Can Someone Explain this??

[Infernomoonsault]

Hello,

Can Anyone Explain why msinfo32 shows my pc as an "x86-based pc" while the properties of my system show my cpu as "x64"?? I don't think it's because of my OS because everything that I read online says that msinfo should show thw architecture of my cpu rather than my OS. I was upgrading to a 64-bit OS but I don't know whether I should believe msinfo that my cpu is 32-bit or believe my sytem properties that my cpu is 64-bit.

Thanks in Advance to Anyone who can Explain.

PS: I have attached the screenshots of both msinfo and system properties for you guys to have a look

[Electronics Wizardy]

Im pretty sure its means x86 as the archeture, x86_64 or amd64 is a superset of x86

[Infernomoonsault]

44 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Im pretty sure its means x86 as the archeture, x86_64 or amd64 is a superset of x86

Could you please explain this a little more??

btw thanks

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Infernomoonsault said:

Could you please explain this a little more??

btw thanks

 

Back in the day, Intel created a CPU, called it 8086. It had a number of instruction sets, which are kind of building blocks for executing tasks. Since then, Intel continued to build on those instruction sets as it developed new CPUs, called 80286, 80386, 80486... or just 286, 386 and 486, as they were commonly known. Hence, the common sets throughout these iterations, which enabled backward compatibility, got nick-named x86.

IIRC, that topped out at 32-bit. While Intel pursued an alternative 64-bit architecture, AMD developed a 64-bit instruction sets extension of x86, amd64. This was the most successful approach, so both Intel and AMD continued to make "x86_64" CPUs, by cross-licensing the original x86 and the later amd64 designs, so both make fully compatible x86_64 CPUs. That's why programs always work, slower or faster, but they work, regardless of which brand you go with. This is different from what happens, say, in GPUs, were CUDA programs will only run on Nvidia GPUs, for example.

 

When focusing on 32-bit vs 64-bit architectures, it's common to call x86 to the 32-bit version, and sometimes "x64" to the 64-bit version (although there is no 8064 CPU ). But in more general context, when considering PowerPC, ARM, and other architectures such as GPUs, the common x86_64 PC architecture of today is often just referred to as "x86". You may read statements like "ARM wants to make server chips and compete with x86", or "Chromebooks are sort of tablets that can run x86 software", or "the advantage of Xeon Phi over using GPUs is that you can use x86 code directly".

 

Conclusion: "x86" is sometimes used strictly and other times it is used loosely, so you need to double-check with something that tells you explicitly if it is 32-bit or 64-bit.

Your CPU is 64-bit, no question about it. But you can install a 32-bit OS to it, due to said backward-compatibility (in fact, no windows is 100% 64-bit). Your Dell screenshot clearly states that's the case (32-bit processor, 64-bit CPU), and you can also see how that's hurting you: you don't get to use all 4GB of RAM on the 32-bit version, you need to use a 64-bit OS.

Another way to check is to look at your C:\ drive: is there both a "Program Files" AND a "Program Files (x86)" folder? Then it's 64-bit. If there's only a "Program Files", it's 32. You will need to install the 64-bit version instead.

[Infernomoonsault]

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

Back in the day, Intel created a CPU, called it 8086. It had a number of instruction sets, which are kind of building blocks for executing tasks. Since then, Intel continued to build on those instruction sets as it developed new CPUs, called 80286, 80386, 80486... or just 286, 386 and 486, as they were commonly known. Hence, the common sets throughout these iterations, which enabled backward compatibility, got nick-named x86.

IIRC, that topped out at 32-bit. While Intel pursued an alternative 64-bit architecture, AMD developed a 64-bit instruction sets extension of x86, amd64. This was the most successful approach, so both Intel and AMD continued to make "x86_64" CPUs, by cross-licensing the original x86 and the later amd64 designs, so both make fully compatible x86_64 CPUs. That's why programs always work, slower or faster, but they work, regardless of which brand you go with. This is different from what happens, say, in GPUs, were CUDA programs will only run on Nvidia GPUs, for example.

 

When focusing on 32-bit vs 64-bit architectures, it's common to call x86 to the 32-bit version, and sometimes "x64" to the 64-bit version (although there is no 8064 CPU ). But in more general context, when considering PowerPC, ARM, and other architectures such as GPUs, the common x86_64 PC architecture of today is often just referred to as "x86". You may read statements like "ARM wants to make server chips and compete with x86", or "Chromebooks are sort of tablets that can run x86 software", or "the advantage of Xeon Phi over using GPUs is that you can use x86 code directly".

 

Conclusion: "x86" is sometimes used strictly and other times it is used loosely, so you need to double-check with something that tells you explicitly if it is 32-bit or 64-bit.

Your CPU is 64-bit, no question about it. But you can install a 32-bit OS to it, due to said backward-compatibility (in fact, no windows is 100% 64-bit). Your Dell screenshot clearly states that's the case (32-bit processor, 64-bit CPU), and you can also see how that's hurting you: you don't get to use all 4GB of RAM on the 32-bit version, you need to use a 64-bit OS.

Another way to check is to look at your C:\ drive: is there both a "Program Files" AND a "Program Files (x86)" folder? Then it's 64-bit. If there's only a "Program Files", it's 32. You will need to install the 64-bit version instead.

Thanks a lot dude. Just wanted to be sure before I installed the 64-bit version

[Infernomoonsault]

Another Question. Now that I am Installing a 64-bit version of Windows, Should I backup

7 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

Back in the day, Intel created a CPU, called it 8086. It had a number of instruction sets, which are kind of building blocks for executing tasks. Since then, Intel continued to build on those instruction sets as it developed new CPUs, called 80286, 80386, 80486... or just 286, 386 and 486, as they were commonly known. Hence, the common sets throughout these iterations, which enabled backward compatibility, got nick-named x86.

IIRC, that topped out at 32-bit. While Intel pursued an alternative 64-bit architecture, AMD developed a 64-bit instruction sets extension of x86, amd64. This was the most successful approach, so both Intel and AMD continued to make "x86_64" CPUs, by cross-licensing the original x86 and the later amd64 designs, so both make fully compatible x86_64 CPUs. That's why programs always work, slower or faster, but they work, regardless of which brand you go with. This is different from what happens, say, in GPUs, were CUDA programs will only run on Nvidia GPUs, for example.

 

When focusing on 32-bit vs 64-bit architectures, it's common to call x86 to the 32-bit version, and sometimes "x64" to the 64-bit version (although there is no 8064 CPU ). But in more general context, when considering PowerPC, ARM, and other architectures such as GPUs, the common x86_64 PC architecture of today is often just referred to as "x86". You may read statements like "ARM wants to make server chips and compete with x86", or "Chromebooks are sort of tablets that can run x86 software", or "the advantage of Xeon Phi over using GPUs is that you can use x86 code directly".

 

Conclusion: "x86" is sometimes used strictly and other times it is used loosely, so you need to double-check with something that tells you explicitly if it is 32-bit or 64-bit.

Your CPU is 64-bit, no question about it. But you can install a 32-bit OS to it, due to said backward-compatibility (in fact, no windows is 100% 64-bit). Your Dell screenshot clearly states that's the case (32-bit processor, 64-bit CPU), and you can also see how that's hurting you: you don't get to use all 4GB of RAM on the 32-bit version, you need to use a 64-bit OS.

Another way to check is to look at your C:\ drive: is there both a "Program Files" AND a "Program Files (x86)" folder? Then it's 64-bit. If there's only a "Program Files", it's 32. You will need to install the 64-bit version instead.

Another Question. Now that I am Installing a 64-bit Version of Windows, should I backup my Program Files or Reinstall all of my programs again??

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 minutes ago, Infernomoonsault said:

Another Question. Now that I am Installing a 64-bit Version of Windows, should I backup my Program Files or Reinstall all of my programs again??

I may be wrong, but you would need to reinstall programs even if re-installing the 32bit version...

Regardless, I would advice reinstalling, and using the 64-bit version of those programs whenever available.

[homeap5]

You have working and proper os installed already. Why do you want to reinstall?

[Infernomoonsault]

10 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

You have working and proper os installed already. Why do you want to reinstall?

No actually I am installing a 64-bit version from my existing 32-bit version of Windows because I have a few programs that I want to install but can only run on a 64-bit machine.

[Infernomoonsault]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I may be wrong, but you would need to reinstall programs even if re-installing the 32bit version...

Regardless, I would advice reinstalling, and using the 64-bit version of those programs whenever available.

Thanks a lot for your help bro

[homeap5]

3 minutes ago, Infernomoonsault said:

No actually I am installing a 64-bit version from my existing 32-bit version of Windows because I have a few programs that I want to install but can only run on a 64-bit machine.

Right. Good choice then. There is no real reason for using 32bit system.