Vista x86 or x64?

Carcrazy · Post by **Carcrazy** » 18 Feb 2007, 22:13

I'm looking for a Vista Ultimate OEM (Since I got straight A's my parents are gonna buy if I throw in $50) And I was wondering if I should order Ultimate 32-Bit or Ultimate 64-Bit?

Specs Below...

Sempron 64 3400+ 2.4 GHz
1GB DDR 400 RAM
ECS MoBo
nVidia 7600GT OC
160 GB HDD
DVD Burner
TV Tuner

Stuff like that.

Thx in advance!

S2000_Skyline12 · Post by **S2000_Skyline12** » 18 Feb 2007, 22:18

If you have a 64x processor, Why not just get the 64x version?

prince1142003 · Post by **prince1142003** » 18 Feb 2007, 22:24

Ultimate x64 will be better in the long run, especially since you have a 64-bit processor.

BrontoX · Post by **BrontoX** » 18 Feb 2007, 22:31

Is there a Core 2 Duo (aka Conroe) on 64-bit cuz i too would like to get the 64 bit Vista?

prince1142003 · Post by **prince1142003** » 18 Feb 2007, 22:34

Yes, 64-bit Conroes do exist (just did a google search on them), but after reading a few reviews, it seems that AMD64x2's perform better.

Carcrazy · Post by **Carcrazy** » 19 Feb 2007, 06:48

Cool, so is campatability the same with 64-bit as it is with 32-bit? And what are some advantages? I'm kinda new to 64-bit operating systems...

S2000_Skyline12 · Post by **S2000_Skyline12** » 19 Feb 2007, 07:00

a 64x Processor and support 86x and 64x OS's
86x Processor=> only 86x OS's

Advantages (64x)

Faster computing
Overall faster performance than with 86x

Advantages (86x)

...None really...

Really, if your familiar with a 86x system, your also familiar with a 64x just faster performance with the 64x OS.

prince1142003 · Post by **prince1142003** » 19 Feb 2007, 23:00

Yes, but on a 64-bit OS, 32-bit programs need to be run in a compatibility mode. XP64's compatibility mode was very good, but it wasn't perfect. A lot of programs didn't run. Also, finding 64-bit drivers can be a pain in the ass. But with Vista's release as a 64-bit system with 32-bit backwards compatibility, things will change.

Carcrazy · Post by **Carcrazy** » 20 Feb 2007, 05:53

And that means???

S2000_Skyline12 · Post by **S2000_Skyline12** » 20 Feb 2007, 06:15

In simple it means, 64x is better for some programs and not so great with others. in 64x, some 86x programs need special drivers or need to be set in compatibility mode, and also along with drivers for things like cards and components. Thats all

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 21 Feb 2007, 05:03

The 64-bit version sucks ... /thread

S2000_Skyline12 · Post by **S2000_Skyline12** » 21 Feb 2007, 06:38

What was the point of that?

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 21 Feb 2007, 10:13

The fact that the 64-bit version sucks ... Nothing works with it ...

Abrams · Post by **Abrams** » 25 Feb 2007, 12:14

Conroe is x64 support PC just like AMD. Not to mention that Conroe gives alot more room for long run rig to put faster stuff on top of it. Dunno where you seen a review thats presents benchmarks and overall info that AMD outperforms even E6300 wich is first in Conroe line.

As for OS, i have standart 32-bit, since problem is that x64 versions of Windows, at least XP to my knowledge doesnt have support or compability with 32-bit applications, wich means over about 70-80% of todays games.

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 25 Feb 2007, 20:37

The AMD Athlon64 processors do perform better in 64-bit applications ... But those are so few and far between that no one really cares ...

Anandtech did a comparison between Core 2 Duo and Athlon64 X2 using both 32-bit and 64-bit apps in the 64-bit version of Vista Ultimate and AMD won every 64-bit app and lost every 32-bit app.

Abrams · Post by **Abrams** » 26 Feb 2007, 01:13

Still i highly doubt that once Vista games will actually come out with full DirectX 10(or XP capable DirectX 9something), then i still cant say i see the AMD taking edge with older cpu`s.

p.s. link to the review please, wanna see what they used to compare?

nfsmw0789 · Post by **nfsmw0789** » 26 Feb 2007, 03:37

It depends if you have a strong PC,Then forsure you will be able to handle Vista,but me huh right away i uninstalled Vista it killed my memory and i wasn't able to play some pc games.So Xp is good for now

Carcrazy · Post by **Carcrazy** » 26 Feb 2007, 07:11

I had a bad BIOS flash on my MoBo so now i gotta buy a new one. SInce i'm buying a new socket i have to get a new cpu... so im gonna get a Athlon64 3800+ at 2.4GHz... plus my overclock to about 2.8GHz.

BrontoX · Post by **BrontoX** » 26 Feb 2007, 10:54

Why not get a AMD X2 (Dual Core)?

Jmac- · Post by **Jmac-** » 26 Feb 2007, 12:01

Aren't you glad you didn't spend $30 more to get a Gigabyte board with DualBIOS ?

Boosted420a · Post by **Boosted420a** » 01 Mar 2007, 09:44

I've tried both versions. I have an AMD64 Opteron 165 @ 2.8GHz. 32bit ran everything fine, no hick-ups really except 7900GT driver issue, but I hear that get's sorted out early this month. 64bit ran much faster than 32 bit, but again compatibility issues with 32bit programs. With 64bit Vista It was a P.I.T.A. to find an antivirus program that works. I found a free version of AVAST Home Edition that seemed to work ok. Most games I tried worked. But NFS Carbon would not play on either version of Vista. And Aquamark3 would not run on 64 bit. And I had a hard time with a few drivers in x64. Other than that, 64 bit was noticably faster and seemed to run smoother. I should have taken screenies, but pcpitstop.com benchies your pc, and the x64 version scored much better than 32bit. especially in the memory dept.

Carcrazy · Post by **Carcrazy** » 02 Apr 2007, 02:50

Yes, i'm finally getting it tonight! Now just one more delema... should I get a new motherboard with a 2.8GHz dual core processor or should i get vista since my RC1 has locked me out?

Heck ya... Got the 32 bit (vuz im not the only one usign it) Home Premium with a new MoBo.

:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen: