64-bit or 32-bit

[David P.]

I am building a system and I am going to put windows 10 as the operating system, and I was wondering how you know wether to use 64-bit or 32-bit. Is it just what you decide you want, or does it depend on your cpu or something like that? Thanks!

[PRTI]

64 64 64

[QFA350]

If you have 4GB of RAM or more you choose 64bit. Any less than 4GB, 32Bit.

[David P.]

Just now, Warning said:

If you have 4GB of RAM or more you choose 64bit. Any less than 4GB, 32Bit.

Great thanks! I wasnt aware of that.

[Enderman]

64 bit, because this is 2016 not 2006.

[David P.]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

64 bit, because this is 2016 not 2006.

I was wondering what determines it, plus it was already answered, so thanks for the useless comment

[DrMacintosh]

64 Bit always until 128Bit becomes a thing 

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, David P. said:

I was wondering what determines it, plus it was already answered, so thanks for the useless comment

Uh, no, even if you have less than 4GB of ram you should be using 64 bit.

Unless you live in the 1990s and have a 32bit CPU, a 64 bit OS is always supported and will perform better.

All consumer CPUs these days are 64 bit, and there is no reason to force a 32 bit restriction on yourself.

[Cracklingice]

If you have a 64 bit chip you get 64 bit windows.  Doesn't matter if you have 512mb of ram or 512gb of ram.  Putting 32 bit on a 64 bit chip means you cannot run any programs coded for 64 bit operation.

[David P.]

Just now, Cracklingice said:

If you have a 64 bit chip you get 64 bit windows.  Doesn't matter if you have 512mb of ram or 512gb of ram.  Putting 32 bit on a 64 bit chip means you cannot run any programs coded for 64 bit operation.

So how can you tell if you have a x64 chip? is that in the cpu?

[Cracklingice]

Yes it is.  Basically if the computer is less than 5 years old, it pretty much has to be 64 bit.  However, if you let us know what the computer or processor is, we can make sure.

[LogicalDrm]

19 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Uh, no, even if you have less than 4GB of ram you should be using 64 bit.

Unless you live in the 1990s and have a 32bit CPU, a 64 bit OS is always supported and will perform better.

All consumer CPUs these days are 64 bit, and there is no reason to force a 32 bit restriction on yourself.

 

Actually 32bit is better if you would be running lower end system with 2gb or less of RAM. 2-4gb I agree should be on 64bit since limit is 3.5Gb.

 

4 minutes ago, David P. said:

So how can you tell if you have a x64 chip? is that in the cpu?

Check on CPUs product page. But all desktop CPUs after 2005/6 are 64bit.

[Enderman]

Just now, LoGiCalDrm said:

Actually 32bit is better if you would be running lower end system with 2gb or less of RAM. 2-4gb I agree should be on 64bit since limit is 3.5Gb.

A system with 2GB of ram should not be running windows at all.

[LogicalDrm]

Just now, Enderman said:

A system with 2GB of ram should not be running windows at all.

We can as well wider the question to cover all OS'. Points remain the same. But if you want to be nitpicking, I think you can as well run something like Windows with Bing! on such lower end machines. If you must have windows.

[David P.]

Yes I figured out if its 64-bit or 32-bit, Thanks!

[Enderman]

13 minutes ago, LoGiCalDrm said:

We can as well wider the question to cover all OS'. Points remain the same. But if you want to be nitpicking, I think you can as well run something like Windows with Bing! on such lower end machines. If you must have windows.

No. Unless you have a 32 bit CPU there is absolutely no reason to use a 32 bit OS.

The reason I said to not use windows is because it is not a lightweight OS and will perform horribly with 4GB of ram or less. It usually uses 2-3GB idle already.

 

If you want a lightweight OS for an old system, use linux, and it does NOT need to be 32 bit.

64 bit will run just fine, and is more secure and supports better features and drivers. It will also perform better than a 32 bit version, even if it's a crappy PC with little ram. http://www.howtogeek.com/165144/htg-explains-should-you-use-the-32-bit-or-64-bit-edition-of-ubuntu-linux/

 

Again, the only reason to use a 32 bit OS is if your CPU does not support 64 bit OSes, which would mean you're using a CPU from like 1996 or something like that.

[LogicalDrm]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

64 bit will run just fine, and is more secure and supports better features and drivers. It will also perform better than a 32 bit version, even if it's a crappy PC with little ram.

I call bullshit that 64bit is more secure or has better driver support. Its same thing, except for being made for older architecture.

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, LoGiCalDrm said:

I call bullshit that 64bit is more secure or has better driver support. Its same thing, except for being made for older architecture.

What???

64 bit is made for newer architectures, 32 bit is the old thing that is being phased out.

If you read the link I posted there is plenty of info there why 64 bit is better. Here is why it is safer: http://www.howtogeek.com/165535/why-the-64-bit-version-of-windows-is-more-secure/

 

A 64 bit OS supports anything that is 32 bit, but a 32 bit OS does not support anything that is 64 bit. So modern programs or features being coded in 64 will not work on a 20 year old 32 bit computer running a 32 bit CPU and OS.

 

32 bit is like the BIOS, while 64 bit is UEFI.

No reason to stick with a 20 year old limitation.

[GoodBytes]

6 hours ago, Warning said:

If you have 4GB of RAM or more you choose 64bit. Any less than 4GB, 32Bit.

Whhhaat? No.

 

[tobben]

64 bit is backwards compatible, 32 is not "upwards"

compatible . Little to no reason to choose 32 bit 
in 2016 with somewhat relevant hardware. 

[GoodBytes]

 

@David P. You pick what your CPU supports. Unless you have a VERY specific need, or your computer is more than 10 years old, there is no reason to install 32-bit version of Windows. You know what your CPU supports by looking at the specification of the processor. Intel, AMD, and the retail store you buy your chip from all mentions it.

 

Keep in mind that 64-bit CPUs supports 32-bit programs. 32-bit CPUs cannot support 64-bit programs. So if you install a game and its 64-bit, it won't run on a 32-bit CPU. Windows will tell you: "Invalid Win32 application", because it tries to read it, but the address length are too long and fails.

 

@LoGiCalDrm, 32-bit does use less RAM than the 64-bit. But the different isn't huge. And That is you opinion on the matter. You can still install 64-bit if you have 512MB of RAM if you want. RAM usage does not reflect performance.

 

 

5 hours ago, LoGiCalDrm said:

I call bullshit that 64bit is more secure or has better driver support. Its same thing, except for being made for older architecture.

CPUs when use with a 64-bit OS is more secure than installing 32-bit OS on a 32 or 64-bit CPU. To be specific, as I know someone will point this out: "32-bit", "64-bit" is used in the context of the x86 and x86-64 architecture. What is being said here may not apply to any other architecture if they are 32 or 64-bit.

 

The reason why it is more secure, is that if you install 32-bit OS on a 64-bit OS, it will lock down a set of security features that it is impossible to support without changing 32-bit x86 architecture. 64-bit add-on of the x86 architecture (so: x86-64) added a set of security features. One of the famous and biggest flaw of the 32-bit architecture is: Buffer overflow. It is also very easy to implement, and was widely used before by virus maker. This affected all OS. They are a great number of YouTube video, some even 1h long explaining this. But in a but shell it involves overloading the memory using a weakness of a software, for example a text box that doesn't check the max length of character that the array of character it takes is too small, allowing to access memory where it isn't supposed to have access and change data, controlling the software to do something else.