Discussion
Having used computers for more years than I care to remember I don't actually know the difference between 32 or 64 bit when it comes to Windows or anything else.
I have problems with Windows Vista at the moment (nothing unusual, just very slow running) which Microsoft say needs me to re-install Windows. They have sent me disks for both 32 and 64 bit, I have 32 bit at present, so I just wondered if the higher number gives any benefits.
Actually, I am thinking of getting Windows 7 instead as if I have to go to the hassle of re-instaling the OS I might as well get an up to date version with (hopefully) less bugs. The same question applies though, is it worth going for the 64bit version?
I have problems with Windows Vista at the moment (nothing unusual, just very slow running) which Microsoft say needs me to re-install Windows. They have sent me disks for both 32 and 64 bit, I have 32 bit at present, so I just wondered if the higher number gives any benefits.
Actually, I am thinking of getting Windows 7 instead as if I have to go to the hassle of re-instaling the OS I might as well get an up to date version with (hopefully) less bugs. The same question applies though, is it worth going for the 64bit version?
The difference between 32 and 64 bit is the ammount of ram the o/s can handle.
32 bit is supposed to handle up to 4gb ram but will probably only show about 3.2gb.
64 bit will handle well in excess of what you need. Something like 190gb
So it depends how much ram your going to use. If your doing an install you might as well install the 64 bit.
32 bit is supposed to handle up to 4gb ram but will probably only show about 3.2gb.
64 bit will handle well in excess of what you need. Something like 190gb
So it depends how much ram your going to use. If your doing an install you might as well install the 64 bit.
The current popular available PC CPUs (i.e. from Intel and AMD) are now 64-bit. As a gross simplification, this means that each single 'number' that can be worked with in the CPU is 64 bits in size, which equates to a maximum decimal number of around 1.8 x 10^19, which is a hell of a lot. With 32-bit numbers, the maximum decimal value that can be held in a 32-bit number is around 4 billion. Due to how most computers work (this is a big simplification), any running program can only address as much memory as can be held in one 'number'. So a program running on a 32-bit machine can refer to 4 billion bytes, or 4 gigabytes. This used to be considered a ridiculously large amount of memory, but we're now doing a lot more with our computers and this is a limitation.
Hence 32-bit machines can only work with 4 GB at a time. There are clever tricks around the limitation, but the basic rule is that if you're running a 32-bit operating system on 32-bit hardware, you can only install 4 GB of memory (RAM). Since the current technology is 64-bit, you can install much more than 4 GB of RAM into your machine. But if the operating system you run is 32-bit code (such as older versions of Windows, or the 32-bit editions of XP, Vista and Windows 7), then typically any memory over 4 GB is wasted and not seen by the system.
Some versions of 32-bit Windows (with PAE - physical address extension IIRC) allow you to 'see' more than 4 GB - up to 32 GB on 32-bit Windows Server with PAE, IIRC. But because a 32-bit number can only go as big as 4 billion, any one program running on your system will only be able to address 4 GB. So if you're doing scientific computing with huge data sets, or running a relational database and wanting as much data cached in RAM as possible for performance, the 4 GB limit can be a problem.
Virtually any computer *hardware* you buy today will be 64-bit and capable of installing, and using, much more than 4 GB of memory. However you need the operating system and applications to be 64-bit to take advantage of more than 4 GB of RAM.
This is where it gets tricky. Forget Apple for the time being - they had consumer 64-bit hardware well before anyone else and so 64-bit on Apple is very easy and now (with Snow Leopard) standard. Windows is a different kettle of catfish.
Remember that the *hardware* is 64-bit these days. However you have a choice of operating systems. Microsoft make Windows in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. This is because a 32-bit device driver won't work with a 64-bit operating system kernel, you need a 64-bit device driver to work with a 64-bit operating system kernel. And whilst you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system, it's via a workaround and ideally, for performance, you want to recompile your applications for 64-bit.
Why is this a problem? Because PCs are made by lots of different companies and Microsoft can't be responsible for writing high-quality device drivers for every single piece of hardware on the market. So it's often down to the hardware manufacturers to write device drivers for their components. Take the most obvious example of a graphics card. These are complicated, very powerful accessories and require close access to the kernel for high performance. If the graphics card driver is poorly written, it can crash the entire system. If your graphics card only has a 32-bit driver supplied by the manufacturer, then you won't be able to use it to its full if you choose to run 64-bit Windows.
The bottom line is that if you're running applications that could usefully make use of more than 4 GB of RAM (photo editing with very high resolution raw images, video editing, scientific computing, database software, financial modelling, etc.) then using a 64-bit version of your favourite operating system (this applies to Linux as well as Windows) could be well worth doing. For most common 'home' computing it's not as much of a big deal.
However if you want to run a 64-bit operating system... make sure that you can get 64-bit device drivers for all of the peripherals in your computer. It's pretty much as simple as that - Microsoft will happily sell you a 64-bit version of Windows, but you need to get 64-bit drivers for your system. If you can, then it will work very well. If you can't, or the 64-bit drivers from third parties are known for being buggy or immature / unstable, then stick to 32-bit Windows and 32-bit drivers, which have been around a lot longer and have been more fully tested.
If you're using Linux then the 64-bit issue is a bit less problematic because the device driver source code is open and available, and most of the time you only need to recompile it for 64-bit. But even in the Linux world there are some closed-source drivers (some Wifi adapter code, and some graphics card drivers, aren't available for Linux so Linux just uses the Windows driver wrapped up) so you have the same problem there.
If you're using a Mac - it just comes down to hardware (i.e. which Mac you've got). Apple only used one 32-bit Intel CPU (their very first Core Duo systems were 32-bit), but all subsequent Intel systems and the previous G5 PowerPC systems are 64-bit. Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has both 64-bit and 32-bit code to support all Intel Macs. If you want to run 64-bit scientific code on the old PowerPC G5 Macs (which in certain cases are still very fast), then you need Leopard (OS X 10.5) which has drivers for 64-bit PowerPC, 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Intel and 32-bit Intel. But the Intel kernel is 32-bit on Leopard - you need Snow Leopard for a full 64-bit kernel on Intel.
Sounds a bit complicated, but if you're using Windows, a simplistic approach is (a) do you need more than 4 GB of RAM, and (b) if yes, are 64-bit Windows device drivers available for all the components in your PC.
Hence 32-bit machines can only work with 4 GB at a time. There are clever tricks around the limitation, but the basic rule is that if you're running a 32-bit operating system on 32-bit hardware, you can only install 4 GB of memory (RAM). Since the current technology is 64-bit, you can install much more than 4 GB of RAM into your machine. But if the operating system you run is 32-bit code (such as older versions of Windows, or the 32-bit editions of XP, Vista and Windows 7), then typically any memory over 4 GB is wasted and not seen by the system.
Some versions of 32-bit Windows (with PAE - physical address extension IIRC) allow you to 'see' more than 4 GB - up to 32 GB on 32-bit Windows Server with PAE, IIRC. But because a 32-bit number can only go as big as 4 billion, any one program running on your system will only be able to address 4 GB. So if you're doing scientific computing with huge data sets, or running a relational database and wanting as much data cached in RAM as possible for performance, the 4 GB limit can be a problem.
Virtually any computer *hardware* you buy today will be 64-bit and capable of installing, and using, much more than 4 GB of memory. However you need the operating system and applications to be 64-bit to take advantage of more than 4 GB of RAM.
This is where it gets tricky. Forget Apple for the time being - they had consumer 64-bit hardware well before anyone else and so 64-bit on Apple is very easy and now (with Snow Leopard) standard. Windows is a different kettle of catfish.
Remember that the *hardware* is 64-bit these days. However you have a choice of operating systems. Microsoft make Windows in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. This is because a 32-bit device driver won't work with a 64-bit operating system kernel, you need a 64-bit device driver to work with a 64-bit operating system kernel. And whilst you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system, it's via a workaround and ideally, for performance, you want to recompile your applications for 64-bit.
Why is this a problem? Because PCs are made by lots of different companies and Microsoft can't be responsible for writing high-quality device drivers for every single piece of hardware on the market. So it's often down to the hardware manufacturers to write device drivers for their components. Take the most obvious example of a graphics card. These are complicated, very powerful accessories and require close access to the kernel for high performance. If the graphics card driver is poorly written, it can crash the entire system. If your graphics card only has a 32-bit driver supplied by the manufacturer, then you won't be able to use it to its full if you choose to run 64-bit Windows.
The bottom line is that if you're running applications that could usefully make use of more than 4 GB of RAM (photo editing with very high resolution raw images, video editing, scientific computing, database software, financial modelling, etc.) then using a 64-bit version of your favourite operating system (this applies to Linux as well as Windows) could be well worth doing. For most common 'home' computing it's not as much of a big deal.
However if you want to run a 64-bit operating system... make sure that you can get 64-bit device drivers for all of the peripherals in your computer. It's pretty much as simple as that - Microsoft will happily sell you a 64-bit version of Windows, but you need to get 64-bit drivers for your system. If you can, then it will work very well. If you can't, or the 64-bit drivers from third parties are known for being buggy or immature / unstable, then stick to 32-bit Windows and 32-bit drivers, which have been around a lot longer and have been more fully tested.
If you're using Linux then the 64-bit issue is a bit less problematic because the device driver source code is open and available, and most of the time you only need to recompile it for 64-bit. But even in the Linux world there are some closed-source drivers (some Wifi adapter code, and some graphics card drivers, aren't available for Linux so Linux just uses the Windows driver wrapped up) so you have the same problem there.
If you're using a Mac - it just comes down to hardware (i.e. which Mac you've got). Apple only used one 32-bit Intel CPU (their very first Core Duo systems were 32-bit), but all subsequent Intel systems and the previous G5 PowerPC systems are 64-bit. Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has both 64-bit and 32-bit code to support all Intel Macs. If you want to run 64-bit scientific code on the old PowerPC G5 Macs (which in certain cases are still very fast), then you need Leopard (OS X 10.5) which has drivers for 64-bit PowerPC, 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Intel and 32-bit Intel. But the Intel kernel is 32-bit on Leopard - you need Snow Leopard for a full 64-bit kernel on Intel.
Sounds a bit complicated, but if you're using Windows, a simplistic approach is (a) do you need more than 4 GB of RAM, and (b) if yes, are 64-bit Windows device drivers available for all the components in your PC.
paul99 said:
Stick with 32bit. The 64bit Vista version isn't well supported with drivers and most software doesnt use 64bit anyway.
It's worth considering upgrading to Windows 7, its nicer to use than Vista and seems to perform better on the same hardware.
I'm sorry, thats total garbage.It's worth considering upgrading to Windows 7, its nicer to use than Vista and seems to perform better on the same hardware.
64bit has been well supported since just after Vista launched.
64bit XP was badly supported.
Pretty much all modern hardware now has 64bit drivers. And there is more and more software coming out with 64bit versions. Granted, it may not be mainstream stuff, its more specialist programs, like 3DSMax, Maya etc, but 64bit is the future, and IIRC, the next version of windows (or it might be the one after next) is going to be 64bit only.
I believe, and I think this is supported by others, that 64bit runs better than 32bit.
@OP
how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
- edit*
Edited by Cerberus90 on Monday 22 February 19:56
Cerberus90 said:
paul99 said:
Stick with 32bit. The 64bit Vista version isn't well supported with drivers and most software doesnt use 64bit anyway.
It's worth considering upgrading to Windows 7, its nicer to use than Vista and seems to perform better on the same hardware.
I'm sorry, thats total garbage.It's worth considering upgrading to Windows 7, its nicer to use than Vista and seems to perform better on the same hardware.
64bit has been well supported since just after Vista launched.
64bit XP was badly supported.
Pretty much all modern hardware now has 64bit drivers. And there is more and more software coming out with 64bit versions. Granted, it may not be mainstream stuff, its more specialist programs, like 3DSMax, Maya etc, but 64bit is the future, and IIRC, the next version of windows (or it might be the one after next) is going to be 64bit only.
I believe, and I think this is supported by others, that 64bit runs better than 32bit.
@OP
how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
- edit*
Edited by Cerberus90 on Monday 22 February 19:56
Aside from considering the RAM/performance that you might need, check that all the apps you need will run.
I have a lightweight laptop with 2Gb of RAM (not upgradeable). I installed Win7 as an upgrade (it shipped with Vista.) I admit I chose to install 64Bit Win7 on the basis that I had an idea it would be 'better' than 32Bit but I had no idea why.
On the assumption I can get proper drivers for all my stuff (being a Dell laptop I think i have) did I make the right choice? Or would 32Bit be better? Or will it make no difference?
On the assumption I can get proper drivers for all my stuff (being a Dell laptop I think i have) did I make the right choice? Or would 32Bit be better? Or will it make no difference?
Been running 64-bit Vista/W7 for a while now, checked for drivers for the m/b, gfs and other stuff before moving to it. Everything works, except for a couple of different types of VPN software - Cisco's VPN client and a Checkpoint SSL client will not work. I have a Vista 32-bit VM for when I need to VPN into customer networks.
The network guy at work was saying for a Cisco VPN you don't need the Cisco VPN client software, apparently it's an open standard and other stuff will work. Not tried it myself.
The network guy at work was saying for a Cisco VPN you don't need the Cisco VPN client software, apparently it's an open standard and other stuff will work. Not tried it myself.
Cerberus90 said:
@OP
how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
It is less than a year and has 4GB of ram - a Dell XPS laptop.how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
Cyberface - thanks for the really comprehensive answer.
I think I will stick with 32 bit, or at least check for drivers for 64 bit before going that route. I am really tempted by Windows 7 if I have to do the whole re-install of the OS, might as well make sure it works as well as possible, plus slightly fed up with Vista as it seems to be the cause of the problems.
downthepub said:
Been running 64-bit Vista/W7 for a while now, checked for drivers for the m/b, gfs and other stuff before moving to it. Everything works, except for a couple of different types of VPN software - Cisco's VPN client and a Checkpoint SSL client will not work. I have a Vista 32-bit VM for when I need to VPN into customer networks.
The network guy at work was saying for a Cisco VPN you don't need the Cisco VPN client software, apparently it's an open standard and other stuff will work. Not tried it myself.
Tried these for checkpoint?The network guy at work was saying for a Cisco VPN you don't need the Cisco VPN client software, apparently it's an open standard and other stuff will work. Not tried it myself.
https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter...
and
https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter...
andyps said:
Cerberus90 said:
@OP
how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
It is less than a year and has 4GB of ram - a Dell XPS laptop.how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
Cyberface - thanks for the really comprehensive answer.
I think I will stick with 32 bit, or at least check for drivers for 64 bit before going that route. I am really tempted by Windows 7 if I have to do the whole re-install of the OS, might as well make sure it works as well as possible, plus slightly fed up with Vista as it seems to be the cause of the problems.
mrmr96 said:
andyps said:
Cerberus90 said:
@OP
how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
It is less than a year and has 4GB of ram - a Dell XPS laptop.how old is your current PC?
I take it that seeing as its got Vista on, its not too old, and has at least 2GiB of RAM?
Cyberface - thanks for the really comprehensive answer.
I think I will stick with 32 bit, or at least check for drivers for 64 bit before going that route. I am really tempted by Windows 7 if I have to do the whole re-install of the OS, might as well make sure it works as well as possible, plus slightly fed up with Vista as it seems to be the cause of the problems.
bigburd said:
Munter said:
I've got 64bit on the works PC. Everything runs fine. Except I have yet to find a 3G dongle that supports 64 bit... Gerr. (Mind you I've only tried 2)
I've got a 3 Dongle from costco with 12mth / 12gb usage for approx £70 and it works fine on Win 7 Enterprise.cyberface said:
The current popular available PC CPUs (i.e. from Intel and AMD) are now 64-bit. As a gross simplification, this means that each single 'number' that can be worked with in the CPU is 64 bits in size, which equates to a maximum decimal number of around 1.8 x 10^19, which is a hell of a lot. With 32-bit numbers, the maximum decimal value that can be held in a 32-bit number is around 4 billion. Due to how most computers work (this is a big simplification), any running program can only address as much memory as can be held in one 'number'. So a program running on a 32-bit machine can refer to 4 billion bytes, or 4 gigabytes. This used to be considered a ridiculously large amount of memory, but we're now doing a lot more with our computers and this is a limitation.
Hence 32-bit machines can only work with 4 GB at a time. There are clever tricks around the limitation, but the basic rule is that if you're running a 32-bit operating system on 32-bit hardware, you can only install 4 GB of memory (RAM). Since the current technology is 64-bit, you can install much more than 4 GB of RAM into your machine. But if the operating system you run is 32-bit code (such as older versions of Windows, or the 32-bit editions of XP, Vista and Windows 7), then typically any memory over 4 GB is wasted and not seen by the system.
Some versions of 32-bit Windows (with PAE - physical address extension IIRC) allow you to 'see' more than 4 GB - up to 32 GB on 32-bit Windows Server with PAE, IIRC. But because a 32-bit number can only go as big as 4 billion, any one program running on your system will only be able to address 4 GB. So if you're doing scientific computing with huge data sets, or running a relational database and wanting as much data cached in RAM as possible for performance, the 4 GB limit can be a problem.
Virtually any computer *hardware* you buy today will be 64-bit and capable of installing, and using, much more than 4 GB of memory. However you need the operating system and applications to be 64-bit to take advantage of more than 4 GB of RAM.
This is where it gets tricky. Forget Apple for the time being - they had consumer 64-bit hardware well before anyone else and so 64-bit on Apple is very easy and now (with Snow Leopard) standard. Windows is a different kettle of catfish.
Remember that the *hardware* is 64-bit these days. However you have a choice of operating systems. Microsoft make Windows in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. This is because a 32-bit device driver won't work with a 64-bit operating system kernel, you need a 64-bit device driver to work with a 64-bit operating system kernel. And whilst you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system, it's via a workaround and ideally, for performance, you want to recompile your applications for 64-bit.
Why is this a problem? Because PCs are made by lots of different companies and Microsoft can't be responsible for writing high-quality device drivers for every single piece of hardware on the market. So it's often down to the hardware manufacturers to write device drivers for their components. Take the most obvious example of a graphics card. These are complicated, very powerful accessories and require close access to the kernel for high performance. If the graphics card driver is poorly written, it can crash the entire system. If your graphics card only has a 32-bit driver supplied by the manufacturer, then you won't be able to use it to its full if you choose to run 64-bit Windows.
The bottom line is that if you're running applications that could usefully make use of more than 4 GB of RAM (photo editing with very high resolution raw images, video editing, scientific computing, database software, financial modelling, etc.) then using a 64-bit version of your favourite operating system (this applies to Linux as well as Windows) could be well worth doing. For most common 'home' computing it's not as much of a big deal.
However if you want to run a 64-bit operating system... make sure that you can get 64-bit device drivers for all of the peripherals in your computer. It's pretty much as simple as that - Microsoft will happily sell you a 64-bit version of Windows, but you need to get 64-bit drivers for your system. If you can, then it will work very well. If you can't, or the 64-bit drivers from third parties are known for being buggy or immature / unstable, then stick to 32-bit Windows and 32-bit drivers, which have been around a lot longer and have been more fully tested.
If you're using Linux then the 64-bit issue is a bit less problematic because the device driver source code is open and available, and most of the time you only need to recompile it for 64-bit. But even in the Linux world there are some closed-source drivers (some Wifi adapter code, and some graphics card drivers, aren't available for Linux so Linux just uses the Windows driver wrapped up) so you have the same problem there.
If you're using a Mac - it just comes down to hardware (i.e. which Mac you've got). Apple only used one 32-bit Intel CPU (their very first Core Duo systems were 32-bit), but all subsequent Intel systems and the previous G5 PowerPC systems are 64-bit. Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has both 64-bit and 32-bit code to support all Intel Macs. If you want to run 64-bit scientific code on the old PowerPC G5 Macs (which in certain cases are still very fast), then you need Leopard (OS X 10.5) which has drivers for 64-bit PowerPC, 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Intel and 32-bit Intel. But the Intel kernel is 32-bit on Leopard - you need Snow Leopard for a full 64-bit kernel on Intel.
Sounds a bit complicated, but if you're using Windows, a simplistic approach is (a) do you need more than 4 GB of RAM, and (b) if yes, are 64-bit Windows device drivers available for all the components in your PC.
Great post, sums up what I thought but couldn't it explain it so well!!Hence 32-bit machines can only work with 4 GB at a time. There are clever tricks around the limitation, but the basic rule is that if you're running a 32-bit operating system on 32-bit hardware, you can only install 4 GB of memory (RAM). Since the current technology is 64-bit, you can install much more than 4 GB of RAM into your machine. But if the operating system you run is 32-bit code (such as older versions of Windows, or the 32-bit editions of XP, Vista and Windows 7), then typically any memory over 4 GB is wasted and not seen by the system.
Some versions of 32-bit Windows (with PAE - physical address extension IIRC) allow you to 'see' more than 4 GB - up to 32 GB on 32-bit Windows Server with PAE, IIRC. But because a 32-bit number can only go as big as 4 billion, any one program running on your system will only be able to address 4 GB. So if you're doing scientific computing with huge data sets, or running a relational database and wanting as much data cached in RAM as possible for performance, the 4 GB limit can be a problem.
Virtually any computer *hardware* you buy today will be 64-bit and capable of installing, and using, much more than 4 GB of memory. However you need the operating system and applications to be 64-bit to take advantage of more than 4 GB of RAM.
This is where it gets tricky. Forget Apple for the time being - they had consumer 64-bit hardware well before anyone else and so 64-bit on Apple is very easy and now (with Snow Leopard) standard. Windows is a different kettle of catfish.
Remember that the *hardware* is 64-bit these days. However you have a choice of operating systems. Microsoft make Windows in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. This is because a 32-bit device driver won't work with a 64-bit operating system kernel, you need a 64-bit device driver to work with a 64-bit operating system kernel. And whilst you can run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system, it's via a workaround and ideally, for performance, you want to recompile your applications for 64-bit.
Why is this a problem? Because PCs are made by lots of different companies and Microsoft can't be responsible for writing high-quality device drivers for every single piece of hardware on the market. So it's often down to the hardware manufacturers to write device drivers for their components. Take the most obvious example of a graphics card. These are complicated, very powerful accessories and require close access to the kernel for high performance. If the graphics card driver is poorly written, it can crash the entire system. If your graphics card only has a 32-bit driver supplied by the manufacturer, then you won't be able to use it to its full if you choose to run 64-bit Windows.
The bottom line is that if you're running applications that could usefully make use of more than 4 GB of RAM (photo editing with very high resolution raw images, video editing, scientific computing, database software, financial modelling, etc.) then using a 64-bit version of your favourite operating system (this applies to Linux as well as Windows) could be well worth doing. For most common 'home' computing it's not as much of a big deal.
However if you want to run a 64-bit operating system... make sure that you can get 64-bit device drivers for all of the peripherals in your computer. It's pretty much as simple as that - Microsoft will happily sell you a 64-bit version of Windows, but you need to get 64-bit drivers for your system. If you can, then it will work very well. If you can't, or the 64-bit drivers from third parties are known for being buggy or immature / unstable, then stick to 32-bit Windows and 32-bit drivers, which have been around a lot longer and have been more fully tested.
If you're using Linux then the 64-bit issue is a bit less problematic because the device driver source code is open and available, and most of the time you only need to recompile it for 64-bit. But even in the Linux world there are some closed-source drivers (some Wifi adapter code, and some graphics card drivers, aren't available for Linux so Linux just uses the Windows driver wrapped up) so you have the same problem there.
If you're using a Mac - it just comes down to hardware (i.e. which Mac you've got). Apple only used one 32-bit Intel CPU (their very first Core Duo systems were 32-bit), but all subsequent Intel systems and the previous G5 PowerPC systems are 64-bit. Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6) has both 64-bit and 32-bit code to support all Intel Macs. If you want to run 64-bit scientific code on the old PowerPC G5 Macs (which in certain cases are still very fast), then you need Leopard (OS X 10.5) which has drivers for 64-bit PowerPC, 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit Intel and 32-bit Intel. But the Intel kernel is 32-bit on Leopard - you need Snow Leopard for a full 64-bit kernel on Intel.
Sounds a bit complicated, but if you're using Windows, a simplistic approach is (a) do you need more than 4 GB of RAM, and (b) if yes, are 64-bit Windows device drivers available for all the components in your PC.
It entirely depends on the addressable memory available...
With 32 bit there is a theoretical maximum limit. 4GB. The BIOS, graphics card memory and so on, come out of this 4GB limit. Therefore if you have a 1GB graphics card, the most available to the OS will be 3GB.. If you run more than one graphics card this could present you with a problem sooner than you think. Since you've probably only got 1 graphics card in your machine you probably won't hit a limit here.. but if you do, I'd do the sums.
With 64 bit there is a theoretical maximum limit of 16EB (exabytes)..
With 32 bit there is a theoretical maximum limit. 4GB. The BIOS, graphics card memory and so on, come out of this 4GB limit. Therefore if you have a 1GB graphics card, the most available to the OS will be 3GB.. If you run more than one graphics card this could present you with a problem sooner than you think. Since you've probably only got 1 graphics card in your machine you probably won't hit a limit here.. but if you do, I'd do the sums.
With 64 bit there is a theoretical maximum limit of 16EB (exabytes)..
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff