Computer Newbies forum

General discussion

64 bit/32 bit

by plue / November 14, 2007 9:10 AM PST

Can someone simplify what this means??Am in th process of getting a new PC and I'm wondering how this will factor into my choice of PC's.
The desktop I'm getting will have to handle some photo editing if that helps

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: 64 bit/32 bit
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 64 bit/32 bit
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: 32 or 64
by Kees Bakker / November 14, 2007 9:57 PM PST
In reply to: 64 bit/32 bit


It has to do with the maximum addressable memory. That's only 4 Gb in the 32 bit machine. If you happen to manage a 6 Gb database (that are some 20.000.000 customers), you'd better have 64 bit.

For people like you and me, 32 is quite is OK. It will run everything you need.


Collapse -
Re:32 or 64
by plue / November 14, 2007 10:02 PM PST
In reply to: Re: 32 or 64

Thanks Kees,I really appreciate the help

Collapse -
a lot depends on what you are using the computer for
by markmemorial / November 19, 2007 3:48 AM PST
In reply to: Re: 32 or 64

If you are doing simple word processing, small spreadsheets, MS Office type work a 32 bit processor is fine. If you are running Vista you might want to invest in a dual core processor, since Vista is optimized for a dual core. Last on 64 bit, it is more than database size, although I would not recommend running a large database on your desktop computer (or notebook). Plus if you are interested in playing computer games, I would also recommend a 64 bit processor. Again a dual core would provide better performance.

Collapse -
good luck finding dual core optimized and x64 programs
by kre8ive / November 28, 2007 1:07 AM PST

as of yet there are no games that i know of that utilize 64 bit processing, and finding a 64 bit version of vista is essentially impossible inless you actually know what it is and where to get it. now inless you plan on going out of your way to purchase dual core optimized software, your not going to get anything out of purchasing a dual core processor. now gaming doesn't use dual core, or 64 bit, and vista only comes in 32 bit inless you know where to find 64 bit. the only reason people have seen improvements in processing power from dual core cpus is because intel and amd have come up with better ways of processing with instuction sets.

Collapse -
My two cents...
by firedancingleopards / November 19, 2007 12:22 PM PST
In reply to: Re: 32 or 64

Hello to all,

While it is technically correct to say "it has to do with the maximum addressable memory", the true definition of 64-bit computing refers to the CPU's ability to process instructions and data 64-bits at a time.

Fair warning: this subject is worthy of college-level computer science courses, but I hope to keep it simple by offering a few examples from PC history.

The original IBM Personal Computer was built using an Intel 8088 CPU. It was able to process instructions and data 16 bits at a time. However, for compatibility reasons, Intel chose to design it with an 8-bit data bus (used for communication with peripherals). It also had a 20-bit memory bus, which allowed it to support up to 1MB of RAM. Was it a 16-bit, 8-bit, or 20-bit processor? Answer: it was a 16-bit processor.

The second generation of IBM PC's, called the IBM PC AT, included an Intel 80286 processor. This processor could process instructions 16 bits at a time. It also had a 24-bit bus, which allowed it to support 16MB of RAM. This processor was, technically, also a 16-bit processor.

The third generation of Intel x86 processors was the 80386, which was Intel's first 32-bit architecture, owing to its ability to process instructions and data 32 bits at a time. It initially came in two versions, one for consumer PC's and the other for 'high-end' systems. The 80386SX had a 24-bit memory bus, so it supported up to 16MB of RAM. The 80386DX had a full 32-bit memory bus, and so it supported up to 4GB or RAM. The point is that both the 386SX and the 386DX were adequately referred-to as 32-bit processors.

Back in 1986 (when the i386 was released) 16MB of RAM were more than Windows could use. In fact, it was physically impossible to fit 16MB of RAM on a PC motherboard, even with a 32-bit processor on board. I was in college during those years, and I remember thinking about the 32-bit addressing capability (4GB of RAM) much in the way one might think today about a manned trip to Mars, or setting up a permanent station on the moon. Possible? Maybe 20 years from now...?? If we're lucky?

Fast forward to the year 2007... It's been 21 years since the first 32-bit CPU for the PC was released, and we are ~almost~ at the point where 4GB of RAM is affordable for the masses.

Should Plue worry about having a 64-bit PC? Probably not. But if Plue insisted on having a system that will run today's 32-bit Windows and still be able to support 64-bit applications in the future, there are two basic choices. AMD64 and Intel Core. Both come in single- or multi- core models. I personally recommend the AMD64's, but that's just personal preference. 1GB is probably enough RAM for Plue today, but to help ensure compatibility with future 64-bit applications, Plue should make sure the computer is upgradable to 4GB or even 8GB or RAM.

I hope I didn't make this topic too confusing. By the way, I agree 100% with Kees' statement that "For people like you and me, 32 is quite is OK. It will run everything you need."

Happy computing!


Collapse -
by MICHAL_CORLEONE / November 19, 2007 12:46 PM PST
In reply to: My two cents...


Collapse -
by ramesh_82mdu1 / November 19, 2007 3:26 PM PST
In reply to: MY 1 QUESTION

Can anybody help me pls.....


Pls can any one send me a mail to my Queries it will be very much helpfull.

Collapse -
What's in a name...?
by firedancingleopards / November 19, 2007 9:16 PM PST
In reply to: MY 1 QUESTION

I used to share your confusion over Intel's "Core" processor naming conventions. Last night I visited their web site and found out just enough to be able to clarify this for you (and me).

Intel's successor to the long line of "Pentium" CPU's was called the "Core" CPU. It was so named because of their plans to include multiple instances of the processor core within a single chip. It was initially offered in two versions: as the traditional single-processor chip (the little-known Core Solo), and as a two-processor chip (the Core Duo). This first generation of multi-core chips is capable of running Windows in 32-bit mode (thanks to their IA-32 instruction set). The chip does have 64-bit capabilities, but those are actually not compatible with the x86 instruction set used by Windows, and is therefore not compatible with the 64-bit version of Windows.

The second (and latest) generation of Intel's "Core" processors is aptly named the "Core 2". The "Core 2" line of processors starts out as a dual-processor version (the Core 2 Duo), and there is a four-processor-on-a-chip version called the Core 2 Quad. Incidentally, the "Core 2" has a new type of 64-bit capabilities (IA-64) which make it Intel's first consumer-oriented processor that is compatible with the 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Vista.

I hope this helps...


Collapse -
64 vs 32 bit
by adpizza / November 19, 2007 4:06 AM PST
In reply to: 64 bit/32 bit

Here's the main thing. Price
By what you have said you want to do price is the issue. 64 bet will only run 64 bit if you have a 64 bit operating system with 64 bit drivers installed for your computer. Almost all computer systems unless you are specific will be loaded with a 32 bit operating system. Vista is that way too. The 64 bit AMD processor is just as good for the average computer user as the 32 bit intell processor. Just does not matter. Main thing you will want with either processor is at least 1G of RAM (prefer 2G) because thats where we as regular users will really see a difference in the speed of a computer. If you don't believe me try 512M of RAM with a 3G processor and then try 2G of RAM with a 2G processor and the second will always outpreform the first. Its the RAM. For the average user Wally World has what will work fine and you can add more RAM yourself very cheap. Hope this helps. Why pay more when you don't have to. I do not work for WW.

Collapse -
The not so clear answer...
by URTido / November 19, 2007 4:28 AM PST
In reply to: 64 vs 32 bit

Intel Core 2 Duo processors are 64-Bit processors, as are the various AMD X2 processors. Both processors are also dual core (or you can get a quad core variant).

What currently distinguishes 64-bit from 32-bit is the software on the computer. On the user end it doesn't look much different, except it can sometimes be a challenge to find 64-bit drivers and 64-bit versions of programs (or so I've heard). Based on my own experience, 32-bit limits you to less than the advertised maximum memory for your motherboard; in my system I have 4 1GB sticks of high end memory, but under Windows XP Pro it shows up as just over 3 GB of ram. Running under 64-bit Ubuntu it shows up as about 4 GB.

Many of your 32-bit programs should run under 64-bit, but for most common programs you shouldn't need the hardware that 64-bit really takes advantage of.

Bottom line, buy the 32-bit version of the OS now and as long as you stick with new hardware (either an Intel Core 2 or AMD Athlon X2) you will have the ability to switch to 64-bit down the road when it is more widely used. But by that time you might be looking for an upgrade anyways.

Hope that helps.

Collapse -
Reasons for 64-bit
by Impreza WRX / November 19, 2007 10:48 AM PST
In reply to: 64 bit/32 bit

Actually, I have a 4200+ AMD X2 with XP Pro 64-bit, and I built a 6000+ AMD X2 with Vista Ultimate 64-bit. The person that uses the 6000+ plays Battlefield 2142. This game requires so much memory that having 32-bit OS is not feasible; the game will crash after running more than one Titan map in a row. You need not only 4 GB of RAM, 64-bit OS (to get that 4 GB RAM seeable instead of 3.5 GB), but run a patch that changes the game's run parameters to allow using more than 2 GB of RAM (in 32-bit, this is the maximum memory space for programs). My system may only run 2 GB of RAM, but it has fewer problems then both my XP MCE laptop and my Vista Business desktop.

Due to the monumental hardware requirements in today's games, having a 64-bit system with a 64-bit OS will keep you ready for the future, when you will need 16 GB of RAM to run the toughest stuff out there. Laugh at the 16 GB RAM all you want, but remember the infamous statement: "640kb of RAM is more than anyone will ever need."

Collapse -
infamous quote indeed...
by firedancingleopards / November 19, 2007 12:28 PM PST
In reply to: Reasons for 64-bit case someone never heard that quote before, it was Bill Gates who uttered it... (true fact)

Collapse -
64bit/32bit and Intel Core Duo/Core 2 Duo
by rex.evans1 / November 19, 2007 3:32 PM PST
In reply to: 64 bit/32 bit

By personal preference I use AMD 64 bit CPUs. However, just over a year ago I bought an Acer laptop with a Core Duo CPU. I chose the laptop after giving credence to the Intel hype.

Imagine my thoughts (unprintable) when I came to install a 64 bit version of Windows on it and the message appeared on the screen to the effect that the laptop is NOT fitted with a 64 bit CPU.

Further research showed that if I want to run a 64 bit Intel system then I would need the Core 2 Duo.

I am sticking with AMD.


Collapse -
by genotypewriter / November 19, 2007 8:31 PM PST

The Core 2 line came out very quickly after the original Core line... the main difference was the transition from 32bit to 64bit. There was no other significant reason to justify a switch from Core Duo/Solo to a Core 2 Duo/Solo.


Collapse -
by plue / November 20, 2007 10:30 AM PST
In reply to: 64 bit/32 bit

From what I'm gathering would be a safe bet to get a 64-bit capable PC,run a 64-bit O/S since it's backward compatible and it is the future for O/S's....maybe one of these dual core units could fit the bill!

Collapse -
by firedancingleopards / November 20, 2007 11:43 AM PST
In reply to: Intresting

A PC built with either an AMD64 X2 or an Intel Core 2 Duo will run 32-bit or 64-bit versions of Windows XP or Vista just fine.

Collapse -
Dosn't Really Matter
by prince10bee / November 21, 2007 6:03 AM PST
In reply to: 64 bit/32 bit

There are some small pros and cons but as far as most people are concerned (including myself) it dosn't matter. There are both 32 and 64 bit versons of Windows Vista so it won't matter which you get.

Collapse -
32-64 Bit
by intel_ro / December 29, 2008 7:42 AM PST
In reply to: 64 bit/32 bit

in theory as i see 32bit procesor it means how much info a CPU process thru a cycle of Hertz
Lets take this 32bit cpu at 1Mhz = 32bit* 1000 = 32Kbit/s
That demonstrate rising cpu frecvency u rise computing power
64bit procesor can proces 64 bit
in theory 64Bit procesor will have double speed but in real world this will not happen because fist of all 64bit software and drivers are on the begining of making.

Best is a video card ... u all know about Gforce series 64 bit 128bit 256Bit what happen wen u rise number of bits on a video card .. More bandwithd more processing power !

Popular Forums
Computer Help 51,224 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,453 discussions
Laptops 20,090 discussions
Security 30,722 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,937 discussions
Windows 10 1,295 discussions
Phones 16,252 discussions
Windows 7 7,684 discussions
Networking & Wireless 15,215 discussions


Roku Streaming Stick 2016

Roku has the most apps, the simplest interface and the best search, making it CNET's favorite way to stream Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO and all the rest.