64bit myths...

[ex_forum_user_3]

Hi guys,

Sadly there are a lot of people that think they have seen the light and move to 64bit Linux / Windows for no reason other then that they think it's the future.
Unless you have 64bit programs today it is still the future, ergo not for today.

Let me explain what happens as many people get confused about memory and addressing, and it's exactly there where the problem is.

32bit = 2^32 addresses !!IS NOT!! 4GByte memory!

It is 4 Giga addresses, to be exact: 4 294 967 296 addresses.

Here comes the fun stuff....these are addresses, meaning they can be used to address something...OEPS?
Address something?
Well yes....can be a BIOS, Videocard, Harddisk controller and sadly not yet the computer user itself

Anyway, as you can see there is limited number of addresses and memory comes last to be addressed, that is why the BIOS checks devices first and does memory check last.
This last memory check if nothing more then a count of memory it can address without disrupting other devices.

Therefor as the BIOS checks as far as it can, it will report mostly memory - devices (unless it has options to relocate, only for 64bit OS)

To continue, this addressing is the key to everything, also why a 64bit OS has no advantage over 32bit IF your software is 32bit.

Because as said, 32bit = 4 294 967 296, well that doesn't change in Windows 64bit either.
Your program is still unable to address outside the boundary and so are the devices, mostly converted or simulated.
The 32bit program simply doesn't know there are more bits to be used and therefor thinks it's in 32bit Windows and as such expects to be threated as such.
This is compatibility, sadly this compatibility is limited as it doesn't allow direct hardware access but drivers need this and it's not simulated!
So programs that have 32bit drivers or 32bit drivers for older devices WILL NOT WORK!

The only way to get the full 64bit is using 64bit compiled programs, as they KNOW they can use 64bit.
Sadly only a small portion of those programs are.

There is absolutely no point in using 64bit Windows if you have NO 64bit programs, you only complicate matters for yourself as the support for W64 is limited by a lot of companies.
I'm testing Sip-phones myself, all 32bit as I have not seen a 64bit yet, and they all fail to work except 3CX as that one is patched to work in W64.
Same as for a lot of .NET software, they won't run and give errors, especial the older ones.

Ok, we install XP compatibilty mode! (Virtual PC that is), well forget that, you can't game in there nor use realtime applications, simply forget that.

So if you have no 64bit apps, let the future for what it is and wait until you really need it.
Sure I will get a lot of people saying I'm wrong, well no problem, I'm not telling you shouldn't use it, I'm just saying that if you don't need it now there is no reason to use it.

Nobody stops you from running it anyway and be happy figuring out why software won't run.

Also running 32bit software in 64bit windows isn't faster, it can't be because all stuff needs to be translated to 64bit drivers, at best you have the same speed.
Unless, again, your software is 64bit compiled, then it can be faster.

Don't get caught in the more bits is faster or better marketing, as it's not the case apart from a few exceptions.
You know when you must run 64bit Windows...if you don't stick with 32bit.

 

[gfilitti]

Pretty much I agree.

A good portion of retail OEM configurations are now sold with 64 Bit OS's unfortunately. Including Business.
Myself, I would prefer to use 32 Bit but I have programs that will utilize the additional memory. I basically chose 64Bit for now so I can at least experience the problems so I can better support systems where I work. They are aggressively seeking to go to 64 Bit in the next couple years. At least in product design and design engineering.

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

Well not in Europe, everything is sold with 32bit here.
OEMs here don't ship 64bit unless you ask specific about it, but most don't.

 

[MexicanSnake]

64 bits is the way to go these days if you need to allocate more resources, its cleanner too.

 

[Dutch]

Hmm something to read about http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=91260  64bit is maybe something to consider.

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

Dutch, that guy is utterly wrong!

He's so incredibly wrong, it's not even funny anymore, he copies VGA memory into system memory with 32bit Windows, how dumb is that?
I set one example, you can work out the rest:

2GB system ram
1GB video card
1GB system ram usable, The last 1GB would fight with the video card ram here. If you dont lower texture settings, resolution, and AA you'll get pretty nasty stuttering as you run out of ram.

2GB ram means that 2GB memory can be addressed, so there is 2GB to be used for other stuff that needs addressing.
Ergo, you have 2GB ram, where Windows is able to give you about 2GB per session but starts swapping, who cares about that.
BUT the VGA memory of 1GB is directly addressable, it will NOT take out 1GB like the guys tells people it does.

Lets see, you have 4GB addresses.

2GB memory (ram), Windows needs a bit for itself, so about 1.7GB is directly usable (without swapping, but hey the sample is 2GB ram)
1GB videomemory is directly addressable, so you lose nothing.

How that guy gets to his 1GB usable is a mistery to me, as he's wrong, or loads a lot of programs that eat memory, like Norton

In 32bit a videocard is NOT duplicated, there is no need as you can access it directly.
However, if you install memory at the places where e.g. BIOS and VGA memory, then the RAM is simply LOST, nothing more nothing less.

In 64bit it MUST be duplicated as you can access the videocard directly anymore, that is also the reason why 32bit software runs SLOWER in 64bit windows.

And the 2GB user-space in 32bit Windows isn't true either, ever since XP PAE is enabled by default allowing programs to use upto 3.5GB, as long as there isn't other devices it the way.

And his 2GB 64bit same is totally bogus.

And to make his rubbish complete:

crysis is very VERY badly coded for DX10.

Games like crysis are DX9 ran through an automated converter to DX10... and it doesnt work well. they run like crap.

Crysis is NOT DX10, never was....it only has a detection to see if the OS is Vista and allows you to run the Very-High settings....very funny is, it's a different set of files.
If you copy those to the XP names all the Very-high stuff works the same (and at better speed!) under DX-9 in XP.
Crysis cheats, as it is a DX9 game and not DX10.
There is nothing more then a DX-10 detection in it so it uses a different set of files enabling you very-high settings....a simple copy of those files does the same for XP.

64bit is only useful if you have 64bit software, not if you use 32bit.

 

[gadu2]

and Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 32bit/64bit ? u can use 64bit programs, and 32bit, is combined windows. what about that? 

 

[Stu]

The retail versions of Windows 7 come with two DVDs, one for 32bit, the other for 64bit. 32bit software will run under 64bit Windows, but will still encounter the limitations of 32bit.

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

Not only do you encounter the same limitations, also a lot of software won't work as you can't use:

Software that uses specific 32bit drivers, you MUST use 64biot drivers or it won't work.

Software that access specific memory ranges, you can do that in the 32bit "emulation"

Software that is realtime, often starts to stutter or crash

It is NOT a combined windows.
Windows64 is 64bit....but provides a 32bit environment that is about 80% compatible it is NOT the real deal, like in Windows 32bit.

It is not like VirtualPC, that Emulates a complete PC...but is way slower.

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

Today a lot of stuff works in 64bit Windows, but still most isn't compiled for 64bit.
It works better, but still there is little need
About 2 years later.....

 

[Epsilon]

Hi Bas,

I realize this thread is quite old, but you recently brought it back up. I also realize that you are the admin on this board and I'm not trying to offend you.

Your concept about the 64 bit OS is not quite right. I'll only bring up Windows as that is my expertise. Actually, I believe Linux has been ahead of Windows in many ways over the years as far as 64 bit OS's go.

32-bit Windows
32 bit Windows since Windows XP SP2 have been able to address 2 GB of user space. The other 2 GB is kernel mapping. People tend to get confused between the operating system memory and the physical memory available. So please be sure of the distinction I try to make here.

All Windows memory is virtualized by the Page Table. And each user space application has it's own virtualized 2 GB user space.  The kernel has it's own 2 GB of space. Thus if you run three applications, You can be using 2 GB of system memory, 2 GB of user space for application one, 2 GB for application 2 and 2 GB for application three. How? Only if you have at least a 4 GB page file. This is an ideal condition. In reality, Windows will not page memory marked as non-pageable to disk. So a larger page file is required.

I'm going to ignore the conditions that allow the use of the /3gb switch and PAE software. PAE software is not as prevalent as you may think for Windows. That software is generally for servers such as databases and other enterprise software. Enabling the /3gb switch reduces the available paged pool memory and non-paged pool memory. Part of this is the memory available for the Page Table Entries. Enabling /3gb reduces the number of user space applications that can run in their own virtually mapped memory.

64 bit
What does 64 bit Windows bring to you? It moves all virtually mapped kernel memory, paged pool and non-paged pool, device I/O mapping and device memory to the top of the 16 Terabyte memory mapping. All 64 bit programs have their user space mapped to the low addresses in the first terabyte memory area. Typically, the kernel loads from the top of available ram and user programs load starting at the bottom of available ram. Just as in 32 bit Windows, all memory addresses are virtualized. Two user programs can reside in the same numerical virtual addresses but the CPU knows which one it is working with at the time.

64 bit makes a huge difference. All 32 bit user programs can now take the full 4 GB virtualized memory if it wants for user space. Thus, 8 GB can help 32 bit programs if one is a memory glutton. Windows 7 handles 32 bit programs excellently. All you need to do is to make sure that your device drivers are supported in the 64 bit environment. Most 32 bit programs won't even try to take up 4 GB of memory.

I run 64 bit Windows 7 with 4 GB of RAM. I never use a page file as that would slow my machine. Unfortunately, Windows still tends to page kernel memory when it can. That's why I don't use a page file. Linux has never used the page file unless it ran out of physical memory and I've never seen that except on gimped memory systems. Windows will also use any available memory for the disk cache which changes dynamically based on application and kernel requirements which have precedence.

Here are a couple of reference links if you will.

Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx

Windows 7 64-bit adoption rate higher than 32-bit for gamers http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-7-64-bit-adoption-rate-higher-than-32-bit-for-gamers

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

64 bit makes a huge difference. All 32 bit user programs can now take the full 4 GB virtualized memory if it wants for user space. Thus, 8 GB can help 32 bit programs if one is a memory glutton. Windows 7 handles 32 bit programs excellently. All you need to do is to make sure that your device drivers are supported in the 64 bit environment. Most 32 bit programs won't even try to take up 4 GB of memory.

We tested this with a memory-free program, and what you say is not true.
We used a system with 8GB ram and we where unable to fill it, as soon as we hit the ~3GB barrier it started swapping just as e.g. XP does.
The only way you can use it ALL if you run totally virtual, but Windows does not for compatibility issues.
Windows 64bit does nothing for 32bit programs, in fact it runs them even slower.
Test it yourself, take a memory-counter (64bit) then start as many 32bit programs as you can, watch and see what happens as soon as you hit the ~3GB barrier, Windows 64 bit starts swapping.
Windows isn't running 32bit virtual, who ever told you that needs to take lessons in CPU workings.
The only way to use above 4GB space with 32bit programs is running 100% virtual, but that's very poor for gaming.
32bit simply can't use more then 2^32 address-space, and bank-switching has been done in the past, but is very slow for e.g. gaming.

I run Linux 64bit too, and Linux is a totally different animal where you can control paging yourself, and it does page all the time but how it does is up to you.

As said before, the article is very old, but still 32bit programs do not benefit from 64bit Windows, not now not ever, simply because the way Windows handles it.
Today CPU's are powerful, as such the speed difference isn't noticeable between 32 and 64bit OS, however it's still slower if you benchmark.

As for Windows without a page-file, I would not do that, regardless the amount of memory you have, as some Windows programs depend on the pagefile to run properly.
It's not smart to turn it off, have one, even when it's just 100MB.

 

[doubleohseven]

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/what-expect-windows-8-795

Just some interesting info, seen this on several sites suggesting that Windows 8 (speculated release as of late 2012) will only come in two flavors, x64 and the new x128 bit.  Seems that the days of x32 may be dying, as x64 will be the new standard, if this is true of course.  With that, hopefully we would see alot more (if not all) native x64 programs, drivers, and games come out as the new standard.  

Ive also been using x64 since the XP days, it was alot worse then, but I really don't see x64 being such an issue now, i've had no problems running it since Vista... Theoretically, it may be slower than running x32 applications running on x32, but in real world testing, I have noticed no difference in gaming between the two.

And I agree, running no page-file is a bad idea. 500MB-1GB is good, regardless of how much memory you have.

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

128bit.....there is no such CPU and there won't be any in the near future.
People that write 128bit CPU rubbish have no clue about electronics.
64bit memory lanes are already impossible to address them all, let alone 128bit addressing.
Sorry, but this is the biggest bull I have heard for a long time.

Not only isn't there any need in the near future, there isn't a real need to leave the 32bit CPU path just yet.
Windows 7 doesn't even catch on that good as XP does most jobs without problems for companies.

If Microsoft kills 32bit, they may find themselves being on the exit path by many users and Linux takes over.
Don't think that there aren't a lot 32bit systems, as there still are more then 64bit capable systems.

32bit isn't going away soon, if MS thinks that their W8 will be the last 32bit version they ever made => people will ditch them in masses.
Heck the Intel Atom found in the Wind U100 isn't capable of 64bit, but that CPU is just a few years old

In about 10 years time 32bit has gone, but not before that, then 64bit will last for at least 40 years (if not longer).

 

[doubleohseven]

Of course, I am just going off of information I read on a daily basis, as well as testing stuff for myself.  Like I said before, I feel no real difference in performance between x32 and x64, so why not use x64 (unless you have a specific issue leading you not to use it, i.e incompatible hardware/program)?

Also, I don't build CPU's, so I can not comment if a x128 CPU is possible, but here's something else I read... http://windows8themes.org/amd-working-on-128-bit-cpu-or-fpu.html

As far as killing off x32, I would not personally comment if that would be the demise of Microsoft... I know I would be just as happy with WIndows 8 if they offered no x32, of course I wouldn't consider myself to be the normal end user, so I see where you are coming from. I know alot of systems are not x64, and therefore would kinda be screwed if this were true about Win 8 (I guess they would have to stick with Win 7 until they upgraded hardware, of course just speculating if this was true about Win 8).  But I also do know that I have a 5 year old laptop, and over 8 year old desktop that ARE x64 capable...

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

FPU is not a CPU, FPU is just a calculation unit, and if they make it 128bit that's not a problem as it only means it has 128bit precision, it doesn't mean it is 128bit at all.
You can do 256 bit calculations on a 32bit CPU too, but you have to pull tricks.

Oh and trust me, you would not like 32bit Windows to be killed, as your 64bit Windows would be unworkable.

And why aren't you the normal user? The fact you use Windows makes you the normal user, like it or not :lol_anim:

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

But I also do know that I have a 5 year old laptop, and over 8 year old desktop that ARE x64 capable...

Rubbish, the Intel Atom first series are less old and DO NOT DO 64bit.

 

[doubleohseven]

Excuse my ignorance then, but how would that make my x64 unworkable? I'm not trying to come of as sarcastic, I just don't understand... I like learning new things

And I wouldn't call myself a "normal" user just because I feel I have a little bit better than average understanding of Windows, and can troubleshoot things myself when I get a BSOD and such.  I guess I hang around alot of old folk who think the world is ending when little things go wrong with their computers. Sorry if I used the wrong term for myself, lol.

And I NEVER said there were x128 CPU's I was just posting what I read about, showing possible hardware capable of running a x128 Win 8.

 

[doubleohseven]

Rubbish, the Intel Atom first series are less old and DO NOT DO 64bit.

??
Sorry, laptops are 4 years old.
http://ark.intel.com/products/33917/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-T9300-(6M-Cache-2_50-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)
http://ark.intel.com/products/33918/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-T9500-(6M-Cache-2_60-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)

Desktop is 6 years old.
http://ark.intel.com/products/27520/Intel-Pentium-D-Processor-945-(4M-Cache-3_40-GHz-800-MHz-FSB)

Are these not x64? I thought Intel released the first x64 CPU in 2001?

I'm not trying to make this an argument at all, just a friendly discussion.  Like I said before, I like reading and learning new things.  Again, like I said before, why not use x64 if you have no incompatibility problems with it?

 

[ex_forum_user_3]

Intel Atom, 3 years old: http://ark.intel.com/products/36331/Intel-Atom-Processor-N270-%28512K-Cache-1_60-GHz-533-MHz-FSB%29
No 64bit.

Used in Mini-laptops and mini boards and sold quite a lot.