64 bit vs 32 bit

2009-09-12 15:22:14

#1

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

Advantages of 64 bit -

The data bus is basically a cable from your CPU to your memory. The amount of data that travels along it is govnered by the bittype of your OS. If you have a 32-bit OS you can only use 32 bits on your data bus. If you use 64 bits then you can utilise all 64 bits on your bus. This makes barely any difference when surfing the net or downloading porn, but when you try to display graphics then it makes a whole lot of difference. It more than doubles the speed at which data can be read/written from the memory, leading to a faster, smoother graphic onto the screen.

Advantages of 32 bit -

More shit is supported, but when Windows 7 comes out, I'm betting almost all of the mainstream computers (£600 Dell laptops) will use 64 bit, therefore 64 bit will become the more popular operating system, and so people will stop designing applications to run solely on 32 bit computers, and start designing them as 64 bit default.

2009-09-12 15:43:59

#2

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|6977|Riva, MD

So ultimately it will be better to install Windows 7 using the x64 disc when I get it?

2009-09-12 15:44:47

#3

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

_j5689_ wrote:
So ultimately it will be better to install Windows 7 using the x64 disc when I get it?

Yep. And give the finger to .Sup while you're at it.

2009-09-12 15:47:51

#4

Brasso: member; +1,549|6891

awesome guide bro

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2009-09-12 15:50:32

#5

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6675|Finland

haffeysucks wrote:
awesome guide bro

except its very flawed lol

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-09-12 15:51:50

#6

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6458|Winland

The data bus between your RAM and CPU can be 128 bits wide even if you run a 16-bit OS. Running dual-channel? Then you're running a 128-bit RAM bus. You're talking about different kinds of bit depths.

The system bus bit depth defines how many parallel bits it can transfer. The OS bit depth defines how much memory the system can address and utilize. The system bus has been 64+ bits for a very long time.

What is it with you and not understanding things related to measurements of binary data, Finny?

Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2009-09-12 15:56:00)

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-09-12 15:51:50

#7

menzo: ̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#; +616|6706|Amsterdam‫

64x ftw

https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png

2009-09-12 15:56:38

#8

Brasso: member; +1,549|6891

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
haffeysucks wrote:
awesome guide bro
except its very flawed lol

sarcasm bro

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2009-09-12 15:57:45

#9

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

I only made this thread as a diversion from the tech discussion in EE chats. So yeah feel free to discuss instead of say "it's wrong".

In my understanding that's what I know as correct, I'd like to learn from you guys instead of just be flamed.

2009-09-12 15:59:03

#10

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6714|The Twilight Zone

First you're being a smartass and now you want to learn. Its usually the other way around...

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2009-09-12 16:00:46

#11

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6993|St. Andrews / Oslo

.Sup wrote:
First you're being a smartass and now you want to learn. Its usually the other way around...

...while you're just a smartass at all times...

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2009-09-12 16:01:28

#12

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

Jenspm wrote:
.Sup wrote:
First you're being a smartass and now you want to learn. Its usually the other way around...
...while you're just a smartass at all times...

Exactly. I'm just fighting fire with fire.

2009-09-12 16:02:17

#13

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6783|...

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
haffeysucks wrote:
awesome guide bro
except its very flawed lol

this

but Finny like to pose

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-09-12 16:02:35)

2009-09-12 16:04:46

#14

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6714|The Twilight Zone

Jenspm wrote:
.Sup wrote:
First you're being a smartass and now you want to learn. Its usually the other way around...
...while you're just a smartass at all times...

i smell envy quisling

2009-09-12 16:05:19

#15

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6458|Winland

Finray wrote:
I only made this thread as a diversion from the tech discussion in EE chats. So yeah feel free to discuss instead of say "it's wrong".

In my understanding that's what I know as correct, I'd like to learn from you guys instead of just be flamed.

Karma wrote:
I'm just relaying what I've been taught in class. Meh. ~ Finray <3

Either your teacher has no idea about what he's talking about, or you're just too stupid to get it.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-09-12 16:06:38

#16

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

My teacher is quite retarded. And he does have an iPhone.

2009-09-12 16:12:32

#17

Brasso: member; +1,549|6891

Finray wrote:
And he does have an iPhone.

100% relevant

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2009-09-12 16:12:43

#18

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6458|Winland

I think it's more of a combination of both.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2009-09-12 17:03:55

#19

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7104|Reykjavík, Iceland.

In Layman's terms:

32-bit is limited to 4GB of RAM, 64-bit can utilize over 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.

2009-09-12 17:15:51

#20

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6675|Finland

Sydney wrote:
In Layman's terms:

32-bit is limited to 4GB of RAM, 64-bit can utilize over 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.

but it gets more fugly because some server Windows' can use more than 4GB even when they are 32bit.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library … 85%29.aspx

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-09-12 17:18:28)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-09-12 17:18:26

#21

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

Sydney wrote:
In Layman's terms:

32-bit is limited to 4GB of RAM, 64-bit can utilize over 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.

18 Quadrillion, see usertitle.

2009-09-12 17:19:12

#22

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6675|Finland

Finray wrote:
Sydney wrote:
In Layman's terms:

32-bit is limited to 4GB of RAM, 64-bit can utilize over 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.
18 Quadrillion, see usertitle.

if you are saying a 32bit CPU can't calculate that, you are wrong. It does it in couple operations.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-09-12 17:19:16

#23

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7104|Reykjavík, Iceland.

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Sydney wrote:
In Layman's terms:

32-bit is limited to 4GB of RAM, 64-bit can utilize over 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.
but it gets more fugly because some server Windows' can use more than 4GB even when they are 32bit.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library … 85%29.aspx

*Head explodes*

Finray wrote:
Sydney wrote:
In Layman's terms:

32-bit is limited to 4GB of RAM, 64-bit can utilize over 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.
18 Quadrillion, see usertitle.

bytes =/= gigabytes.

Last edited by Sydney (2009-09-12 17:21:00)

2009-09-12 17:19:37

#24

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6049|Catherine Black

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Finray wrote:
Sydney wrote:
In Layman's terms:

32-bit is limited to 4GB of RAM, 64-bit can utilize over 17 billion gigabytes of RAM.
18 Quadrillion, see usertitle.
if you are saying a 32bit CPU can't calculate that, you are wrong. It does it in couple operations.

I'm talking one operation, not multiple.

2009-09-12 17:20:21

#25

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6675|Finland

Finray wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Finray wrote:

18 Quadrillion, see usertitle.
if you are saying a 32bit CPU can't calculate that, you are wrong. It does it in couple operations.
I'm talking one operation, not multiple.

so you are saying one operation is somehow better than 2 simultanious operations?

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

BF2S Forums 64 bit vs 32 bit

_j5689_ wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

haffeysucks wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Finray wrote:

Karma wrote:

Finray wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Finray wrote:

Sydney wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Finray wrote:

Sydney wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Finray wrote:

Sydney wrote:

Finray wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Finray wrote:

Board footer