Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 87213	2008-02-12 19:18:00	32-bit or 64-bit Windows Vista? Help me choose!	jason_f90 (3544)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
639784	2008-02-13 07:10:00	Or transcoding video/audio. Or compiling software. Or rendering animations & composited still scenes. Pretty much any CPU-intensive activity will get a major performance boost if you run it as 64 bit rather than 32. 64 bit has nothing to do with the performance of virtualised OSs, unless you're talking about virtualizing a 64bit OS - not easily possible in a 32bit host environment. You also don't need anything close to 4GB of ram for this activity. Mate, without at least 4gb RAM, i wouldnt bother with 64bit, just my opinion. As for virtualisation, 2gb for the O/S and 1-2Gb for 1-2 O/S as virtual pc's!. Do you run live environment virtual systems? As for compiling, encoding etc, show me the major performance boost!, 32 bit is limited to 2gb per app, therefore (edit little) difference to 64bit 2gb!, edit, though I do little encoding....	SolMiester (139)
639785	2008-02-13 07:26:00	Found some benchies, 20-30% avg www.scribd.com and user experience\comments www.osnews.com	SolMiester (139)
639786	2008-02-13 07:47:00	Mate, without at least 4gb RAM, i wouldnt bother with 64bit, just my opinion.Depends entirely on what you are wanting to do with your CPU. Have you actually tried working in a 64bit environment? It has a huge performance impact. As for virtualisation, 2gb for the O/S and 1-2Gb for 1-2 O/S as virtual pc's!.Only if both the host and the guest are heavily loaded Vista systems. In most other situations, 512MB for the host and 512MB per guest is more than enough for desktop systems unless you're doing something *very* memory-intensive. I won't get into virtualised servers here, as they have different requirements. Do you run live environment virtual systems?Yes, both desktop & server (64bit hosts, mixture of 64bit/32bit guests). Servers are run under Xen, desktop systems under KVM (both of these can take advantage of hardware virtualisation in the CPU). Performance is outstanding. As for compiling, encoding etc, show me the major performance boost!Real life example, ripping a 90 minute DVD movie to two-pass h.264 (700MB output file), 96k AAC audio. 32bit: ~42fps 64bit: ~90fps Is that enough of a performance boost for you? 32 bit is limited to 2gb per app, therefore (edit little) difference to 64bit 2gb!This argument is completely irrelevant unless you're running apps that require more than 3GB/process, which most people don't do. I was talking about CPU performance, not about the amount of addressable memory. These are two completely different areas. edit, though I do little encoding....Well whoopee, while you may not do much of this, there are many of us who do - as such, it's a pretty significant factor in deciding which OS to run. Taking a DVD rip as an example, the time saved by running in 64bit can easily be well over an hour per disk, sometimes more.	Erayd (23)
639787	2008-02-13 08:13:00	Well Bletch, I dont run 512mb desktop systems anymore, xp, office suites, accountancy packages and bespoke SQL database clients dont run well on 512mb. None of these software packages have 64bit alternatives. So no, the only production 64bit environment I has worked with is exchange server and a windows 2003 x64 host. I use 64bit only as we use over 16Gb RAM per host. As for servers!, come on, you may get away with linux servers on 512mb, but not windows systems. As for Virtual, I run esx hosts, which is true enough a linux o/s, however virtualisation in a production environment is all about i/o and memory. Oh, and 32bit application limit is 2gb, not 3gb. As for ripping....sorry encoding, not all apps have a 50% boost. Is the performance you are showing the same application, but different bit versions or different packages period?	SolMiester (139)
639788	2008-02-13 08:25:00	Well Bletch, I dont run 512mb desktop systems anymore, xp, office suites, accountancy packages and bespoke SQL database clients dont run well on 512mb.If you're running all that in a VM then I feel sorry for you - that lot should rightly have a machine of its own, and I see what you mean about needing a ton of ram for it. None of these software packages have 64bit alternatives.The joys of using proprietry software... 32bit makes sense in your case. Ouch. So no, the only production 64bit environment I has worked with is exchange server and a windows 2003 x64 host.What's the performance like on server 2003/exchange x64 as compared to the 32bit version? I haven't had much to do with Windows servers, so not sure what the performance is like. I use 64bit only as we use over 16Gb RAM per host.Yikes! That's a fair bit - what exactly do these boxes do? As for servers!, come on, you may get away with linux servers on 512mb, but not windows systems.What do you think I run? :rolleyes: As for Virtual, I run esx hosts, which is true enough a linux o/s, however virtualisation in a production environment is all about i/o and memory.Depends on the task. For a static web, file or mail server, certainly. And the more ram the better - larger caches = way better performance for IO-heavy tasks. From what I've heard, ESX performs similarly to Xen, although I haven't personally used ESX. Oh, and 32bit application limit is 2gb, not 3gb.Oops, typo. Well spotted. As for ripping....sorry encoding, not all apps have a 50% boost. Is the performance you are showing the same application, but different bit versions or different packages period?No, not all apps will show this boost, but anything in this area written to take advantage of a 64bit platform will show a pretty convincing boost. The app I was testing with was the Linux CLI version of HandBrake 0.9.1. It was actually the same binary, on the same system, switching between a 32bit and 64bit environment. I don't have a clue how they managed to cram support for both architectures into the same binary, but they managed it somehow. The testing platform was Debian Lenny, with a custom 2.6.24 kernel.	Erayd (23)
639789	2008-02-13 22:34:00	Bletch - VM ESX boxes with Virtualisation Infrasture, box 1 8 core, 16Gb runs a File Server,Exchange (2003 and test 2007x64) server, SQL # 2 server, Utility Server, Print Server & Phone logging Server, and 2 Terminal Servers. The DR box with 4 cores 10Gb, runs SQL #1 server, and is the standby in case the production box goes down. The VM are stored on a MSA50 direct array and all I need to do is swap the SAS lead to the other box. I also have a slush NAS of 1TB to throw snapshots of the VM's to for backup. The above replaced 7 servers which most needed replacing anyway. Of course with ESX the box has a virtual switch so communication between and I/O between the servers is instant. I'm still getting to grips with exchange 2007, but I do have another test box on Windows 2003 x64 with 5Gb RAM with dual 3gb Xeons, just for playing and testing apps\windows 2008 etc......hehe. I have a lot to learn about linux!	SolMiester (139)
639790	2008-02-13 22:48:00	www.webopedia.com support.microsoft.com	pctek (84)
639791	2008-02-14 00:20:00	Bletch - VM ESX boxes with Virtualisation Infrasture, box 1 8 core, 16Gb runs a File Server,Exchange (2003 and test 2007x64) server, SQL # 2 server, Utility Server, Print Server & Phone logging Server, and 2 Terminal Servers. The DR box with 4 cores 10Gb, runs SQL #1 server, and is the standby in case the production box goes down. The VM are stored on a MSA50 direct array and all I need to do is swap the SAS lead to the other box. I also have a slush NAS of 1TB to throw snapshots of the VM's to for backup. The above replaced 7 servers which most needed replacing anyway. Of course with ESX the box has a virtual switch so communication between and I/O between the servers is instant. I'm still getting to grips with exchange 2007, but I do have another test box on Windows 2003 x64 with 5Gb RAM with dual 3gb Xeons, just for playing and testing apps\windows 2008 etc......hehe. I have a lot to learn about linux!:D sounds fun... gotta love virtualised servers. Makes life a lot less complicted :thumbs:.	Erayd (23)
1 2