DDR3 dual
channel. My question is, should I run a 64 bit OS to utilize the chip's
full potential or will a 32 bit OS give me the same performance? I also
realize the installed software must be optimized for multi core CPU to
receive any benefit like PhotoShop etc.. I see alot of disgruntled Vista
users out there, should I stick with XP Pro?

Thanks in advance,
John

Ron Shaw wrote:
full potential. im running vista 32bi & vista 64 bit with a Q6600
(tested the E6600 too) both with 4 gigs ram. 64 bit blows 32bit outta
the water 13+% increase. to bad drivers sux.. but 64 bit is a lot
faster then 32 bit....

That seriously depends on the application and/or drivers. In itself, there
is nothing that suggests that 64-bit should be of much importance.

On Nov 19, 10:55 am, "Egil Solberg" wrote:
Ron Shaw wrote:
snip
That seriously depends on the application and/or drivers. In itself, there
is nothing that suggests that 64-bit should be of much importance.

Anything which requires efficient access to large volumes of data (and
double-
precision floating point numbers) can be MUCH faster on 64-bit
systems. I've
got a 5600+ AMD64X2. Linux installs in SMP mode (utilizing both
processors)
and Oracle 10g absolutely SCREAMS compared to 32-bit hardware.
I would imagine that audio/video processing would also benefit
significantly
from a 64-bit processor and lots of memory. The new AM2 motherboards
from ASUS will support 8GB of DDR2 RAM; I've got 4GB installed on my
M2A-VM HDMI. Add a couple of SATA 2 drives in a RAID configuration and
you're talking industrial-strength processing power.
And you can put together a system for roughly $500 if you shop
judiciously.
It doesn't get much better than that!