Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2 gigs on 7- 64 or 32?

theyalllietheyalllie Member Posts: 229

Ant benefit to running 64 bit Windows 7 on 2 gigs of RAM, as opposed to 32 bit?

Specific application is Battlefield Bad Company 2, premium graphics are not important at all, simply want fast, as it is a PvP shooter game.

Also anyone know of a good guide to stream-lining Windows 7 for reduction of background apps, and freeing up RAM?

Comments

  • syntax42syntax42 Member UncommonPosts: 1,378

    Your processor is what would support a 64-bit OS, not your RAM.

     

    You would have to research the game you are trying to run.  The game may or may not be optimized for performance with a 64-bit processor.  Your CPU may or may not be the bottleneck in your system.  You may need more RAM or a better video card to increase your computer's performance.

     

    There wouldn't be any harm in changing to the 64-bit version of your OS.  You may as well take advantage of your processor's power or have the OS ready to do so if you find a game that does support 64-bits.

  • RelampagoRelampago Member UncommonPosts: 412
    Simple, if u ever expect to go over 4gigs on this rig 64 otherwise 32.
  • WorstluckWorstluck Member Posts: 1,269

    Depending on the rest of your hardware, and if you have access to both, I would use the 64-bit version.  Bad Company 2 might not necessarily run better, but if you do ever decide to upgrade your ram, you will be glad you have 64-bit.

    image

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,218

    Unless you have some reason why you need to get 32-bit Windows 7 rather than 64-bit, I'd get 64-bit.  If you don't have any reason to prefer one or the other today, reasons to prefer 64-bit might arise in the future, but reasons to prefer 32-bit won't.

  • theyalllietheyalllie Member Posts: 229

    well I am running 64 bit 7 now, so will stick with it.

  • WorstluckWorstluck Member Posts: 1,269

    Originally posted by theyalllie

    well I am running 64 bit 7 now, so will stick with it.

     

    Hah ok, good then.  There really would be no reason to downgrade as such to Win7 32-bit.  It would probably have little to no effect on your game.

    image

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,231


    Originally posted by Quizzical
    Unless you have some reason why you need to get 32-bit Windows 7 rather than 64-bit, I'd get 64-bit.  If you don't have any reason to prefer one or the other today, reasons to prefer 64-bit might arise in the future, but reasons to prefer 32-bit won't.

    I agree with this. There are no drawbacks to running 64-bit Windows 7 (at least, not like there used to be with WinXP 64 and Vista 64 where some drivers just didn't exist).

    And if you are gaming on a CPU that doesn't support 64-bit, it's long past time to upgrade anyway.

  • theyalllietheyalllie Member Posts: 229

    Yeah to clarify, flegling builder, and poor man. Gained Win 7 home premium from recent build job.

    My PC is built from salvaged parts mostly, and I only know what Ive read about Win 7, having never used it.

    I have 2 gigs of DDR2 800 , or 4 gigs of DDR2 667, laying around. I get an OC with the 800 that gives me a very good bench, and equally good stress test (on XP) but didnt know if there were unforseen quirks using it on Win 7 64.

    I'd rather use the 4 gigs but my board doesnt have the right mem multi, to give me a decent enough FSB to yield a respectable bench, with the 800, it does.

    Most importantly Bad Company plays like crap unless I can get that FSB up to 333(1333).

    Methodical as I am, before I, commit to the rigors of my benching and stressing, I always come here for questions that remain, after a few days of research, in regards to any PC ive been doing , since catching the bug.

    Thanks to all.

    P.S. initials look good on P 95, fyi, did find running Paging File on seperate hard drive to be counter productive to OCing at all, again fyi ( perahps thoughts on this later? kinda puzzles me)

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,218

    The only thing I can think of off hand that would affect frame rates in the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows is the memory limitation of 64-bit.  The reasons to get 32-bit are basically of the "program or hardware won't run in 64-bit Windows" variety.  Not merely won't run well, but won't run at all.

  • RelampagoRelampago Member UncommonPosts: 412
    32 bit by its nature will run faster just like 16 bit is faster than 32 etc.

    A quick google search of "64 bit slower than 32 bit" will tell you why, just like most comp sci classes will teach you in college.

    However it really wont be appreciable for gaming. If you installed 64 don't wipe, not worth it.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,231

    Actually, 64-bit by it's nature will be marginally faster, since it has larger registers and can support higher precision (in addition to supporting more RAM), but that speed is only going to be realized by programs that specifically make use of them. 99% of the software is still 32-bit, and has to be emulated using WOW32.

    So you are right, in that if you run benchmarks on most programs, the 32-bit system will be slightly faster. But that won't always be the case, and it isn't because 32-bit is inherently faster, it's just because 32-bit is more mature, and on a 64-bit OS, most applications have to be emulated down to 32-bit. That performance hit is nearly negligible, but is measurable.

  • RelampagoRelampago Member UncommonPosts: 412

    Originally posted by Ridelynn

    Actually, 64-bit by it's nature will be marginally faster, since it has larger registers and can support higher precision (in addition to supporting more RAM), but that speed is only going to be realized by programs that specifically make use of them. 99% of the software is still 32-bit, and has to be emulated using WOW32.

    So you are right, in that if you run benchmarks on most programs, the 32-bit system will be slightly faster. But that won't always be the case, and it isn't because 32-bit is inherently faster, it's just because 32-bit is more mature, and on a 64-bit OS, most applications have to be emulated down to 32-bit. That performance hit is nearly negligible, but is measurable.

    As you stated, bottom line the vast majority of games arent/werent compiled 64 bit, as they were compiled 32 bit they are emulated in a 64 OS hence the slight performance decrease (pretty much negligible).

  • ShinamiShinami Member UncommonPosts: 825

    You want a 64 bit version of any OS in todays world. Here is the reason.

     

    Intel and AMD processors have what is called a 32-bit mode. This mode is accessed if you run a 32 bit OS. What it means is the following:

     

    Your processor has its own memory which is the FASTEST in the system. These memory locations are small, to store 32 - 64 bits of information. They are called Registers. Most processors have 16+ General Purpose Registers per core to store integer values and 16+ Floating Point Registers. There are many other registers like Segment Registers, etc. 

     

    Under 32 bit mode your processor is only allowed to run 8 General Purpose Registers. If you run an AMD processor, you get the maximum run possible under a 32 bit mode (in the Athlon 64s) which was 8 GPRs+2. Your cache levels also run under 32 bit mode too. 

     

    When you run a 64 bit Operating System, you are able to actually run each of your registers at 64 bit depth as well as unlock the sealed GPRs and FPRs. In short you will be able to run 16+ General Purpose Registers and 16+ Floating Point Registers, each at 64 bit depth. When we do the math, if you run a 64 bit processor in 32 bit mode you are only able to use 1/4th the register space per core...which limits you per clock at your performance levels, since it means more accesses to cache rather than keeping more in the registers. 

     

    Aside from getting a benefit in the processor, you get a benefit in running system memory too. Memory has had a 64 bit depth since the late 80s/early 90s. It means under a 64 bit OS + 64 bit Processor under System Memory (also 64 bits in depth) you get much better efficiency and stability thanks to a synchronization between depths in all chipsets, OS and memory too. 

     

    In short, the moral of the story is that even if you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM, you should run under the operating system depth your processor is natively designed for without fail. 

  • noquarternoquarter Member Posts: 1,170

    Actually the 64-bit version of the OS uses a bit more memory than the 32-bit version so unless you plan on going to 4GB where the 64-bit would become more useful then you should stick with the 32-bit to free up some memory.

  • IsturiIsturi Member Posts: 1,509

    Yes be sure to go with min of 4 gig for 64 7 and a big plus is the lat of the mem be sure it is above 400 lat. If your MB is a 64 bit bord then yes for sure go with a 64 OS.

    image

  • ShinamiShinami Member UncommonPosts: 825

    Just tested it: 

     

    Windows 7 Ultimate Edtion, Cleaninstall... (64 bit)

    Parameter #1: Chose to not load startup items through MSCONFIG

    Parameter #2: System Tuned for "Best Performance" through advanced settings

     

    The system reads around 128MB for processes used, but when combined with memory needed for services used throughout the system, it has around 900MB - 1GB worth of memory address allocated to it. 

     

    Other information: 480 GTX SLI Configuration

     

    Ubuntu Linux 10.04 LTS (64 bit) memory consumption was around 512MB Under the basic theme. 

     

    All points aside....The cost of 4GB of DDR3 1600mhz is $50...Then there are rebates of $5 - $10 at times...In short, I do not see any excuse anyone can give to not have a minimum of 4GB considering these same people are the ones who are willing to spend $50 - $60 for a video game and then pay $15 a month subscription fees..

Sign In or Register to comment.