So, what is the practrical benefot of 64bit to the average user?

[TrevorS]

Seems to me all the application I run into/use are written 32 bit. In what ways would I benefit from installing a 64 bit OS?

[Daniel ~]

Well I can run 16 gigs ram and a 32 bit OS cannot...

Do I really use 16 gigs of ram, yes! Every time someone asks me what benefit 64 bit OS has over a 32 bit OS!

I'm told that those who edit videos find it useful... beyond that I don't really know of any benefit...

(You should probably wait until some one who actually knows stuff to answer.":O}

[Daniel ~]

I found this:



64 Versus 32-Bit Operating Systems

When a person has a 32-bit processor in his computer, his computer is capable of having a 32-bit operating system. Windows operating systems are often divided into 32 and 64-bit systems. 64-bit operating systems can theoretically hold a terabyte (1000GB) of memory. To put that in perspective, today's 32-bit systems can hold a maximum of 4GB of memory split between being used for programs and being used for operating system tasks. According to Webopedia.com, a computer with a 64-bit processor using a 64-bit operating system performs twice as fast as a 32-bit machine.
PC Gaming

The first systems to embrace 64-bit gaming were the Sony Playstation 2 and the Nintendo 64. In modern PC gaming, though, the games take much better advantage of the 64-bit architecture. Most PC games are released for 32-bit processors and operating systems but work on 64-bit systems through emulation (the computer reading the game as a 32-bit system would). Now though, many game developers release 32- and 64-bit versions of their games. The 64-bit versions offer improved textures, richer sound and more detailed environments. Characters and objects are rendered with much more detail, especially in features such as hair, mouths, eyes and individual fingers. Also, the computer controlled characters will be capable of more realistic artificial intelligence, which can make the game more realistic and difficult.
Applications That Benefit the Most

According to Webopedia.com, small programs and tasks such as word processors or Web browsers that run superbly on 32-bit systems won't show any noticeable speed increase in a 64-bit system. PCWorld.com claims that this added speed and performance typically shows more in resource-intensive programs such as graphic design software and videos. Video coding and decoding (making your computer able to read and translate the file into video) also goes much quicker and smoother in 64-bit systems. Video players that would previously stutter on 32-bit systems present more frames-per-second on 64-bit systems, giving them more cinema-like playback.


Read more: What Are the Benefits of 64-Bit Software? | eHow What Are the Benefits of 64-Bit Software? | eHow

[cloasters]

A 32-bit Windows operating system can use only 3.5 Gb of RAM. Nowadays that's really a very small amount of memory at your disposal. Yes, I remember that Mr Gates stated that 64 K would be enough RAM forever. He was wrong.

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by cloasters

A 32-bit Windows operating system can use only 3.5 Gb of RAM. Nowadays that's really a very small amount of memory at your disposal. Yes, I remember that Mr Gates stated that 64 K would be enough RAM forever. He was wrong.

That's probably before the developments of compilers for Z80 and x86 processors. Back in the days when code was hand written in assembly, an imaginative fellow could accomplish amazing things with small amounts of memory.

I find that with even my heaviest video crunching (non-pro software) I don't even consume 1GB with WinXP. I understand Win7 requires much more (it's called bloat as I recall), but Win7 is also available in both 32 and 64 bit. I'm installing 4GB in my new machine, but only in light of future uncertainty, not recognition of need. If Win7 consumes twice the space as WinXP (which wouldn't surprise me in light of bloat), that should still leave me easily more than 2GB headroom, though if 3.5GB is truly the 32bit max, then that'll trim it back a little. I presume 64bit Windows is still capable of efficiently running 32 bit apps?

[Daniel ~]

Just booting and reading in Browser and e-mail gobbles up a whole 1gig of my 16... Hey Ram's never been cheaper! LOL

[danrok]

Originally Posted by TrevorS

That's probably before the developments of compilers for Z80 and x86 processors. Back in the days when code was hand written in assembly, an imaginative fellow could accomplish amazing things with small amounts of memory.

For me Elite was a mind boggling game on my ZX Spectrum with 48K of RAM!

Eight galaxies, each galaxy containing 256 planets. How do you fit that in to 48K? Done using procedural generation rather than data.

Seemed like magic to me at the time.

[chrisbard]

It all depends on what software you will be using and what you will do with your PC Trevor.

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by chrisbard

It all depends on what software you will be using and what you will do with your PC Trevor.

Perhaps, but my experience so far with WinXP and non-Pro applications, is 1GB is enough and 2GB is bragging rights. My most heavy usage consists of video conversion/rending at the consumer software level. Don't know what the consumer applications would be that require 2GB or more, but my impression reading posts on the web (presumably Win7) is that DRAM size has far more to do with bragging rights than need. That and the number of cores seem to be the current PC phallic status symbols.

[danrok]

As far as video goes, you can never have too much memory, or too many cores.

But, if you just converting a file from one format to another, I'd guess any PC will get there in the end.

[chrisbard]

Originally Posted by TrevorS

Perhaps, but my experience so far with WinXP and non-Pro applications, is 1GB is enough and 2GB is bragging rights. My most heavy usage consists of video conversion/rending at the consumer software level. Don't know what the consumer applications would be that require 2GB or more, but my impression reading posts on the web (presumably Win7) is that DRAM size has far more to do with bragging rights than need. That and the number of cores seem to be the current PC phallic status symbols.

I am afraid that regular consumers have a lot of peripherals attached to their computer and in order to have them functioning in realtime along with various software [and I will give you Photoshop and Photomatix as examples along with WLPG (I like to use them all at the same time)] not to mention the need of scanning a document or OCR scanning will take you well above what you mention. We are in 2013 afterall.

[Daniel ~]

Originally Posted by danrok

For me Elite was a mind boggling game on my ZX Spectrum with 48K of RAM!

Eight galaxies, each galaxy containing 256 planets. How do you fit that in to 48K? Done using procedural generation rather than data.

Seemed like magic to me at the time.

Dude! It still sounds like magic to me!! ":O}

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by danrok

As far as video goes, you can never have too much memory, or too many cores.

But, if you just converting a file from one format to another, I'd guess any PC will get there in the end.

It seems to me that depends entirely on how the software is written. Pro software is normally written for multiple threads, but consumer software is usually far less powerful. I wonder if any consumer software actually uses six cores, let alone eight. Four cores is probably pushing it at that level of software, two or one being more likely. From what I read, even games that use more than one thread remain in the minority, and even those that do are usually predominately single threaded.

Most people presume that since there are eight cores, their apps will execute faster, however, that's not only generally incorrect, typically the reverse is true. More cores tend to be clocked at lower rates than fewer (thermal reasons), and so non-multithreaded apps will actually be slower. The average consumer has no idea, he/she just eats up the marketing BS.

[Daniel ~]

Originally Posted by TrevorS

It seems to me that depends entirely on how the software is written. Pro software is normally written for multiple threads, but consumer software is usually far less powerful. I wonder if any consumer software actually uses six cores, let alone eight. Four cores is probably pushing it at that level of software, two or one being more likely. From what I read, even games that use more than one thread remain in the minority, and even those that do are usually predominately single threaded.

Most people presume that since there are eight cores, their apps will execute faster, however, that's not only generally incorrect, typically the reverse is true. More cores tend to be clocked at lower rates than fewer (thermal reasons), and so non-multithreaded apps will actually be slower. The average consumer has no idea, he/she just eats up the marketing BS.

OH! OH! I know one!

Folding AT Home use all four of my cores! And 4 "logical" cores as well!
(I'm not sure they are called logical":O}

But THAT is the only one I know of...sigh

[cloasters]

I agree, modern home computing is full of eye candy bloat and bells and whistles that can make a serious PC user blanch and recoil in horror.
However, it's what we're stuck with and it's not going to improve over time.
Crucial aka Micron Memory offered me 16 Gigs of reasonably fast RAM for $108 a few days ago. So much memory packed into two 8Gb DIMMS amazes me, tbh.
I'm perfectly happy with the 12 Gb I already have. You may plan to go with Linux, but can it really be called "lean and mean" lately? It has become a hoggish memory eating world in home computerville, personally I'd insist upon a 64-bit OS and plenty of RAM. Those danged smart phones sport 8 Gb and up.

[Gizmo]

For the typical home user that watches youtube, plays a few web games, and does email, 64-bit offers NO value.

I actually have 16 GB in my laptop, and I routinely use around 12 of it. I also routinely have 3 VMs running, each with 2 GB allocated, and usually running 15 or so apps in each one, as well as around a dozen web pages open at any one time in my base environment, plus around another half-dozen apps or so. I'm normally manipulating massive spreadsheets (1,000,000 cells+) or crunching through database stuff, connecting via ssh to 15 or 20 servers, etc. In short, very NOT TYPICAL usage.

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by Gizmo

For the typical home user that watches youtube, plays a few web games, and does email, 64-bit offers NO value.

I actually have 16 GB in my laptop, and I routinely use around 12 of it. I also routinely have 3 VMs running, each with 2 GB allocated, and usually running 15 or so apps in each one, as well as around a dozen web pages open at any one time in my base environment, plus around another half-dozen apps or so. I'm normally manipulating massive spreadsheets (1,000,000 cells+) or crunching through database stuff, connecting via ssh to 15 or 20 servers, etc. In short, very NOT TYPICAL usage.

Wow! I'd think that definitely qualifies as a Pro application (VM's no less). When you go Pro (given the personal multitasking skills, tools, and budget), pretty much anything is possible.

I only recently got interested in video rendering and am still looking for good apps, but the budget for software is aprox zero (PC builds are damaging enough)! Two of my current rendering/converting tools use both my X2 cores, don't know if they can use more, but if so, the new quad build should really speed things up ! But even if not, the increase in clock speed will vastly improve throughput -- that's all I'm hoping for, anything more is gravy.

[Daniel ~]

So Gizmo...ya got any good FREE apps you can recomend for our man TrevorS? ":O}

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted by Daniel ~

So Gizmo...ya got any good FREE apps you can recomend for our man TrevorS? ":O}

Crack me up dude ! But yeah, for my personal needs, that's certainly where I'm coming from, but I know better than to expect anything to be laid on me. There are lots of tools out there and sometimes the name products depend more on their name than their performance -- at least in the consumer part of the world (probably in the Pro as well).

But what started me on this thread was whether it made any sense for me to seriously investigate installing a 64bit OS on my hardware. I just completed an AMD FX4300 build and I see the memory limitation referred to above, aprox 3.3GB out of my installed 4GB is apparently accessible with my 32bit OS. So, that's clearly real, though with the apps I'm so far familiar with, it's not a serious limitation. However, when I read that Win7 requires 4GB to function well, that implies 64bit may not be merely an option, but perhaps a necessity with Win7. But, if that's the case, why are they still selling 32bit Win7? The inconsistency seems a bit much! I'd really like to know what's actually going on with this.

[Daniel ~]

Dude Linux means almost never having to say I'm broke!

Many Linux apps are every bit as good as those you pay for... good and bad just like the one's you pay for.