64x or 86x..?

December 27, 2006 at 09:02:04
Specs: Vista Ultimate, AMD X2 4400+ / 2GB

Yesterday i installed the Windows Vista RTM Ultimate edition and choose to go with 64bit..

Unfortunately i had to uninstall and reinstall it in 32bit because the limit amount of x64 drivers for most of my hardware...

So now i got Vista Ultimate x86 running and i dont notice anything different from the x64 version yet...

But is there much difference in the two versions? i dont know much about 64bit but i've got an AMD X2 CPU which is 64bit so that's why i installed the 64 version in the first place...

So what i'm concerned about is what the differences in performance are, especially in gaming, and working with Vista (desktop with aero, explorer etc.)


See More: 64x or 86x..?

Report •

December 27, 2006 at 22:09:07
"What's the problem with installing Vista x64 on a 64-bit system?"

1. Most hardware does not currently have 64-bit drivers.

Out of all the boxes that I have installed x64 Vista on, I could always get it to boot up. However, the lack of 64-bit drivers for many hardware devices typically left me without any chance of burning DVDs or listening to audio. Networking devices and card readers were frequently not supported as well. Vista x64 is pretty but it's not very fun without network access or audio.

2. In Vista x64, any driver that is not properly signed will not be able to enter the kernel and will fail to load.

Think how many times you have ignored that warning that a certain hardware driver is not properly signed. With vista x64, if your driver has not be blessed by Microsoft, it will not work. Forget about it.

I have tired to get around this by booting with the F8 option Disable Driver Signature. It doesn't make a difference.

3. Vista x64 currently does not backward support most x86 (32-bit) drivers.

For the most part 64-bit systems run 32-bit applications very well. However, vista x64 doesn't run x86 drivers... at least at this stage.

4. Vista x64 does not support 16-bit software.

You may think that you never, ever run 16-bit software. However, XP actually handles this legacy fairly well.

5. Very little x64 software currently exists.

x64 software runs better on a x64 system with an x64 OS. Currently, however, there is very little x64 software out there. If you have that magical combination, you do get a nice performance boost. Currently, however, this combination is way to far ahead of the curve.

Windows Vista Feature Focus: 64-Bit (x64) Support.

Windows Vista RC1 32Bit vs. 64Bit.

Windows Vista Benchmark: 64-Bit Faster Than 32-Bit.


Most users with 64-bit hardware should install the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista.

Vista x64 is the turning point for operating systems as they transition to 64-bit. Currently, however, the majority of users will be very disappointed by installing Vista x64. The lack of 64-bit drivers for most current hardware will be very disappointing and frustrating to most users. Why push for 64-bit now anyway? The (roughly 10%) performance gains promised by 64-bit will not be seen for years until 64-bit compiled versions of software is the norm.

Report •

December 28, 2006 at 04:18:27
An excellent summing up, Sabertooth. My theory is that by the time 64-bit computing is the norm, the current batch of 64-bit CPUs will be too slow to do anythnig useful with anyway, especially playing games.

Also strongly agree with the 16-bit point made - like you said, some people may think they never use 16-bit applications, but an awful lot of setup programs for 32-bit Windows applications (ok, not so much thesedays) use a 16-bit setup EXE stub to start the setup process. These applications won't work in Vista 64-bit.

Report •

December 28, 2006 at 22:04:42
64bit will become a must one day for gamers and photo and video editors when program require more them 4gb of ram. This is where you will start to see the real need for a 64bit OS, because 32bit can only handle upwards of 4gb of ram. Your not going to see this happening for a while. I'd say in the next 4 to 5 years 64bit will start to be the new standard based on the projected path of what's needed in ram each year in system requirements for gaming and video and photo editing.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0+1
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Report •

Related Solutions

December 29, 2006 at 11:36:49
64-bit linux distros are more advanced, safer to use and less troublesome than their windows counterparts ... and you can test with a live CD prior a hard disk installation.

Today's subliminal thought is: 'Calm down ... it's only ones and zeros.'

Report •

January 3, 2007 at 03:39:38
according to pc worlds test they ran on vista 64 and 32 there is not much diff in preformance unless you start to add 2 gigs of ram or more. however most current software apps are not optimized for 64 bit. the diver issue is a major problem but by the time 64 bit becomes a necsisity of life new hard ware and divers will have been bought. it is going to be painfull though as 64 bit is going to drag the pc world kicking and screaming to higher end ( and more expesnive) software.

one reason y most companies are not expected to buy the upgrad untill 2008 at the earlist.

Report •

February 11, 2007 at 05:01:58
PC World's test sounds okay.
But to be honest i do think they are a bunch of n00bs.
I payed the heafty price tag for Windows Vista X64 and it wouldnt even work.
Alot of people in M$ forums seemed to have the same problem.
Now ive got to delve into my pockets again, this time for X86, lets see how that goes.
Sam Smith.

Report •

Ask Question