Conroe: XP Pro 64bit or 32bit?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
m25, how stable is your x64 installation? I really want to make the switch but I have been dragging my heels.

Is 100% enough 😀
Sincerely I haven't had any problems at all... a solved one to tell the truth: My PCI modem i a really rare and old one (no OEM drivers for W2K up) and on the 32bit XP used to freeze the connection occasionally (once each 3-4 connections) and I had to restart the PC to have it working again. Now with the 64 bit this problem is simply GONE 😀
 
Hello dear power users,

I was wondering what would be the better choice for a core 2 duo cpu.
Considering that with windows XP pro 64 bit this os would run much much faster on a conroe cpu, all 32-bit applications should have to be run with a 32-bit emulator (is this correct?), which is a degradation in performance.

Now considering the performance gain from the 64bit OS and the performance degradation from running most apps in the emulator, would the result be an overall faster execution of applications then on a 32bit regular windows xp pro operating system?

My setup is a 2,4 Ghz E6600 (Intel Bad Axe MoBo)with 2 gig 667 kingston RAM that has been tested up to 3 Ghz with good stability.

Great thanks to whoever throws in his or her 5 cents.


2Cb.

I still have to get drivers for my printer with XP64. And for some of my other devices. My advice is to make sure that the devices you already have are supported before deciding. That's the best thing to do because after that, youi won't really feel any differences in performance for day to day usage. I have Vista 32 bits installed as dual boot and it is fast.. especially with a dual core CPU and and good video card. And a RAID array.

So, just make sure you have all the drivers you need and you should be ok.
 
do you guys even realize what you're saying?

512Kb reads "five-hundred twelve kilabits"
512KB reads "five-hundred twelve kilabytes" or "five-twelve K" for short

it takes 8 bits to make a byte. divide 512Kb by 8 and thats your kilabytes.

gigabyte, megabyte, kilabyte, byte (me)

ass! learn your terminology for christ sakes!

Any amount of ram is supported > 512 kB or whatever Microsoft states, 1-2 gig will be pretty much the norm for now that you will find in systems released from OEMs or people build -- this is because for decent memory, 4 gigs will run 400 to 700 bucks and this is simply too expensive.

Don't think 512 would be a good idea; already tried it and it's crippling like having 256 on 32bit

Also, M25 says it HAS to be 64 bit and this is not necessarily true, you don't have to do anything. But I do strongly strongly encourage you to get a 64 bit capable system as once Vista hits the migration to 64 bit will increase in pace quite quickly.

I was talking about professional work (would be a sin to have the money and not installing 4-8M RAM) and the 10-15% boost is something you feel @ those levels.

512 kB -- yep, would not go below 1 gig myself, 2 gigs is affordable so most people will drive there.

MS quotes minimums so people with existing systems will buy the upgrade, minimums mean it will slow to a minimum :)


Did you just call JumpingJack an ass????
Gutsy move Mav.


BTW

divide 512Kb by 8 and thats your kilabytes

Dividing KB by 8 gives KB? Must be the new math
 
Dividing KB by 8 gives KB? Must be the new math
Actually, he's right because he's saying that dividing 512 kilabits by 8 gives you kilabytes, which is correct.

Ah yes, you are right. I stand corrected
I didnt read closely enough as I was so flabberghasted by himcalling JJ an ass.

Thankyou
 
OK,

it seems the cause of the problem is an unrecoverable error on the hard disk. Somewhere around the 2 gig(of 300 gb hd) there is an unrecoverable error causing the instability. Once the os writes there, the comp hangs etc.

Is there any way you know of to disable the first 3 gig of the hard disk (with the windows recovery) and let the disk "start" from the 3rd gig and on?

This before i send the HD back to the shop 🙁

As someone else already mentioned, there is no way to "disable" the first 3 gigs of a hard drive. However, there is a way to ensure that the first 3 gigs of any drive will not be used, which is simply to create a 3 (or whatever number you want) gig partition and leaving it unused.

You probably have one or more bad sectors that are causing the problem. Doing a "chkdsk /r" will result in those sectors being isolated (marked bad and therefore left unused by Windows).

As far as your 64 bit Windows question, my $0.02 are,

I would plan on using Win32 as the main O/S for some time (probably another year or so), in the meantime (as someone else judiciously suggested), I would simply have another partition with Win64 installed to play with in the meantime.

What should determine your preference for Win64 over Win32 is what software will you be using the most. If the software you use the most is still 32 bits then it makes little sense to use Win64. Conversely, if the app you use most of the time is a 64 bit app (full fledged 64 bit apps are still few and far between) then it does make sense to go with Win64.

A few apparently "not so well understood" points I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify follow.

The 64bit instruction set is an extension to the 32 bit instruction set. Therefore, 32bit programs are not emulated, they run exactly the same way as they run on a processor that is 32bit only.

About the "performance hit" which can be perceived in a Win64 installation. This comes from the fact that in protected mode (which is the mode Win32, Win64, Linux and all capable O/Ses run in) the structures shared by the CPU and the O/S must be modified to reflect the bitness of the code to be executed.

The "bitness" affects quite a number of things, among them, the effective size of the CPU registers, particularly the CS (code segment), DS (Data Segment) and the pair SS:SP (Stack segment: Stack pointer - this one is the most delicate one). It takes over 100 CPU instructions to setup all the structures properly in order to switch from one bitness to another (that's 100+ each way, one time to go to 16, 32 or 64 and another to return to the bitness it came from). That's over 200 CPU instructions per switch, the larger the number of times the switch has to occur the larger the perceived performance penalty. Obviously, on Win64, the number of switches will increase with the number of 32bit apps running.

For completeness' sake (and for those who may wonder), I didn't list 8bit protected mode because such thing does not exist.

The decision to use a 64 bit O/S should be based on the applications being used. Applications that benefit from a 64bit O/S are, among others, heavily graphical apps that must perform a lot of calculations (Photoshop, Autodesk VIZ, Maya, 3DS Max), large database systems which benefit from the larger address space (4+ billion times larger), this allows the database system to map its storage space onto linear address space which is an extremely desirable feature. Some simulators also benefit greatly (like weather simulation and, any other such kind of simulation that deals with extremely large data sets).

64bit also has disadvantages. The main one is that memory is not used as efficiently (spacewise). To clarify, 16bit code is denser than 32bit code which in turn is denser than 64bit code. What this means is that a program that uses 100KB worth of 32bit code to do its thing, will likely use 200KB+ to do the same thing in 64bit mode. A good example of this is the size of the MS C library, the 64bit version is a little bit over 3 times larger than the 32bit version (it's a bit of an extreme case though). The offshoot of that is, a 64bit setup with 1GB of memory is roughly equivalent to a 32bit setup with 300 to 400MB of memory.

By now it should be obvious that it makes no sense whatsoever to use a 64bit O/S to run MS Office or surf the net.

Consider this a 64bit post, in 64bit, my $0.02 turned into $0.06 :wink:
 
Nice !

Im testing x64 now and I noticed the "multi-GPU"mode for the GeForce 7950GX is not available in the nvidia control center.
Any reason I can't turn on multi-GPU mode(not much point in having the gx2 then)? Might it be x64-related?

Mobo is an intel 975XBX.

Maybe it needs some kind of update/patch, anything. I dont seem to find an answer to this.
 
Hm. I might step back to win xp pro 32 if I can't get the multi-gpu mode to work under the 64 bit version.

I'm just not sure if its OS-related...
 
Unfortunately i have the latest bios update.
There are people even running sli on these boards, so i cant imagine a 7950gx2 cant work in dual-gpu mode...Its what the card is made for.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.............
 
Nice !

Im testing x64 now and I noticed the "multi-GPU"mode for the GeForce 7950GX is not available in the nvidia control center.
Any reason I can't turn on multi-GPU mode(not much point in having the gx2 then)? Might it be x64-related?

Mobo is an intel 975XBX.

Maybe it needs some kind of update/patch, anything. I dont seem to find an answer to this.

it's an known issue with the 91.31 drivers. You're going to have to wait until they release the next driver update for Forceware (x64) in order to get rid of that message. I beleive you can still turn on SLI in the nVidia Control Panel???

The new forceware beta drivers, and quad-sli drivers already fixed the popup message, but to my knowledge those drivers aren't available in 64 bit. You might check on that tho. So i would imagine the next 64 bit forceware update will fix the popup too.
 
SLI cannot be turned on, neither can be multi-pgu mode for the gx2.

So it's fixed for win32 but not for win64? I see....
 
You probably have one or more bad sectors that are causing the problem. Doing a "chkdsk /r" will result in those sectors being isolated (marked bad and therefore left unused by Windows).

Is it worth it? Back when I paid five hundred bucks for a 20 meg hdd it seemed fine to mark off a few k and keep using it. But I wouldn't trust one nowadays with any bad sectors. Soon it's going to die on you. Storage is too cheap to risk your data.
 
You probably have one or more bad sectors that are causing the problem. Doing a "chkdsk /r" will result in those sectors being isolated (marked bad and therefore left unused by Windows).

Is it worth it? Back when I paid five hundred bucks for a 20 meg hdd it seemed fine to mark off a few k and keep using it. But I wouldn't trust one nowadays with any bad sectors. Soon it's going to die on you. Storage is too cheap to risk your data.

No. If the drive has bad sectors then I'd get a new one too. I suggested the chkdsk to determine if that is the cause of the problems he is having.
 
I reinstalled 32 bit windows version to see what it does.
I dont see any option to turn on dual-gpu mode nor to turn on SLI.

The popup told me that my system does not allow SLI so it is being disabled. I know people ARE running GX2 and SLI on this mobo so what is that I am missing...I'm tired of looking. Will it ever end?


P.s. HD problem is solved.[/img]
 
I'd use the 32-bit version because of the lack of 64-bit drivers and software. Windows Vista is a 64-bit OS; by the time that that comes out, there should (finally) be more 64-bit apps available.
 
I reinstalled 32 bit windows version to see what it does.
I dont see any option to turn on dual-gpu mode nor to turn on SLI.

The popup told me that my system does not allow SLI so it is being disabled. I know people ARE running GX2 and SLI on this mobo so what is that I am missing...I'm tired of looking. Will it ever end?


P.s. HD problem is solved.[/img]

i assume you updated your mobo BIOS to the latest huh?
 
Yes the very latest, which has just been released.

The nvidia site even says how to activate the dual-gpu mode but its lacking in the menu + i keep getting the SLI error message.

I know this doesn't belong in this topic anymore but I feel ripped off not being able to use dual-gpu, while nvidia clearly stating this mobo to be compatible.

Must find a way to make it work.

I got nvidia driver forceware version 91.45.

I think thats the one that should work...so many drivers there.
 
I can switch between screens and use dual-screen now.
So I think both cards work since i can make a horizontal desktop across two screens.

Odd. No dual-gpu mode though.
 
Im getting warning that the cpu core is getting only 1.1 volts instead of te required 2 volts. Could this be causing my problems? Not enough watts?
 
I found it !! I finally f***ing found it, after three days of formatting, booting and almost annihalating my own new hardware....

Thank god and thank you guys for all the help :]