No announcement yet.

32-bit vs 64-bit CPU?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    32-bit vs 64-bit CPU?

    If some1 wanted to upgrade a pc in the next 6 months or so, would y'all recommend a 64-bit cpu over a 32-bit one?

    I've read that a 32-bit cpu can only access a max of 4GB of RAM, whereas a 64-bit cpu can access like 1,000,000 TeraBytes of RAM.

    But do gamers really need access to more than 4 GB of RAM anytime soon???

    Also, I think Epic is gonna be releasing 64-bit versions of its future Unreal games...

    I'd also want to wait and buy an Intel 64-bit cpu...and Microsoft's 64-bit OS isn't even out yet

    Just wait time will tell.. Don't rush for 64bit yet wait to it really hits.... As long as u can play Ut2k4 right now then your good


      I've heard in lots of places that 64bit CPUs are actually worse for playing games than 32bit CPUs, they give worse frame-rates :down:


        you may be able to access 1TB of memory with a 64bit processor but the max I have heard of supported by motherboards is 8GB! Or course there are ways of getting more but your talking BIG bucks

        64bit is very new. I got a AMD Athlon 64 FX, simply because it still beat the Intel processor of the same price range. Thats WITHOUT going to 64bit

        Both Intels Hyperthreading and AMD's 64bit architecture, needs to be supported by the OS AND the game. None support it properly yet but I have heard "Far Cry" does use some 64bit features.

        If your going to get a processor, see what you can get for your money. Don't go 64bit if the Intel processor of the same spec beats it! Looking into the future 64bit will be king but by that time, there'll be a whole new load of CPU's to drool over!


          Ya I wuz thinkin about gettin 1 of the new 3.6GHz Pentium4's with DDR2 RAM and PCIx graphics...then do the 64-bit thing in a few years...

          And you're right, though a 64-bit cpu can access a shirtload of memory, the motherboard is severly limited in how much memory it can hold

          A 64-bit system will look like this:

          $1,000 for the system
          $2,000 for the RAM



            Because of the great price point the 64bits are going for, I'd go for a 64bit processor.

            Future proof aswell.. 2 years from now your dinosaur of a PC will atleast have something that's still decent

            Which is, obviously, 64bit capabilities.. and 128bit is a long way off. Just look how long it took to go from 32 -> 64

            Make sure you get Socket 939, which is starting to get released.
            64-FX compatible + no registered memory required


              Just as a quick aside.

              Intels top processor
              3.4GHz EXTREME Intel Pentium® 4 CPU "Gallatin" (800FSB) 2M Cache *Retail*

              AMD's Top 64/32 bit processor

              AMD Athlon 64 FX-53 AS BOX 64Bit (32Bit Compatible) CPU Socket 939

              So you save £100 pounds for the 64 bit processor that beats the Intel on games benchmarks (running 32bit)

              The registered memory is PC3200 min which is bloomin fast! and only about £20 more than unregistered so you would probably use the same chips for the Intel as you woud the AMD!

              Personally I chose the AMD Athlon 64bit and got 1GB memory, a new decent case, branded 480W power supply, motherboard for just over £1300

              I wouldn't go 64bit just beacuse it's 64bit but the AMD Athlon 64bit range is kicking Intels bottom at the mo.


              At the mo, you MUST have registered memory for the FX processors. This is because the chip has a built in memory controller and does not rely on the mobos controller


                Well, going with AMD 64-bit is cool cause MicroSoft has said it will only put out 1 64-bit OS that must be compatible with both AMD's and Intel's 64-bit CPUs

                Also, Intel thought they could supplant the ages-old x86 CPU architecture with the one it spent billions developing for its Itanium 64-bit server cpu, but it bet wrong and now AMD has the 32/64 bit compatible desktop market all to itself...but Intel could care less at the moment cause theres no 64-bit OS and few applications

                Intel's x86 answer to the Athlon will be out VERY soon...

                Wish Dell's top-of-line systems had 64-bit cpus...


                  more memory access isn't the only advantage 64-bit has over 32-bit

                  another things it that you have more register space in the cpu. that means a LOT less slow memory swapping between register and memory for doing a calculation. (And for those that don't know, registers are a lot faster than that incredibly slow ddr/ddr2 memory)

                  The only problem with 64-bit right now is that windows and your drivers need to optimize themself for this for a good performance enhancement. But give it some time and your drivers will get better and windows will become faster using this architecture. (Be glad there is already a 64-bit windows beta, it took several years for microsoft to switch from 16-bit to 32-bit windows when the first 32-bit processor came out)


                    you guys REALLY need to go to a decent hardware site like or and read up on the FACTS of the latest releases from Intel and AMD. :noob:


                      Options boil down to one of these two:

                      1) Buy a 64-bit system,

                      even though there currently is few/no 64-bit OS, drivers, or applications...the 64-bit scene is in its infancy. However, game developers will be some of the first to begin to use 64-bit capabilities, and 64-bit versions of popular games will be available next year, as will Miscrosoft's 64-bit OS

                      2) Buy a 3.5-4 GHz 32-bit system,

                      and get the latest kickass RAM and graphics technologies, and be set in a 32-bit dominated market that will be dominant for at least several more years, as the VAST majority of desktop cpu users have no need for 64-bit capabilities WHATSOEVER


                        The AMD 64 are the best gaming cpus available...they will be future proof by being 64 bit compatible at the same time running 32 bit better than p-4...the onboard memory controller lets the cpu bus run at an effective rate of 1600mhz...go to the AMD forums for some good info to help with your decision... they are also very stable to overclock


                          The main problem is the OS.

                          1. Linux - true 64 bit but the graphics drivers need a lot of work! With all the usual features switched on UT2004 turns in a miserable 10 FPS. This is the 64bit demo which should at least give 32bit speeds

                          2. Windows XP 64bit - A wierd sort of half breed that exposes 64bit instructions but is basically 32bit windows. It does run native 64bit apps though. Running through this got me an extra 20fps OVER what I had on Windows 2000 with the same hardware.
                          Again, the problem here are drivers. The Nvidia drivers are very good and the creative Audigy ones work but are a little basic and timeout every so often as they are in beta. You have to be carefull with what hardware you have and what drivers work.

                          Windows XP 64 bit is currently in beta. You can actually order the beta (download - free or on CD for a small delivery fee) now and get a free years worth of use out of it!


                            a 32 bit cpu means that the data registers inside the cpu are 32 bits long.

                            so basically each date register can hold this much information (binary)

                            1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111

                            so a date register can hold a value of (+ or -)2147483648

                            they might have about 16 of these.

                            now with a 64 bit cpu the data registers hold this much

                            1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111
                            1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111



                            so basically if you are somebody who liked to program in assembly you can do alot more with your processor.

                            however there are draw backs of a 64 bit cpu.

                            because the data registers are longer. The address registers also have to hold more so they can tell the cpy where to looks.

                            So basically.

                            32 bit - faster retreival of data but cant get as much at once
                            64 bit - slower retreival of data but can get alot more at once

                            64 bit cpu is far superior however right now applications dont retrieve that amount of data at once because 32 bit cpus are the norm.

                            So therefore 64 bit cpus atm are slower but in the future when they become more mainstream we will probably see a big boost in performance.

                            I hope that made sense and i hope i am correct. Any body else who knows this stuff wanna back me up or contradict me?


                            i have always wondered. Why the hell is the N64 called the N64?
                            and why is the ps2 referred to sometimes as a 128 bit machine.
                            Its kinda strange because afaik both machines have 32 bit cpu.


                              Those replies are great and all, but I think my one sums it up best: