If it's compiled in a 64-bit version. A 32-bit program won't magically be able to make use of the added registers.
Windows Vista/7: x86 or x64?
- Thread starter ATimson
- Start date
Vista and Windows 7 run solid on my AMD Phenom Quad Core w/8GB of RAM. I've not had driver issues, but as you're aware, some hardware vendors can be a little obtuse.
The only reason now why I would recommend 32bit as opposed to 64bit is if you have less than 4GB of RAM. 64 bit memory addresses are larger in size and the operating system has to keep track of what's in memory where and they do this by storing these tables in RAM. The simple fact of using a 64 bit OS means you're going to use more memory just from the memory required to store memory addressing information. Consequently, it's possible to suffer a performance penalty by going to a 64 bit OS when you have less RAM.
Having said that, if you're planning on this machine lasting 5-6 years, you most definitely want to go with 64 bit and get at least 4GB of RAM and, in my opinion 6-8GB. If you only want to get 4GB, that would be fine too, but I'd say in that case, leave room for expansion. For a general purpose computer, RAM is probably the most important spec. For a gaming computer, I still say RAM with Display Adapter being a very, very close second.
The only reason now why I would recommend 32bit as opposed to 64bit is if you have less than 4GB of RAM. 64 bit memory addresses are larger in size and the operating system has to keep track of what's in memory where and they do this by storing these tables in RAM. The simple fact of using a 64 bit OS means you're going to use more memory just from the memory required to store memory addressing information. Consequently, it's possible to suffer a performance penalty by going to a 64 bit OS when you have less RAM.
Having said that, if you're planning on this machine lasting 5-6 years, you most definitely want to go with 64 bit and get at least 4GB of RAM and, in my opinion 6-8GB. If you only want to get 4GB, that would be fine too, but I'd say in that case, leave room for expansion. For a general purpose computer, RAM is probably the most important spec. For a gaming computer, I still say RAM with Display Adapter being a very, very close second.
But the cpu itself will be running under 64bit OS and as such would be used to it's fullest potential compared to the 32bit OS.
I'm not saying the speed gains would be very large ... no.
But for the most part you would experience some increase in responsiveness and speed to begin with.
Besides ... if your CPU is 64bit compliant ... why not switch and maximize it's efficiency?
Only I7 boards support 3 channel DDR3 so far (maybe I5 and I3 will to).
It's looking like i5 may only be dual-channel. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any specs yet, despite the fact that the boards are supposed to be out this month.
Tried, still no good...
It's looking like i5 may only be dual-channel. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any specs yet, despite the fact that the boards are supposed to be out this month.
That sucks, I thought the only difference for the different versions would be cache, clock speed and maybe cores.
Maybe it's like some one said, 3 channel DDR3 doesn’t show enough of a performance gain in benchmarks to make it worth it for the lower end processors?
It's looking like i5 may only be dual-channel. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any specs yet, despite the fact that the boards are supposed to be out this month.
That sucks, I thought the only difference for the different versions would be cache, clock speed and maybe cores.
Maybe it's like some one said, 3 channel DDR3 doesn’t show enough of a performance gain in benchmarks to make it worth it for the lower end processors?
Though the consideration might - what if you decide to intall a faster processor later than can take advantage of triple channel DDR-3.
Odds are that Intel will change the sockets again before I want to upgrade the processor.
Odds are that Intel will change the sockets again before I want to upgrade the processor.
True. After all Intel does change sockets like the rest of change underwear.
Since 2007 when AMD introduced the AM2+ (minor revision to the AM2 introduced in 2006) to add support for the Phenoms they've just added the AM3 for Athlon II and Phenom II support but at the same time you can put an Phenom II on a AM2+ board as well as the Athlon 64, 64FX, 64X2, Sempron and Phenom (I've got a Biostar AM2+ board currently running a Phenon II X3 that's overclocked/unlocked through the bios).
Intel has released or pending release of the Socket P, Socket B, Socket 1155 and 1156) - 4 sockets and stuff all backwards compataiblity.
Socket P is being replaced by 1155/1156, and I'm pretty sure that 1155/1156 are the same socket, and it was just a typo in the leaked PowerPoint presentation.
Maybe that leaked presenation lead to
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Socket-LGA-1155-1156-and-1567-Pictures-Leaked-103939.shtml
which which was cited as reference in wikipedia.
Just checked Anandtech.com and they've got lots for the 1156 but nothing on the 1155.
However googling on Socket 1155 leads to lots of entrys for the 1155 such as cooling products to suit Socket 1155 & 56 boards.
So who knows?
Intel.
