A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

32 or 64 bits with old CPU



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 3rd 17, 11:12 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Antoine8
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU


Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?
Ads
  #2  
Old December 3rd 17, 11:50 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Carpe Diem[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

Op 3/12/2017 om 11:12 schreef Antoine8:

Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?


How much RAM?

--
Carpe Diem

"Make things as simple as possible,
but not simpler (Albert Einstein).
  #3  
Old December 3rd 17, 11:54 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

On 12/3/2017 2:50 AM, Carpe Diem wrote:
Op 3/12/2017 om 11:12 schreef Antoine8:

Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?


How much RAM?

Can you find 64-bit drivers for your hardware?
I stuck with 32-bit for that reason.
  #4  
Old December 3rd 17, 01:23 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Antoine8
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

mike a écritÂ*:
On 12/3/2017 2:50 AM, Carpe Diem wrote:
Op 3/12/2017 om 11:12 schreef Antoine8:

Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?


How much RAM?

Can you find 64-bit drivers for your hardware?
I stuck with 32-bit for that reason.



No Windows 10 drivers are available from the motherboard manufacturer.

Same for 32 bits and 64 bits.

But Windows has found the drivers itself for the current 32 bits
installation. Perhaps it should act the same for 64 bits version.



  #5  
Old December 3rd 17, 01:27 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Antoine8
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

Carpe Diem a écritÂ*:
Op 3/12/2017 om 11:12 schreef Antoine8:

Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?


How much RAM?



Total RAM is 6 Go, using only 4 with current 32 bits installation.

But this is not really a problem, because no hungry applications are
launched on this computer.

The question is more about performance (speed, reactivity) when
switching to 64 bits operating system, for this old computer.

  #6  
Old December 3rd 17, 01:40 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
KenW[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:12:16 +0100, Antoine8
wrote:


Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?


No


KenW
  #7  
Old December 3rd 17, 04:03 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

"Antoine8" wrote

| Total RAM is 6 Go, using only 4 with current 32 bits installation.
|
| But this is not really a problem, because no hungry applications are
| launched on this computer.
|
| The question is more about performance (speed, reactivity) when
| switching to 64 bits operating system, for this old computer.
|

There isn't any difference that way. 32 vs 64 is about
data stored in memory or passed to functions. 32-bit
means a 4-byte integer is the standard data size. Most
functions take 4-byte values when numbers are required.
CPUs take 4-byte values for calculations.

A 4-byte number can only go up to about 4 billion.
That's why there's a RAM limit. Functionality depends
on sharing the address (or offset) of data in memory.
For instance, a program asks the system for data and
the system returns a pointer -- a number that indicates
where in memory it's put the data requested. The software
then copies the data from that address. On a 32-bit
system the pointer is 32-bit/4 bytes. 4-byte numbers
simply can't point to memory addresses above about
4 GB because you can't count higher with 4 bytes.

64-bit means the default data size is 8 bytes. That
means you can use more RAM and functions can handle
bigger numbers. But it's mainly preparation for the future.
If you edit very large photos you might be able to use
more RAM. And there are a handful of programs that now
have only a 64-bit version. But those are offset by
things that can't work with 64-bit. For instance, if you
have 32-bit shell extensions you'd lose those switching
to 64-bit. Ditto for DLLs. 32-bit software can run on
64-bit Windows, but 32 and 64 can't be mixed in a single
process. You could have 32-bit dependencies that won't
show up until you try to run them on 64-bit.

What probably would give you improved performance
would be to get a multi-core CPU. But that probably
means a new board and different RAM. And if you do
that you'll probably want a new power supply. If you're
not handy that means buying a new computer....
If it were me I wouldn't spend a dime on anything to
improve what you have. It's already got far more RAM
than most people need, even being limited to 4GB.

If it's too slow then upgrade the whole system. If not
then stick with what you have. As for switching Windows
itself, I wouldn't bother unless you're doing something
that requires 64-bit. That would probably be something
like a video or photo editing program that either only
comes in 64-bit or routinely uses a very large amount
of RAM.


  #8  
Old December 3rd 17, 05:21 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

Antoine8 wrote:

Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?


These test results are a little unexpected. Note that the
type of program tested here, is "data intensive". Not all
programs will behave like this. Microsoft Word should finish
the scroll test in about the same time interval, in both
environments.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...d=2004&page=16

Mini-GZIP

AMD Sempron 3600+ (WinXP 32/32 Bit executable) 9.38 seconds
AMD Sempron 3600+ (WinXP 64/32 Bit executable) 9.38 seconds
AMD Sempron 3600+ (WinXP 64/64 Bit executable) 4.57 seconds (faster)

DiVX Encoding

AMD Sempron 3600+ (WinXP 32/32 Bit executable) 12.387 seconds
AMD Sempron 3600+ (WinXP 64/32 Bit executable) 12.341 seconds
AMD Sempron 3600+ (WinXP 64/64 Bit executable) 9.662 seconds (faster)

You could do a clean install of Win10 x64 on a separate disk drive,
and benchmark some 64-bit applications to see how many seconds
they differ, compared to your 32-bit setup.

Nothing will change the impact that Windows maintenance tasks
have on a single core system. I have such a setup on my
laptop, an AMD single core 64-bit processor. And I wouldn't
exactly call it fast. Win10 is rather good on the battery
if the network cable is unplugged. Once you plug in the
network cable, it's an entirely different story (battery
life prediction plummets and is worse than Win7). Plugging in
the cable starts Windows Update to run, and who knows what else.
When you have a single core, there's no segregation of wasteful
activity.

That's why I like quad core processors - three cores for Microsoft,
one core for the user.

I have an SSD in the laptop, and that has helped a bit
with boot-time.

Paul
  #9  
Old December 3rd 17, 06:06 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

"Paul" wrote

| These test results are a little unexpected. Note that the
| type of program tested here, is "data intensive"....

| http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...d=2004&page=16
|

Also, they're described as specifically optimized for
AMD64. But they don't explain what that means. Is the
data encoded/decoded in different sized chunks for better
efficiency? (That would be a rare optimizing option.)
Does the 64-bit version use specific AMD-64 registers
in the CPU that give it a boost? No explanation.
So the usefulness of that rating is questionable except
in the context of assessing gzip or divx for intensive
commercial use. As you noted, it's not likely to show
differences in things like using MS Word.

The main differences are in how many operations per
second can be handled (CPU GHz), how efficiently multiple
cores can be used, how clean the system is running, etc.


  #10  
Old December 3rd 17, 07:11 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

| These test results are a little unexpected. Note that the
| type of program tested here, is "data intensive"....

| http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...d=2004&page=16
|

Also, they're described as specifically optimized for
AMD64. But they don't explain what that means. Is the
data encoded/decoded in different sized chunks for better
efficiency? (That would be a rare optimizing option.)
Does the 64-bit version use specific AMD-64 registers
in the CPU that give it a boost? No explanation.
So the usefulness of that rating is questionable except
in the context of assessing gzip or divx for intensive
commercial use. As you noted, it's not likely to show
differences in things like using MS Word.

The main differences are in how many operations per
second can be handled (CPU GHz), how efficiently multiple
cores can be used, how clean the system is running, etc.


Hmmm.

https://github.com/pagespeed/zlib/bl...ter/minigzip.c

The miniGZIP benchmark seems to diverge more and more,
the more powerful the hardware.

http://www.frostytech.com/articlevie...d=2156&page=15

Paul

  #11  
Old December 3rd 17, 07:21 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Lucifer Morningstar[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 368
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 11:12:16 +0100, Antoine8
wrote:

Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will I get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?


Depends on how much RAM.
  #12  
Old December 3rd 17, 07:40 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

"Paul" wrote

| The main differences are in how many operations per
| second can be handled (CPU GHz), how efficiently multiple
| cores can be used, how clean the system is running, etc.
|
| Hmmm.
|
| https://github.com/pagespeed/zlib/bl...ter/minigzip.c
|

I don't understand why you linked that. It's just
a light wrapper using the zlib functions to gzip a file.
There's no compression code there at all.

The only thing that might yield a clue to the
optimizing would be the source code for zlib. (Which
I'm not especially anxious to study.

The gzip code compresses a whole file into a
single data stream in one go, calling zlib functions
to do it. If zlib does something like work on one
chunk at a time, altering the chunk size on 32 vs 64,
that might explain the difference. But that would
also be a very function-specific optimizing. Most
software is not doing operations like that. Even
when it does, most people are not needing to deal
with vastly gigantic compression jobs. If I need
to open a .gz file it's instant in my perception, and
there's no such thing as more instant.


  #13  
Old December 4th 17, 12:20 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

Mayayana wrote:
"Paul" wrote

| The main differences are in how many operations per
| second can be handled (CPU GHz), how efficiently multiple
| cores can be used, how clean the system is running, etc.
|
| Hmmm.
|
| https://github.com/pagespeed/zlib/bl...ter/minigzip.c
|

I don't understand why you linked that. It's just
a light wrapper using the zlib functions to gzip a file.
There's no compression code there at all.

The only thing that might yield a clue to the
optimizing would be the source code for zlib. (Which
I'm not especially anxious to study.

The gzip code compresses a whole file into a
single data stream in one go, calling zlib functions
to do it. If zlib does something like work on one
chunk at a time, altering the chunk size on 32 vs 64,
that might explain the difference. But that would
also be a very function-specific optimizing. Most
software is not doing operations like that. Even
when it does, most people are not needing to deal
with vastly gigantic compression jobs. If I need
to open a .gz file it's instant in my perception, and
there's no such thing as more instant.


What I find puzzling, is the speedup is more than
a factor of two. And software in that class, doesn't
use multiple cores.

There is only one implementation of multi-core ZIP and
that's "PIGZ". And I think it runs a single process
during decompression (that's almost universal in the
industry as well). No developer seems to be all that
enthusiastic about reconstruction using multiple cores :-)
People have suggested multi-core decompression to Igor,
but he's not interested.

There must be something a lot different about the
64bit version of miniGZIP program.

Paul
  #14  
Old December 4th 17, 03:03 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Brian Gregory
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 648
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

On 03/12/2017 12:27, Antoine8 wrote:
The question is more about performance (speed, reactivity) when
switching to 64 bits operating system, for this old computer.


In general can go either way.

The 64 programs will be a bit bigger which can slow things down a bit
(more to fetch from RAM, caches fill up quicker).

The extra registers (and in a few cases the extra size of them) can
speed things up in some cases.

As far as just Windows 10 itself goes I doubt there would much
difference either way but I don't really have any experience to go by.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.
  #15  
Old December 4th 17, 02:26 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
mike[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default 32 or 64 bits with old CPU

On 12/3/2017 4:23 AM, Antoine8 wrote:
mike a écrit :
On 12/3/2017 2:50 AM, Carpe Diem wrote:
Op 3/12/2017 om 11:12 schreef Antoine8:

Hello

My computer is old.

The CPU is AMD Sempron 145 (64 bits, but only 1 core)

It is used with Windows 10 32 bits.

Is it useful to switch to Windows 10 64 bits with such an old CPU ?

Will i get an improvement in performance or the opposite ?

How much RAM?

Can you find 64-bit drivers for your hardware?
I stuck with 32-bit for that reason.



No Windows 10 drivers are available from the motherboard manufacturer.

Same for 32 bits and 64 bits.

But Windows has found the drivers itself for the current 32 bits
installation. Perhaps it should act the same for 64 bits version.

Not been my experience.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.