«

32-bit programs will be just as fast (or slow depending on how you look at
it) on an equivelant speed 32- or 64- bit processor and OS. The only real
difference (besides maybe an enhaced instruction set) is that in theory it
uses 64-bits for data and hence can store and transfer bigger numbers around
than you can transfer in 32-bit processors (where the biggest integer you
could represent in a register was something like 4 billion or 2 raised to
the power of 32, minus 1 -- now you can store and transfer numbers as big as
2 raised to the power of 64, minus 1 -- will that make programs faster, I
doubt it, but depending on what format windows stores dates in and stuff
like that, an upgrade may be absolutely required if you want the OS to
function correctly in 20 years or so).

If all you run is 32-bit programs, then it's not going to be that big of a
difference UNLESS maybe you did what i did and got a dual-core CPU (which I
don't think you did from what I read) and in that case the processors
pretends like it's 2 processors and does twice as much twice as fast, but I
don't know that it works in 32-bit windows in that mode.

The only advantage of going to a 64-bit OS right now is, well, err, umm..
You get to learn what does and doesn't work before everyone else does --
your whole purpose in life could be to serve as a warning to others...

To summarize, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but then neither does
anyone else (I mean how could they know what I'm talking about....) ;->

-Rob


"aescleahs" <> wrote in message
news:3131BD40-ACA8-4711-A690-...
> now im even more confuesed. i thought it was to do with the drivers that
> interfaced with windows...
> and im aware that 32bits are as good as dead...but thats not the topic of
> the question. I asked if there will be a significant increas in
> performace.
> Or id if i stay wit XP 32bit how does it process? two things at once? or
> is
> it only using 32bits out of the 64.
> Im not a complete technophobe jst a little bit out of touch with
> technology
> in its cureent state
>
> "Andre Da Costa" wrote:
>
>> To be honest, you can have 64 bit processor and a 64 bit operating
>> system,
>> but it won't make much of a significant difference without the 64 bit
>> applications. I agree with Colin B. though, invest in the processor since
>> 32-bit processors will be kicking the bucket soon, so that when the time
>> comes to invest in both the native 64 bit applications, peripherals you
>> will
>> be sure that you are ready.
>> --
>> Andre
>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>>
>> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>> news:1F1F9B36-8D2A-412F-9E67-...
>> >i didnt mention it becuase its not a specific make, im building it from
>> > parts, if you want the full spec then its
>> > AMD x64 3400+
>> > Asus A8N SLI-deluxe
>> > Nvidia Geforce 7800GTX
>> > 3Gb RAM
>> >
>> > Ill be using it mainly for gaming and ocasionaly programming etc.
>> > as for peripherals a printer, scanner etc.
>> > Ok, so with a 64bit os it can process 64bits in one go, so surely on a
>> > 32bit
>> > OS it can only use 1/2 the processor... am i jst being slightly thick
>> > and
>> > missing something.
>> > thanks
>> >
>> >> You did not say what kind of computer you are buying nor did you
>> >> indicate
>> >> what kind of programs you plan to run or what peripherals you plan to
>> >> use
>> >> with the new computer. All of this makes big differences in whether
>> >> or
>> >> not
>> >> to use XP x64 or stick with 32-bit Windows. Please take a look at the
>> >> webcast Charlie Russel did just a few weeks ago:
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?id=909753
>> >>
>> >> Do not confuse the 64-bit processor with the 64-bit operating system.
>> >> You
>> >> should buy a 64-bit processor since for all practical purposes the end
>> >> of
>> >> the 32-bit era for processors is here and everything going forward
>> >> will
>> >> be
>> >> 64-bit.
>> >>
>> >> 32-bit XP runs slightly more efficiently on 64-bit computers than it
>> >> does
>> >> on
>> >> 32-bit systems and there is no incompatibility when you run 32-bit
>> >> Windows
>> >> on the newer systems.
>> >>
>> >> It is not necessary to run the 64-bit edition of XP and unless you
>> >> expect
>> >> specific advantages, perhaps you should stick with one of the 32-bit
>> >> editions.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>> >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>> >> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:1BAC2829-E5B4-418B-A0A0-...
>> >> > Im about to buy a new computer and im upgrading the processor to an
>> >> > AMD
>> >> > x64.
>> >> > I was wondering if using Windows 64bit will make a noticable
>> >> > diffrence
>> >> > to
>> >> > the
>> >> > performance. or if i stay with standart windows will i only b using
>> >> > 1/2
>> >> > the
>> >> > processor?
>> >> > Im not sure how the technology works so if someone can explain then
>> >> > I'd
>> >> > be
>> >> > greatful.
>> >> > Aesc-leah
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

Of course those new instructions are basically the same instructions as the
old instructions except they happen to work on 64-bit registers instead of
32-bit registers, so instead of AND AX,BX it might be AND.64 AX,BX (or
whatever appropriate register names are).

--Rob

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%239nj%23GR%...
>A 32-bit OS just doesn't use all of the instruction set available on a
>64-bit processor. However, all of the expected 32-bit instructions are
>available as before.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
> news:68FD58C7-E219-4A6E-BAFE-...
>>i was planning on going for the FX's later on (money is in short supply)
>> i may leave the RAM at 2gb for the time being.
>> and thanks ive been tryin to find that out for ages no one wud give me
>> a
>> straight answer
>> ">No,
>> > using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor is not like using half the
>> > processor."
>>
>> guess i need to do a bit more research. (still doing A-levels at college)
>> thanks for being patient
>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>
>>> You keep asking if you are being slightly thick here. Ask often enough
>>> and
>>> somebody may answer that.
>>>
>>> It sounds like you are confusing the processor with the memory manager.
>>> No,
>>> using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor is not like using half the
>>> processor.
>>>
>>> Why are you planning on buying 3GB of ram? Buy 4GB. Or leave it at 2GB
>>> to
>>> save money. Also, since you are planning to do gaming, I suggest you
>>> look
>>> at an AMD64FX, or go dual core with an AMD64 Athlon x2 4400+ or 4800+.
>>>
>>> Since you are building the system, set it up with three drives. One for
>>> XP
>>> Pro SP2, one for XP Pro x64 in case you decide to dual boot later, and
>>> one
>>> for data.
>>>
>>> Whatever, make sure you put in a 500+ Watt PS and that it is SLI ready.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1F1F9B36-8D2A-412F-9E67-...
>>> >i didnt mention it becuase its not a specific make, im building it from
>>> > parts, if you want the full spec then its
>>> > AMD x64 3400+
>>> > Asus A8N SLI-deluxe
>>> > Nvidia Geforce 7800GTX
>>> > 3Gb RAM
>>> >
>>> > Ill be using it mainly for gaming and ocasionaly programming etc.
>>> > as for peripherals a printer, scanner etc.
>>> > Ok, so with a 64bit os it can process 64bits in one go, so surely on a
>>> > 32bit
>>> > OS it can only use 1/2 the processor... am i jst being slightly thick
>>> > and
>>> > missing something.
>>> > thanks
>>> >
>>> >> You did not say what kind of computer you are buying nor did you
>>> >> indicate
>>> >> what kind of programs you plan to run or what peripherals you plan to
>>> >> use
>>> >> with the new computer. All of this makes big differences in whether
>>> >> or
>>> >> not
>>> >> to use XP x64 or stick with 32-bit Windows. Please take a look at
>>> >> the
>>> >> webcast Charlie Russel did just a few weeks ago:
>>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?id=909753
>>> >>
>>> >> Do not confuse the 64-bit processor with the 64-bit operating system.
>>> >> You
>>> >> should buy a 64-bit processor since for all practical purposes the
>>> >> end of
>>> >> the 32-bit era for processors is here and everything going forward
>>> >> will
>>> >> be
>>> >> 64-bit.
>>> >>
>>> >> 32-bit XP runs slightly more efficiently on 64-bit computers than it
>>> >> does
>>> >> on
>>> >> 32-bit systems and there is no incompatibility when you run 32-bit
>>> >> Windows
>>> >> on the newer systems.
>>> >>
>>> >> It is not necessary to run the 64-bit edition of XP and unless you
>>> >> expect
>>> >> specific advantages, perhaps you should stick with one of the 32-bit
>>> >> editions.
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>> >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>> >> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>>> >> news:1BAC2829-E5B4-418B-A0A0-...
>>> >> > Im about to buy a new computer and im upgrading the processor to an
>>> >> > AMD
>>> >> > x64.
>>> >> > I was wondering if using Windows 64bit will make a noticable
>>> >> > diffrence
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > performance. or if i stay with standart windows will i only b using
>>> >> > 1/2
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > processor?
>>> >> > Im not sure how the technology works so if someone can explain then
>>> >> > I'd
>>> >> > be
>>> >> > greatful.
>>> >> > Aesc-leah
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

Ok you are into games. Stuff like farcry and such. I have a feeling With
the new Games and your SLI. It best to go for windows 64 Pro. See Windows
64 will be around for a few years.

32-bit XP uses two cores just exactly the same as x64 XP.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Rob Wilkens wrote:
> 32-bit programs will be just as fast (or slow depending on how you look at
> it) on an equivelant speed 32- or 64- bit processor and OS. The only real
> difference (besides maybe an enhaced instruction set) is that in theory it
> uses 64-bits for data and hence can store and transfer bigger numbers
> around than you can transfer in 32-bit processors (where the biggest
> integer you could represent in a register was something like 4 billion or
> 2 raised to the power of 32, minus 1 -- now you can store and transfer
> numbers as big as 2 raised to the power of 64, minus 1 -- will that make
> programs faster, I doubt it, but depending on what format windows stores
> dates in and stuff like that, an upgrade may be absolutely required if
> you want the OS to function correctly in 20 years or so).
>
> If all you run is 32-bit programs, then it's not going to be that big of a
> difference UNLESS maybe you did what i did and got a dual-core CPU (which
> I don't think you did from what I read) and in that case the processors
> pretends like it's 2 processors and does twice as much twice as fast, but
> I don't know that it works in 32-bit windows in that mode.
>
> The only advantage of going to a 64-bit OS right now is, well, err, umm..
> You get to learn what does and doesn't work before everyone else does --
> your whole purpose in life could be to serve as a warning to others...
>
> To summarize, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but then neither does
> anyone else (I mean how could they know what I'm talking about....) ;->
>
> -Rob
>
>
> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
> news:3131BD40-ACA8-4711-A690-...
>> now im even more confuesed. i thought it was to do with the drivers that
>> interfaced with windows...
>> and im aware that 32bits are as good as dead...but thats not the topic of
>> the question. I asked if there will be a significant increas in
>> performace.
>> Or id if i stay wit XP 32bit how does it process? two things at once? or
>> is
>> it only using 32bits out of the 64.
>> Im not a complete technophobe jst a little bit out of touch with
>> technology
>> in its cureent state
>>
>> "Andre Da Costa" wrote:
>>
>>> To be honest, you can have 64 bit processor and a 64 bit operating
>>> system,
>>> but it won't make much of a significant difference without the 64 bit
>>> applications. I agree with Colin B. though, invest in the processor
>>> since 32-bit processors will be kicking the bucket soon, so that when
>>> the time comes to invest in both the native 64 bit applications,
>>> peripherals you will
>>> be sure that you are ready.
>>> --
>>> Andre
>>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
>>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>>>
>>> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1F1F9B36-8D2A-412F-9E67-...
>>>> i didnt mention it becuase its not a specific make, im building it from
>>>> parts, if you want the full spec then its
>>>> AMD x64 3400+
>>>> Asus A8N SLI-deluxe
>>>> Nvidia Geforce 7800GTX
>>>> 3Gb RAM
>>>>
>>>> Ill be using it mainly for gaming and ocasionaly programming etc.
>>>> as for peripherals a printer, scanner etc.
>>>> Ok, so with a 64bit os it can process 64bits in one go, so surely on a
>>>> 32bit
>>>> OS it can only use 1/2 the processor... am i jst being slightly thick
>>>> and
>>>> missing something.
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>>> You did not say what kind of computer you are buying nor did you
>>>>> indicate
>>>>> what kind of programs you plan to run or what peripherals you plan to
>>>>> use
>>>>> with the new computer. All of this makes big differences in whether
>>>>> or
>>>>> not
>>>>> to use XP x64 or stick with 32-bit Windows. Please take a look at the
>>>>> webcast Charlie Russel did just a few weeks ago:
>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?id=909753
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not confuse the 64-bit processor with the 64-bit operating system.
>>>>> You
>>>>> should buy a 64-bit processor since for all practical purposes the end
>>>>> of
>>>>> the 32-bit era for processors is here and everything going forward
>>>>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>> 64-bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> 32-bit XP runs slightly more efficiently on 64-bit computers than it
>>>>> does
>>>>> on
>>>>> 32-bit systems and there is no incompatibility when you run 32-bit
>>>>> Windows
>>>>> on the newer systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not necessary to run the 64-bit edition of XP and unless you
>>>>> expect
>>>>> specific advantages, perhaps you should stick with one of the 32-bit
>>>>> editions.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>>>> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1BAC2829-E5B4-418B-A0A0-...
>>>>>> Im about to buy a new computer and im upgrading the processor to an
>>>>>> AMD
>>>>>> x64.
>>>>>> I was wondering if using Windows 64bit will make a noticable
>>>>>> diffrence
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> performance. or if i stay with standart windows will i only b using
>>>>>> 1/2
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> processor?
>>>>>> Im not sure how the technology works so if someone can explain then
>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> greatful.
>>>>>> Aesc-leah

There are twice as many registers, they're twice as wide, and they don't use
x87 registers for math functions except in stupid emulation mode.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

Rob Wilkens wrote:
> Of course those new instructions are basically the same instructions as
> the old instructions except they happen to work on 64-bit registers
> instead of 32-bit registers, so instead of AND AX,BX it might be AND.64
> AX,BX (or whatever appropriate register names are).
>
> --Rob
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%239nj%23GR%...
>> A 32-bit OS just doesn't use all of the instruction set available on a
>> 64-bit processor. However, all of the expected 32-bit instructions are
>> available as before.
>>
>> --
>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>> news:68FD58C7-E219-4A6E-BAFE-...
>>> i was planning on going for the FX's later on (money is in short supply)
>>> i may leave the RAM at 2gb for the time being.
>>> and thanks ive been tryin to find that out for ages no one wud give
>>> me a
>>> straight answer
>>> ">No,
>>>> using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor is not like using half the
>>>> processor."
>>>
>>> guess i need to do a bit more research. (still doing A-levels at
>>> college) thanks for being patient
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>>
>>>> You keep asking if you are being slightly thick here. Ask often enough
>>>> and
>>>> somebody may answer that.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you are confusing the processor with the memory manager.
>>>> No,
>>>> using a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor is not like using half the
>>>> processor.
>>>>
>>>> Why are you planning on buying 3GB of ram? Buy 4GB. Or leave it at
>>>> 2GB to
>>>> save money. Also, since you are planning to do gaming, I suggest you
>>>> look
>>>> at an AMD64FX, or go dual core with an AMD64 Athlon x2 4400+ or 4800+.
>>>>
>>>> Since you are building the system, set it up with three drives. One
>>>> for XP
>>>> Pro SP2, one for XP Pro x64 in case you decide to dual boot later, and
>>>> one
>>>> for data.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever, make sure you put in a 500+ Watt PS and that it is SLI ready.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>>> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:1F1F9B36-8D2A-412F-9E67-...
>>>>> i didnt mention it becuase its not a specific make, im building it
>>>>> from parts, if you want the full spec then its
>>>>> AMD x64 3400+
>>>>> Asus A8N SLI-deluxe
>>>>> Nvidia Geforce 7800GTX
>>>>> 3Gb RAM
>>>>>
>>>>> Ill be using it mainly for gaming and ocasionaly programming etc.
>>>>> as for peripherals a printer, scanner etc.
>>>>> Ok, so with a 64bit os it can process 64bits in one go, so surely on a
>>>>> 32bit
>>>>> OS it can only use 1/2 the processor... am i jst being slightly thick
>>>>> and
>>>>> missing something.
>>>>> thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>> You did not say what kind of computer you are buying nor did you
>>>>>> indicate
>>>>>> what kind of programs you plan to run or what peripherals you plan to
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> with the new computer. All of this makes big differences in whether
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> to use XP x64 or stick with 32-bit Windows. Please take a look at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> webcast Charlie Russel did just a few weeks ago:
>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/Default.aspx?id=909753
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do not confuse the 64-bit processor with the 64-bit operating system.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> should buy a 64-bit processor since for all practical purposes the
>>>>>> end of
>>>>>> the 32-bit era for processors is here and everything going forward
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> 64-bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 32-bit XP runs slightly more efficiently on 64-bit computers than it
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> 32-bit systems and there is no incompatibility when you run 32-bit
>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>> on the newer systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not necessary to run the 64-bit edition of XP and unless you
>>>>>> expect
>>>>>> specific advantages, perhaps you should stick with one of the 32-bit
>>>>>> editions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>>>>>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>>>>>> "aescleahs" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1BAC2829-E5B4-418B-A0A0-...
>>>>>>> Im about to buy a new computer and im upgrading the processor to an
>>>>>>> AMD
>>>>>>> x64.
>>>>>>> I was wondering if using Windows 64bit will make a noticable
>>>>>>> diffrence
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> performance. or if i stay with standart windows will i only b using
>>>>>>> 1/2
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> processor?
>>>>>>> Im not sure how the technology works so if someone can explain then
>>>>>>> I'd
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> greatful.
>>>>>>> Aesc-leah