64bit or 84bit OS on 64bit laptop - Hardware & Software

So i have a 64 bit laptop Compaq presario and i use 84 bit OS. So the question is :If i will instal 64bit os will i have any performance boost in games or anywere else?

1) It's 64 Bit and 86 Bit, not 84. 2) To know if you'll get a performance game we will need your laptop specs, go download speccy and post a screenshot.

Snip nvm, probably don't know what I'm saying anyways

[QUOTE=wingless;32890146]1) It's 64 Bit and 86 Bit, not 84. 2) To know if you'll get a performance game we will need your laptop specs, go download speccy and post a screenshot.[/QUOTE] Sorry 86x my mistake. laptop specs: Celeron (R) Dual core CPU T3000 @ 1.80ghz 2gigs of ram intel 4 family chipset video card.Uses laptop RAM for Vram.(shared) [url]http://speccy.piriform.com/results/JnxjfLtyq6iryN4B4I6okhs[/url]

No point with 2GB of RAM, 64 Bit's main improvement over 32 bit/x86 systems is the ability to use more than 4GB of RAM. The limit for RAM in Windows 32 Bit is about 3.5GB, if you have any more RAM than that it will still show up as 3.5GB usable.

Well ok then.Darn this shitlap runs gmod like a s....

[QUOTE=wingless;32890146]1) It's 64 Bit and 86 Bit, not 84. 2) To know if you'll get a performance game we will need your laptop specs, go download speccy and post a screenshot.[/QUOTE] Isn't 32-bit simply called x86 purely because of the i386?

[QUOTE=robix90;32890447]Well ok then.Darn this shitlap runs gmod like a s....[/QUOTE] RAM wouldn't help that, you're running a piece of shit integrated GPU.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;32890450]Isn't 32-bit simply called x86 purely because of the i386?[/QUOTE]According to Wikipedia, its because they are based on the 8086. But the 80386 was their first 32 bit processor, so that's probably a bit more correct.

[QUOTE=wingless;32890146]1) It's 64 Bit and 86 Bit, not 84. 2) To know if you'll get a performance game we will need your laptop specs, go download speccy and post a screenshot.[/QUOTE] I though it was 32bit, refered to as x86? [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;32890450]Isn't 32-bit simply called x86 purely because of the i386?[/QUOTE] That.

[QUOTE=Tools;32890587]I though it was 32bit, refered to as x86? That.[/QUOTE] Yeah, sorry.

Disregard :V

[QUOTE=Darkimmortal;32890784]In this situation use 32-bit for lower RAM overhead, performance will likely be lower overall with 64-bit[/QUOTE] How? It's not like 64-bit windows is more resource hogging...

[QUOTE=drummerundrcovr;32891613]How? It's not like 64-bit windows is more resource hogging...[/QUOTE]I'm assuming its because 64 bit has slightly more overhead than 32 bit. I don't think the OP is going to truly notice a huge difference though.

[QUOTE=Darkimmortal;32890784]In this situation use 32-bit for lower RAM overhead, performance will likely be lower overall with 64-bit[/QUOTE] There is no noticeable overhead. Performance will not be lower either. Seriously where are people getting their information nowadays?

[QUOTE=wingless;32890368]No point with 2GB of RAM, 64 Bit's main improvement over 32 bit/x86 systems is the ability to use more than 4GB of RAM. The limit for RAM in Windows 32 Bit is about 3.5GB, if you have any more RAM than that it will still show up as 3.5GB usable.[/QUOTE] no, the whole 3.5 GB shit was started because back then, 512 MB graphics cards were the average 32 bit Windows supports 4 GB of RAM, ANY type of RAM, which 99% of the time the only other RAM is on your graphics card subtract the VRAM from your RAM and you get what's usable by the OS [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkimmortal;32890784]In this situation use 32-bit for lower RAM overhead, performance will likely be lower overall with 64-bit[/QUOTE] no, this makes no sense

[QUOTE=Odellus;32893967]32 bit Windows supports 4 GB of RAM, ANY type of RAM, which 99% of the time the only other RAM is on your graphics card no, this makes no sense[/QUOTE] No, 100% of the time it will also include all kinds of memory addresses to talk with your hardware. You can see a detailed listing in the device manager if I recall correctly. Your hard drive has a few megabytes of cache, too, etc. But your general idea is correct, the 3.5GB limit doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=Odellus;32893967]no, the whole 3.5 GB shit was started because back then, 512 MB graphics cards were the average 32 bit Windows supports 4 GB of RAM, ANY type of RAM, which 99% of the time the only other RAM is on your graphics card subtract the VRAM from your RAM and you get what's usable by the OS[/QUOTE]I do have a question about that, if I have a 1 GB GPU, and 4 GB of RAM, why is it that on my Windows XP partition, it says it has 3.2 GB? Does it only address 800 MB of the GPU or what?

64bit Windows does have a larger Windows folder, and according to the [URL="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements"]Windows 7 requirements[/URL] it does require more RAM : [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3655572/windows_requirements.PNG[/IMG] However the larger RAM usage is probably not even noticeable.

That's just Microsoft being retarded. The only thing that really happens in regards to that in 64-bit is the memory addresses are naturally larger, so your binary is like a couple of bytes bigger. Literally a couple of bytes, it's kind of like how destination and source fields in IPv6 take a bit more space than IPv4 because they're longer than the IPv4 addresses.

[QUOTE=gparent;32892475]There is no noticeable overhead. Performance will not be lower either. Seriously where are people getting their information nowadays?[/QUOTE] Probably the same place they're getting their 84 bit OSs.

[QUOTE=nikomo;32896477]That's just Microsoft being retarded. The only thing that really happens in regards to that in 64-bit is the memory addresses are naturally larger, so your binary is like a couple of bytes bigger. Literally a couple of bytes, it's kind of like how destination and source fields in IPv6 take a bit more space than IPv4 because they're longer than the IPv4 addresses.[/QUOTE] Chances are Microsoft is talking about SYSWOW64, and how 32bit applications need that second kernel to run, meaning a lot more needs to be loaded into memory on a 64bit OS. That meaning said, anyone who doesn't use 64bit Windows in this day and age is a fucking idiot.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;32925407]Chances are Microsoft is talking about SYSWOW64, and how 32bit applications need that second kernel to run, meaning a lot more needs to be loaded into memory on a 64bit OS. That meaning said, anyone who doesn't use 64bit Windows in this day and age is a fucking idiot.[/QUOTE] So because my laptop has no 64 bit drivers I'm an idiot for choosing 32 bit Windows? :downs:

Who doesn't provide 64-bit drivers for their products anymore?

[QUOTE=TheLolrus;32930402]Who doesn't provide 64-bit drivers for their products anymore?[/QUOTE] Asus for their netbooks, not that they really need 64-bit.

[QUOTE=TheLolrus;32930402]Who doesn't provide 64-bit drivers for their products anymore?[/QUOTE] Discontinued laptops. As in, discontinued before Win7.

[QUOTE=raceingdemon;32930434]Asus for their netbooks, not that they really need 64-bit.[/QUOTE] There's such thing as a netbook that supports 64bit? I thought Intel Atoms, which is pretty much what most netbooks use, was 32bit only?

[QUOTE=1solidsnake2;32930700]There's such thing as a netbook that supports 64bit? I thought Intel Atoms, which is pretty much what most netbooks use, was 32bit only?[/QUOTE] Even then, you get no real benefit for 64-bit on the netbook I upgraded to 64-bit eventually after I realized "hmm i should use this last 768MB of my RAM finally"

[QUOTE=1solidsnake2;32930700]There's such thing as a netbook that supports 64bit? I thought Intel Atoms, which is pretty much what most netbooks use, was 32bit only?[/QUOTE] Atom has 64-bit models (I use one as my router), however I'm not sure about the netbook versions of the chip. Wikipedia has pretty detailed tables, I'm sure at least one laptop has 64-bit support.

[QUOTE=gparent;32939733]Atom has 64-bit models (I use one as my router), however I'm not sure about the netbook versions of the chip. Wikipedia has pretty detailed tables, I'm sure at least one laptop has 64-bit support.[/QUOTE] Even then, on a netbook, not likely worth it.