Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Simply Computers] 32 bit or 64 bit

Expand Messages
  • Brendan Kelly
    32 bit machines support up to 4GB of RAM ONLY, not even close to 64GB of RAM. 64 bit limits RAM to something unbelievably large that will likely never be used
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 1, 2011
      32 bit machines support up to 4GB of RAM ONLY, not even close to 64GB of
      RAM. 64 bit limits RAM to something unbelievably large that will likely
      never be used (although saying that in tech is a big no no :P - cue the
      "640K of RAM" quote hehe).

      On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Ron <david.m.ron@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Sorry... I'm going to make a few corrections....
      >
      > A 32 bit system has, for fear of oversimplifying, a set of 32 wires that
      > wind their way through the CPU to process instructions. This means that
      > each clock cycle can handle 32 bits of data in each clock cycle (not
      > counting the fact that a CPU can sometimes execute more than one
      > instruction in a cycle). A 1 Ghz processor has 1 billion clock cycles in a
      > second.
      >
      > In theory, A 64 bit system has 64 wires and therefore can handle twice as
      > much data in a clock cycle. In fact, this is not precisely true because of
      > the way that instructions are processed, a 64 bit system can only really
      > handle less than 30% more data.
      >
      > There is a common misconseption that a 32-bit system can only address 2^32
      > bytes of memory which works out to 4 billion bytes, or 4gb of RAM. In
      > truth, 32-bit systems have had support for PAE since the mid 1990s which
      > allows them to support 36 bits of data, which is 2^36=64GB of RAM. The 4GB
      > limitation on 32-bit machines is an artificial limitation in Windows that
      > Microsoft has put into place to make people pay a little more for 64-bit
      > support. I have 16GB of RAM in my 32bit Ubuntu installation that works fine.
      >
      > It is true that in theory, a 64-bit machine can process data faster than a
      > 32-bit machine because there is more room to fit the instruction and the
      > location in RAM that the instruction is supposed to take place encoded in a
      > single 64-bits and therefore save a clock cycle or two by doing the
      > fetching of the data and the math on that data in a single instruction.
      > Fortunately for us 32-bit users this is also incorrect. All CPUs have an
      > instruction pipeline that can pre-fetch data before executing the
      > instruction and so adding the extra bits really doesn't make a difference.
      > In fact, since there are more transistors in a 64-bit chip than a 32-bit
      > chip, and you have to wait for all of the wires to finish before moving on
      > to the next instruction, some 64-bit chips are actually slower (in Ghz)
      > than their 32-bit counterparts - or they can't be overclocked as much.
      >
      > The only place where there is more than a nominal difference in speed is
      > when you are crunching extremely large integers or you need a single
      > application to use more than 2GB of RAM. Only people who are rendering
      > video (Pixar) or doing complex scientific calculations (NASA) would notice
      > the difference.
      >
      > In other words:
      >
      > 1. 64 bit machines aren't noticeably faster than 32 bit machines.
      > 2. 32 bit machines support up to 64 GB of RAM
      > 3. Microsoft has placed an artificial limitation of 4GB on 32 bit windows.
      >
      > --David
      >
      >
      > On 11/27/2011 09:27 AM, Ardell Faul wrote:
      > >
      > > A 32 bit system can handle 2 to the 32nd power, or 429,4967,296 bits of
      > > data in each clock cycle.
      > >
      > > a 64 bit system can handle 2 to the 64th power, or
      > > 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. A BIG difference.
      > >
      > > Ardell Faul
      > > Computer Monitor Service Inc.
      > > Ardell's Laptop and PC Repair
      > > 10816 E. Mission Ave.,
      > > Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
      > > ardell@... <mailto:ardell%40icehouse.net>
      >
      > > 509-891-5188
      > >
      > > On 11/26/2011 11:07 PM, Phillip and Joyce wrote:
      > > >
      > > > I see some programs run on 32 or 64 bit.
      > > > What is the differences and how can you tell what one you have?
      > > > Phil
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Ron
      You re not wrong, I thought that I made that clear in my message. But I was trying to correct a few misconceptions: 1. 32 bit systems can process 2^32 bits of
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 1, 2011
        You're not wrong, I thought that I made that clear in my message. But I
        was trying to correct a few misconceptions:

        1. 32 bit systems can process 2^32 bits of data in a clock cycle. This
        is incorrect. A 32 bit system processes 32 bits in a clock cycle
        (give or take for pipelining, prefetch, hyperthreading, PAE and
        other efficiencies).
        2. 32 bit systems are faster. This is incorrect.
        3. 32 bit systems can only address 4gb of ram. This is ONLY correct in
        Windows not because of a hardware limitation rather because of an
        artificial limitation in place by Microsoft.

        --David



        On 11/30/2011 10:06 PM, RogerX19 wrote:
        >
        > David,
        >
        > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are talking about 32 bit vs.
        > 64 bit processors (that is, hardware)
        >
        > I believe Phil was referring to 32 bit vs. 64 bit Windows.
        >
        > Not to say that you are wrong, but I think we need to clarify which we
        > are talking about.
        >
        > As example, your statement "32 bit machines support up to 64 GB of RAM
        > "... may be true (I don't know), but this 32 bit Windows I'm running
        > only supports 3+ GB.
        >
        > It's the difference between 32/64 bit processors and 32/64 bit
        > software, and for the benefit of those who don't recognize the
        > difference, perhaps we should be state of which we speak?
        >
        > rogerX
        >
        > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com
        > <mailto:simplycomputers2%40yahoogroups.com>, David Ron
        > <david.m.ron@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Sorry... I'm going to make a few corrections....
        > >
        > > A 32 bit system has, for fear of oversimplifying, a set of 32 wires
        > that wind their way through the CPU to process instructions. This
        > means that each clock cycle can handle 32 bits of data in each clock
        > cycle (not counting the fact that a CPU can sometimes execute more
        > than one instruction in a cycle). A 1 Ghz processor has 1 billion
        > clock cycles in a second.
        > >
        > > In theory, A 64 bit system has 64 wires and therefore can handle
        > twice as much data in a clock cycle. In fact, this is not precisely
        > true because of the way that instructions are processed, a 64 bit
        > system can only really handle less than 30% more data.
        > >
        > > There is a common misconseption that a 32-bit system can only
        > address 2^32 bytes of memory which works out to 4 billion bytes, or
        > 4gb of RAM. In truth, 32-bit systems have had support for PAE since
        > the mid 1990s which allows them to support 36 bits of data, which is
        > 2^36=64GB of RAM. The 4GB limitation on 32-bit machines is an
        > artificial limitation in Windows that Microsoft has put into place to
        > make people pay a little more for 64-bit support. I have 16GB of RAM
        > in my 32bit Ubuntu installation that works fine.
        > >
        > > It is true that in theory, a 64-bit machine can process data faster
        > than a 32-bit machine because there is more room to fit the
        > instruction and the location in RAM that the instruction is supposed
        > to take place encoded in a single 64-bits and therefore save a clock
        > cycle or two by doing the fetching of the data and the math on that
        > data in a single instruction. Fortunately for us 32-bit users this is
        > also incorrect. All CPUs have an instruction pipeline that can
        > pre-fetch data before executing the instruction and so adding the
        > extra bits really doesn't make a difference. In fact, since there are
        > more transistors in a 64-bit chip than a 32-bit chip, and you have to
        > wait for all of the wires to finish before moving on to the next
        > instruction, some 64-bit chips are actually slower (in Ghz) than their
        > 32-bit counterparts - or they can't be overclocked as much.
        > >
        > > The only place where there is more than a nominal difference in
        > speed is when you are crunching extremely large integers or you need a
        > single application to use more than 2GB of RAM. Only people who are
        > rendering video (Pixar) or doing complex scientific calculations
        > (NASA) would notice the difference.
        > >
        > > In other words:
        > >
        > > 1. 64 bit machines aren't noticeably faster than 32 bit machines.
        > > 2. 32 bit machines support up to 64 GB of RAM
        > > 3. Microsoft has placed an artificial limitation of 4GB on 32 bit
        > windows.
        > >
        > >
        > > --David
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > On 11/27/2011 09:27 AM, Ardell Faul wrote:
        > > >
        > > > A 32 bit system can handle 2 to the 32nd power, or 429,4967,296
        > bits of
        > > > data in each clock cycle.
        > > >
        > > > a 64 bit system can handle 2 to the 64th power, or
        > > > 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. A BIG difference.
        > > >
        > > > Ardell Faul
        > > > Computer Monitor Service Inc.
        > > > Ardell's Laptop and PC Repair
        > > > 10816 E. Mission Ave.,
        > > > Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
        > > > ardell@... <mailto:ardell%40icehouse.net>
        > > > 509-891-5188
        > > >
        > > > On 11/26/2011 11:07 PM, Phillip and Joyce wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > I see some programs run on 32 or 64 bit.
        > > > > What is the differences and how can you tell what one you have?
        > > > > Phil
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Ron
        Brendan, I believe you are mistaken. Since the mid 1990 s, all PCs have supported PAE which can address up to 36 bits, or 64 GB of RAM:
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 1, 2011
          Brendan, I believe you are mistaken. Since the mid 1990's, all PCs have
          supported PAE which can address up to 36 bits, or 64 GB of RAM:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

          The 4GB limitation is a Microsoft software limitation to get more money
          from businesses:
          http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm

          64GB is not unbelievably large. I work on systems with 128GB of ram
          every day (64 bit OS). My laptop has 16GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS.

          --David



          On 12/01/2011 12:35 AM, Brendan Kelly wrote:
          >
          > 32 bit machines support up to 4GB of RAM ONLY, not even close to 64GB of
          > RAM. 64 bit limits RAM to something unbelievably large that will likely
          > never be used (although saying that in tech is a big no no :P - cue the
          > "640K of RAM" quote hehe).
          >
          > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Ron <david.m.ron@...
          > <mailto:david.m.ron%40gmail.com>> wrote:
          >
          > > **
          > >
          > >
          > > Sorry... I'm going to make a few corrections....
          > >
          > > A 32 bit system has, for fear of oversimplifying, a set of 32 wires that
          > > wind their way through the CPU to process instructions. This means that
          > > each clock cycle can handle 32 bits of data in each clock cycle (not
          > > counting the fact that a CPU can sometimes execute more than one
          > > instruction in a cycle). A 1 Ghz processor has 1 billion clock
          > cycles in a
          > > second.
          > >
          > > In theory, A 64 bit system has 64 wires and therefore can handle
          > twice as
          > > much data in a clock cycle. In fact, this is not precisely true
          > because of
          > > the way that instructions are processed, a 64 bit system can only really
          > > handle less than 30% more data.
          > >
          > > There is a common misconseption that a 32-bit system can only
          > address 2^32
          > > bytes of memory which works out to 4 billion bytes, or 4gb of RAM. In
          > > truth, 32-bit systems have had support for PAE since the mid 1990s which
          > > allows them to support 36 bits of data, which is 2^36=64GB of RAM.
          > The 4GB
          > > limitation on 32-bit machines is an artificial limitation in Windows
          > that
          > > Microsoft has put into place to make people pay a little more for 64-bit
          > > support. I have 16GB of RAM in my 32bit Ubuntu installation that
          > works fine.
          > >
          > > It is true that in theory, a 64-bit machine can process data faster
          > than a
          > > 32-bit machine because there is more room to fit the instruction and the
          > > location in RAM that the instruction is supposed to take place
          > encoded in a
          > > single 64-bits and therefore save a clock cycle or two by doing the
          > > fetching of the data and the math on that data in a single instruction.
          > > Fortunately for us 32-bit users this is also incorrect. All CPUs have an
          > > instruction pipeline that can pre-fetch data before executing the
          > > instruction and so adding the extra bits really doesn't make a
          > difference.
          > > In fact, since there are more transistors in a 64-bit chip than a 32-bit
          > > chip, and you have to wait for all of the wires to finish before
          > moving on
          > > to the next instruction, some 64-bit chips are actually slower (in Ghz)
          > > than their 32-bit counterparts - or they can't be overclocked as much.
          > >
          > > The only place where there is more than a nominal difference in speed is
          > > when you are crunching extremely large integers or you need a single
          > > application to use more than 2GB of RAM. Only people who are rendering
          > > video (Pixar) or doing complex scientific calculations (NASA) would
          > notice
          > > the difference.
          > >
          > > In other words:
          > >
          > > 1. 64 bit machines aren't noticeably faster than 32 bit machines.
          > > 2. 32 bit machines support up to 64 GB of RAM
          > > 3. Microsoft has placed an artificial limitation of 4GB on 32 bit
          > windows.
          > >
          > > --David
          > >
          > >
          > > On 11/27/2011 09:27 AM, Ardell Faul wrote:
          > > >
          > > > A 32 bit system can handle 2 to the 32nd power, or 429,4967,296
          > bits of
          > > > data in each clock cycle.
          > > >
          > > > a 64 bit system can handle 2 to the 64th power, or
          > > > 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. A BIG difference.
          > > >
          > > > Ardell Faul
          > > > Computer Monitor Service Inc.
          > > > Ardell's Laptop and PC Repair
          > > > 10816 E. Mission Ave.,
          > > > Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
          > > > ardell@... <mailto:ardell%40icehouse.net>
          > <mailto:ardell%40icehouse.net>
          > >
          > > > 509-891-5188
          > > >
          > > > On 11/26/2011 11:07 PM, Phillip and Joyce wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > I see some programs run on 32 or 64 bit.
          > > > > What is the differences and how can you tell what one you have?
          > > > > Phil
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Brendan Kelly
          no, 32 bit hardware can only support 4GB of RAM. It s not physically possible for it to support more. 2^32 is 4294967296 ... that s how many bytes a 32 bit
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 1, 2011
            no, 32 bit hardware can only support 4GB of RAM. It's not physically
            possible for it to support more. 2^32 is 4294967296 ... that's how many
            bytes a 32 bit machine can address. 64 bit machines can address
            1.844674407×10¹⁹ bytes of RAM. It has nothing to do with microsoft putting
            in a limitation, it's a physical limitation of the hardware.

            On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:10 PM, David Ron <david.m.ron@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > You're not wrong, I thought that I made that clear in my message. But I
            > was trying to correct a few misconceptions:
            >
            > 1. 32 bit systems can process 2^32 bits of data in a clock cycle. This
            > is incorrect. A 32 bit system processes 32 bits in a clock cycle
            > (give or take for pipelining, prefetch, hyperthreading, PAE and
            > other efficiencies).
            > 2. 32 bit systems are faster. This is incorrect.
            > 3. 32 bit systems can only address 4gb of ram. This is ONLY correct in
            > Windows not because of a hardware limitation rather because of an
            > artificial limitation in place by Microsoft.
            >
            > --David
            >
            >
            > On 11/30/2011 10:06 PM, RogerX19 wrote:
            > >
            > > David,
            > >
            > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are talking about 32 bit vs.
            > > 64 bit processors (that is, hardware)
            > >
            > > I believe Phil was referring to 32 bit vs. 64 bit Windows.
            > >
            > > Not to say that you are wrong, but I think we need to clarify which we
            > > are talking about.
            > >
            > > As example, your statement "32 bit machines support up to 64 GB of RAM
            > > "... may be true (I don't know), but this 32 bit Windows I'm running
            > > only supports 3+ GB.
            > >
            > > It's the difference between 32/64 bit processors and 32/64 bit
            > > software, and for the benefit of those who don't recognize the
            > > difference, perhaps we should be state of which we speak?
            > >
            > > rogerX
            > >
            > > --- In simplycomputers2@yahoogroups.com
            > > <mailto:simplycomputers2%40yahoogroups.com>, David Ron
            > > <david.m.ron@...> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Sorry... I'm going to make a few corrections....
            > > >
            > > > A 32 bit system has, for fear of oversimplifying, a set of 32 wires
            > > that wind their way through the CPU to process instructions. This
            > > means that each clock cycle can handle 32 bits of data in each clock
            > > cycle (not counting the fact that a CPU can sometimes execute more
            > > than one instruction in a cycle). A 1 Ghz processor has 1 billion
            > > clock cycles in a second.
            > > >
            > > > In theory, A 64 bit system has 64 wires and therefore can handle
            > > twice as much data in a clock cycle. In fact, this is not precisely
            > > true because of the way that instructions are processed, a 64 bit
            > > system can only really handle less than 30% more data.
            > > >
            > > > There is a common misconseption that a 32-bit system can only
            > > address 2^32 bytes of memory which works out to 4 billion bytes, or
            > > 4gb of RAM. In truth, 32-bit systems have had support for PAE since
            > > the mid 1990s which allows them to support 36 bits of data, which is
            > > 2^36=64GB of RAM. The 4GB limitation on 32-bit machines is an
            > > artificial limitation in Windows that Microsoft has put into place to
            > > make people pay a little more for 64-bit support. I have 16GB of RAM
            > > in my 32bit Ubuntu installation that works fine.
            > > >
            > > > It is true that in theory, a 64-bit machine can process data faster
            > > than a 32-bit machine because there is more room to fit the
            > > instruction and the location in RAM that the instruction is supposed
            > > to take place encoded in a single 64-bits and therefore save a clock
            > > cycle or two by doing the fetching of the data and the math on that
            > > data in a single instruction. Fortunately for us 32-bit users this is
            > > also incorrect. All CPUs have an instruction pipeline that can
            > > pre-fetch data before executing the instruction and so adding the
            > > extra bits really doesn't make a difference. In fact, since there are
            > > more transistors in a 64-bit chip than a 32-bit chip, and you have to
            > > wait for all of the wires to finish before moving on to the next
            > > instruction, some 64-bit chips are actually slower (in Ghz) than their
            > > 32-bit counterparts - or they can't be overclocked as much.
            > > >
            > > > The only place where there is more than a nominal difference in
            > > speed is when you are crunching extremely large integers or you need a
            > > single application to use more than 2GB of RAM. Only people who are
            > > rendering video (Pixar) or doing complex scientific calculations
            > > (NASA) would notice the difference.
            > > >
            > > > In other words:
            > > >
            > > > 1. 64 bit machines aren't noticeably faster than 32 bit machines.
            > > > 2. 32 bit machines support up to 64 GB of RAM
            > > > 3. Microsoft has placed an artificial limitation of 4GB on 32 bit
            > > windows.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --David
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > On 11/27/2011 09:27 AM, Ardell Faul wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > A 32 bit system can handle 2 to the 32nd power, or 429,4967,296
            > > bits of
            > > > > data in each clock cycle.
            > > > >
            > > > > a 64 bit system can handle 2 to the 64th power, or
            > > > > 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. A BIG difference.
            > > > >
            > > > > Ardell Faul
            > > > > Computer Monitor Service Inc.
            > > > > Ardell's Laptop and PC Repair
            > > > > 10816 E. Mission Ave.,
            > > > > Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
            > > > > ardell@... <mailto:ardell%40icehouse.net>
            > > > > 509-891-5188
            > > > >
            > > > > On 11/26/2011 11:07 PM, Phillip and Joyce wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I see some programs run on 32 or 64 bit.
            > > > > > What is the differences and how can you tell what one you have?
            > > > > > Phil
            > > > > >
            > > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Brendan Kelly
            I stand corrected :) ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 1, 2011
              I stand corrected :)

              On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:18 PM, David Ron <david.m.ron@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > Brendan, I believe you are mistaken. Since the mid 1990's, all PCs have
              > supported PAE which can address up to 36 bits, or 64 GB of RAM:
              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
              >
              > The 4GB limitation is a Microsoft software limitation to get more money
              > from businesses:
              >
              > http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/windows/license/memory.htm
              >
              > 64GB is not unbelievably large. I work on systems with 128GB of ram
              > every day (64 bit OS). My laptop has 16GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS.
              >
              > --David
              >
              >
              > On 12/01/2011 12:35 AM, Brendan Kelly wrote:
              > >
              > > 32 bit machines support up to 4GB of RAM ONLY, not even close to 64GB of
              > > RAM. 64 bit limits RAM to something unbelievably large that will likely
              > > never be used (although saying that in tech is a big no no :P - cue the
              > > "640K of RAM" quote hehe).
              > >
              > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:26 AM, David Ron <david.m.ron@...
              > > <mailto:david.m.ron%40gmail.com>> wrote:
              > >
              > > > **
              >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Sorry... I'm going to make a few corrections....
              > > >
              > > > A 32 bit system has, for fear of oversimplifying, a set of 32 wires
              > that
              > > > wind their way through the CPU to process instructions. This means that
              > > > each clock cycle can handle 32 bits of data in each clock cycle (not
              > > > counting the fact that a CPU can sometimes execute more than one
              > > > instruction in a cycle). A 1 Ghz processor has 1 billion clock
              > > cycles in a
              > > > second.
              > > >
              > > > In theory, A 64 bit system has 64 wires and therefore can handle
              > > twice as
              > > > much data in a clock cycle. In fact, this is not precisely true
              > > because of
              > > > the way that instructions are processed, a 64 bit system can only
              > really
              > > > handle less than 30% more data.
              > > >
              > > > There is a common misconseption that a 32-bit system can only
              > > address 2^32
              > > > bytes of memory which works out to 4 billion bytes, or 4gb of RAM. In
              > > > truth, 32-bit systems have had support for PAE since the mid 1990s
              > which
              > > > allows them to support 36 bits of data, which is 2^36=64GB of RAM.
              > > The 4GB
              > > > limitation on 32-bit machines is an artificial limitation in Windows
              > > that
              > > > Microsoft has put into place to make people pay a little more for
              > 64-bit
              > > > support. I have 16GB of RAM in my 32bit Ubuntu installation that
              > > works fine.
              > > >
              > > > It is true that in theory, a 64-bit machine can process data faster
              > > than a
              > > > 32-bit machine because there is more room to fit the instruction and
              > the
              > > > location in RAM that the instruction is supposed to take place
              > > encoded in a
              > > > single 64-bits and therefore save a clock cycle or two by doing the
              > > > fetching of the data and the math on that data in a single instruction.
              > > > Fortunately for us 32-bit users this is also incorrect. All CPUs have
              > an
              > > > instruction pipeline that can pre-fetch data before executing the
              > > > instruction and so adding the extra bits really doesn't make a
              > > difference.
              > > > In fact, since there are more transistors in a 64-bit chip than a
              > 32-bit
              > > > chip, and you have to wait for all of the wires to finish before
              > > moving on
              > > > to the next instruction, some 64-bit chips are actually slower (in Ghz)
              > > > than their 32-bit counterparts - or they can't be overclocked as much.
              > > >
              > > > The only place where there is more than a nominal difference in speed
              > is
              > > > when you are crunching extremely large integers or you need a single
              > > > application to use more than 2GB of RAM. Only people who are rendering
              > > > video (Pixar) or doing complex scientific calculations (NASA) would
              > > notice
              > > > the difference.
              > > >
              > > > In other words:
              > > >
              > > > 1. 64 bit machines aren't noticeably faster than 32 bit machines.
              > > > 2. 32 bit machines support up to 64 GB of RAM
              > > > 3. Microsoft has placed an artificial limitation of 4GB on 32 bit
              > > windows.
              > > >
              > > > --David
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > On 11/27/2011 09:27 AM, Ardell Faul wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > A 32 bit system can handle 2 to the 32nd power, or 429,4967,296
              > > bits of
              > > > > data in each clock cycle.
              > > > >
              > > > > a 64 bit system can handle 2 to the 64th power, or
              > > > > 18,446,744,073,709,551,616. A BIG difference.
              > > > >
              > > > > Ardell Faul
              > > > > Computer Monitor Service Inc.
              > > > > Ardell's Laptop and PC Repair
              > > > > 10816 E. Mission Ave.,
              > > > > Spokane Valley, Wa. 99206
              > > > > ardell@... <mailto:ardell%40icehouse.net>
              > > <mailto:ardell%40icehouse.net>
              > > >
              > > > > 509-891-5188
              > > > >
              > > > > On 11/26/2011 11:07 PM, Phillip and Joyce wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > I see some programs run on 32 or 64 bit.
              > > > > > What is the differences and how can you tell what one you have?
              > > > > > Phil
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.