QUESTION: Old Athlon

[Krazy Owl]

Hi.

I have here an skt754 Athlon 64 3200+ 2.0 gigs FSB 800 and I want to know if the performance will be really different between a 32bits and 64bits system?

I can install Win XP pro 32 bits, Vista pro 32 bits, Vista pro 64 bits, Win 7 pro 64 bits.

Thank you!

[DarkOCean]

how much ram the pc with that cpu will have ? if its 2 gb or less - 32 bit would do better, xp 32 will be the best choice for it.

[Krazy Owl]

Its max 2 gigs but i will use the onboard video that i can set at 200mhz/200mhz. With up to 256megs onboard I think. Ultra256 2D/3D.

[Jstn7477]

Windows XP for onboard video that won't have drivers for Vista/7.

[Mussels]

for something of that era, stick with 32 bit XP.

[Krazy Owl]

Ok thx. Will it change performance in case i find a Win XP 64 bits ?

[DarkOCean]

Originally Posted by Krazy Owl

Ok thx. Will it change performance in case i find a Win XP 64 bits ?

64bit OS are a little heavier on the cpu and you have no reason to use the 64bit xp since you have only 2gigs of ram.

[Krazy Owl]

Ok. I was wondering because the cpu is a 64 bits.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by Krazy Owl

Ok. I was wondering because the cpu is a 64 bits.

doesnt make a difference. 64 bit only allows the OS to have more than 4GB of ram. it doesnt change performance.

[de.das.dude]

64bit will feel a lot faster. i used to have a 3500+

[natr0n]

Imo.

If you're giving it away use xp 32 so no hassle for user.

If you're keeping it for yourself use xp 64.

I am an xp64 fan it runs nice and fast if you can find the drivers.

[Krazy Owl]

If I want the feel of XP but the Graphic of 7 can I goi Vista 64 bits ? I'm having it here already.

[Frick]

The closest thing to that is windows 7. So i wouldnt go with vista.

[Krazy Owl]

Ok why not vista then ? BTW do you know a safe place to download the language pack in french for vista 64 business ? I already have the key.

[DarkOCean]

Originally Posted by Krazy Owl

Ok why not vista then ? BTW do you know a safe place to download the language pack in french for vista 64 business ? I already have the key.

windows update
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...windows-update

[Aquinus]

I have a Athlon 64 3700+ 2.1Ghz on skt939 that only supports up to 2Gb of DDR-400 and it runs Windows 7 32 and 64 bit just fine. 64-bit doesn't give you many benefits without the memory but as long as the hard drive isn't dead slow (which would slow down any computer,) XP or 7 will work just fine. XP will use less memory but I would still opt for Windows 7 Pro x64 if you're putting 2Gb in. The benefits will outweigh the costs. 7 will most likely have every driver you need out of the box as well, XP probably won't.

[zsolt_93]

The ideal choice would be Windows 7 32 bit. Preferrably home or so, as not to overload the system with usually functions that even tech minded people aren't using. It works better than XP for sure in general use. Some say it can be even faster than xp on older systems too and with 2 gigs of ram it will run decently. But forget 64bit for any os you'd install it is not worth the hassle for XP and the later ones have no real advantage on your config.

[Mussels]

well the thing is, while 7 will run smooth it will use about 1GB of ram.


my slightly modified/slimmed down XP uses 100MB at idle.


for a system with not a lot of ram, the performance of the OS itself might not differ - but the amount of programs you can run sure as hell will. 2GB doesnt even let me use firefox with 30+ tabs in windows 7, but in XP it might.

[Melvis]

I follow a rule of thumb if its a Skt 478 or 754 and under i install XP only, otherwise the system will run slow and most of the time these systems of that age are only got installed 2GB of ram or under

[McSteel]

I'd stay with XP 32-bit. Single core processors tend to be a bit sluggish on the newer kernels. Avoiding Vista goes almost without saying.

As for the whole 32 vs 64-bit memory-wise, the 4 GB limit is imposed by Microsoft, not hardware per se.

There is a technique of memory addressing known as PAE (physical address extension). A PAE-capable kernel is able to access memory addresses as if it were 36-bit, and as such, it is theoretically capable of accessing 64GB of RAM. There is a list of Windows OSs and their respective RAM limits, source of which can be found here.

As you can see, even the Server 2003 (which uses the same kernel (core) as XP) is able to address > 4GB with PAE enabled. There are kernel hacks floating around the web that allow XP 32-bit to do the same, however, system protections in place would mean you need to run it in debugging mode all the time, which is inconvenient. But the conclusion remains, Microsoft has intentionally hard-coded an artificial limit, so as to "better" differentiate between various product lines and their capabilities.

Much like Vista Starter is limited to 1GB and 7 Starter to 2GB of RAM.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by McSteel

I'd stay with XP 32-bit. Single core processors tend to be a bit sluggish on the newer kernels. Avoiding Vista goes almost without saying.

As for the whole 32 vs 64-bit memory-wise, the 4 GB limit is imposed by Microsoft, not hardware per se.

There is a technique of memory addressing known as PAE (physical address extension). A PAE-capable kernel is able to access memory addresses as if it were 36-bit, and as such, it is theoretically capable of accessing 64GB of RAM. There is a list of Windows OSs and their respective RAM limits, source of which can be found here.

As you can see, even the Server 2003 (which uses the same kernel (core) as XP) is able to address > 4GB with PAE enabled. There are kernel hacks floating around the web that allow XP 32-bit to do the same, however, system protections in place would mean you need to run it in debugging mode all the time, which is inconvenient. But the conclusion remains, Microsoft has intentionally hard-coded an artificial limit, so as to "better" differentiate between various product lines and their capabilities.

Much like Vista Starter is limited to 1GB and 7 Starter to 2GB of RAM.

the problem with PAE, is that the apps are still restricted to 2GB (or 4GB with LAA flags set). its dragging this off topic, for a home user PAE is kinda pointless.

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

I would use xp 32bit. You can always skin it to look like vista or windows 7.

[Aleksander]

Read my old thread where there was actually enough difference for an old computer
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=121595

This other thread would be interesting
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=114751

[Aleksander]

I found the proof on an old thread of mine where I made the difference

EDIT: Looks like the photos won't work here. Have a look at the thread:
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/sh...=121595&page=2
The photos are there

[FreedomEclipse]

late to this thread but Ive had a AMD64 FX-55, 3000+, 3500+ (all socket 939) running windows vista and 7. with Vista it was a little unresponsive due to how resource hungry it was but Windows 7 worked fine and I ran both OS's in 64bit as a backup rig for more then a year. the CPUs were paired with a x850xtpe AGP mind you so it wasnt exactly the greatest machine out there but it played guild wars, L4D, TF2 and pretty much anything i wanted it to at the time before I parted it out for a few upgrades/rebuilds and just never put it back together again.

I think the either the board or CPU is dead though which is a shame. If its the board its a real shame as it was one of my favorite MSI boards back in the day -- K8N Neo2 Platinum. I could probably replace it and get it working for shits and giggles but it will be my 3rd Neo2 board not to mention a total waste of money when i already have much more powerful machines as backup

:EDIT:

Forgot to add, i was using 2GB DDR1 PC-3200(400Mhz) with some crazy OC a 470 or 480Mhz stable at 3-3-3-8. not bad for some budget ram