Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading... |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hey smart computer folk....
Just got a computer with a Core 2 Quad running 32-bit Vista Home Premium.
Problem is, I've heard that computers with multiple cores like mine can only use those extra cores with Vista Ultimate.....is that true?!? Also, Windows doesn't allow upgrades from 32-bit to 64-bit...and I've heard horror stories about driver issues and system crashes with 64-bit Vista. So, is 32-bit Ultimate going to be enough for most practical video and game useage, or should I be considering a change to 64-bit? So confused.....but I THINK that I may just need to go from 32-bit Home Premium to 32-bit Ultimate....right?????????
__________________
Romans 6:4 Last edited by the mongoose; 04-28-2008 at 11:21 AM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey smart computer folk....
I have a quad core setup running vista home premium as well. I have a processor monitor widget that shows activity on all 4 cores. The only thing 64-bit version will help you with is more than 3 GB of RAM. Atleast thats my understanding.
__________________
Geometry warrior |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey smart computer folk....
Quote:
32 vs 64 - i wouldnt worry about it. again, its all application level optimization and gams really havent had marginally more performance using 64 but bus over 32 bit (look at crysis benchmarks for example). plus you have the added headache of finding 64 bit device drivers. not worth it. what another poster said about limited ram is true. if you have more than 3 gigs (or so) vista will not be able to access it because all 32 bit operationg systems use 32 bit address space. so they can only access (less than 2*32) memory addresses. so if you ahve 4 gigs, tha extra bit wont be used by vista. but this begs the question, wtf application will you be running that has a > 3 GB memory footprint? even the most intense games dont have need for that much ram. when it comes to ram, what matters would be speed (ram timign and bus speed), not how much. end result. windows vista shit edition, 32 bit will perform just as good as windows fucking leet edition 64 bit |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey smart computer folk....
Quote:
Quote:
Your Vista key can be used to activate 32 bit or 64 bit installations of vista but to upgrade to Ultimate you must have the respective 32/64 bit Home Premium/Home Basic (Whatever you are upgrading from) Installed and activated first. Last edited by Spooky Shoes; 04-28-2008 at 03:31 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey smart computer folk....
Sorry I forgot to add that SP1 needs to be installed (for both 32 & 64 bit editions) before 4GB of RAM is installed in the system, so install with 2GB, run the updates and then upgrade the RAM.
Quote:
Untrue. It depends on what you are using it for. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey smart computer folk....
Quote:
First, SP1 on Vista. It will detect the 4 gigs, and report it as installed memory. But it wont be able to address the 4 gigs (in a 32 bit environment). Its physically IMPOSSIBLE to address the 4 gigs. Heres how you can tell. Vista (whatever) version. 4 gigs of ram. 32 bit. Go into the control panel, and check your system properties. It will report 4 gigs. Then check your task manager, performance tab. Youll see a different number (mine has 3.4 since my BIOS doesnt use that much I/O address space). Thats a far cry from the full 2^32 bytes that i should have addressable. Second, I was addressing his need for games, mainly. Yes, assigning apps to hardware threads is all fine and dandy, but for mongoose' purposes it's not important, and his question was who i was addressing. Even if you run 10 non game applications at the same time, in terms of performance, youre going to run into any one of many other bottlenecks (like I/O)before you start paging a lot (edit). Finally, again, for his purposes - all the vista solutions will yeild the exact same performance. This is hands down an undisputable fact. If you're going to consider the 64 vs 32 bit increase, thats great - but benchmark after benchmark has proven that for this generation of apps there is MINIMAL difference. Are you implying that, for whatever use, Vista Ultimate is a better written memory manager or threading functionality than Vista home? BS. You can even assign a core to a process in XP as well. But again, if your apps arent written to create those parallel hardware thread it's useless (years of writing code for the 360 and banging my head against the wall has taught me this) Last edited by EuroZeroZero; 04-28-2008 at 11:45 AM. |
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
Re: Hey smart computer folk....
Quote:
Untrue. Provided that the chipset and BIOS support it the limit is more like 2^36 as in some of the other 32 bit Microsoft (PAE) OS's, this may have been incorporated into SP1. Honestly I have no idea if it was incorporated or not, nor do I care the thing I was getting at is that it could have been. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Indeed, something that I almost mentioned but thought irrelevant to the thread. Tri-state buffers were my watershed moment, ON, Off and Between states ... messed up TTL forever. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hey smart computer folk....
No differences in memory management or core management in any of the versions of Vista, from Home Basic thru to Ultimate. They all handle quad core and the ram they have identically. The 32bit versions are all limited to 4GB ram (even if they cant really access all of it). The 64bit versions of Home Basic are limited to 8GB and the others 16GB.
I run Vista Business 64bit with 4GB ram (on a Core 2 Duo E6600) and its just flies. The 64bit drivers were easy to find and run very smoothly. 64bit XP drivers have been around for 3 or 4 years now and Vista 64bit drivers are usually available these days. Finding x64 versions of all apps is a different thing, but 32bit apps run just fine if not. http://hubpages.com/hub/Windows_Vist...the_Difference http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ns/choose.mspx
__________________
UW0764 || Professor: "Underworld have never failed to disappoint me" || Yannick changed my avatar picture. |
Post Reply |
|
|