View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old April 10, 2008, 11:43 AM
Mars Mars is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 492

Originally Posted by biff View Post
There's an interesting comment in the last paragraph on page 5 of that Tom's Hardware read. Anyone have any opinions on that?
Well, if you look at their numbers, they still gain 307MB by running 64-bit with 4GB. Good programmers can make their 64-bit compiles take very little extra memory over the 32-bit versions.

At 4GB, I'd say it doesn't really make much difference if you're using 32-bit or 64-bit, lower than that, might as well use 32-bit, and >4GB, you should definately be using 64-bit.

Originally Posted by enaberif View Post
32bit will be perfectly fine and capable for many years to come and just install 4gb if you wish and accept that only 3-3.5 will ever be available.
Want to bet on that? A number of newer games have trouble with 32-bit memory limits (STALKER, Supreme Commander, The Witcher). 4GB of total memory usage is easy to hit with multitasking. My general programs that I keep open take about 2GB, if I want to open a game, it takes the rest of that. If I'm doing anything particularly memory intensive (video editing, graphics work, compressing files), I can't game without closing the application.

OEM machines are shipping with 3-4GB max now because of the 32-bit limit, I expect this to become too little memory for general use in the next 2-3 years, at most, when Dell starts shipping out 64-bit as standard, then we'll really see mass adoption.

FWIW, while the Tom's article has some good information, it also has some serious flaws, so be careful with the info you get out of it.
Reply With Quote