• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Confirms Drop of 32-bit Executable Driver Support

PrEzi said:
Are you kidding me?
They released like tons of drivers for the RX560, the last one was 18.9.3.

Here you have the 18.9.3 from end of September
https://www.techspot.com/drivers/downloadnow/17832/?evp=1442951cf35848972768a80fbc413e47&file=2
https://www.guru3d.com/files-details/amd-radeon-adrenalin-edition-18-9-3-driver-download.html

And btw - 32bit is bad for any kind of newer games anyway since the memory it can address is limited to 3.5GB. And for old stuff you don't need any new drivers lol.
Click to expand...
I don't see a x86 Windows 10 driver here https://www.amd.com/en/support/graphics/radeon-500-series/radeon-rx-500-series/radeon-rx-560
As much hate as nVidia gets, it has x86 drivers for GTX660(the card that i use in that system). They stopped supporting x86 too a few weeks ago, but not before making a lot of x86 drivers.
 
Last edited:
droopyRO said:
I don't see a x86 Windows 10 driver here https://www.amd.com/en/support/graphics/radeon-500-series/radeon-rx-500-series/radeon-rx-560
Click to expand...
Then you are blind. Apart from just using the links PrEzi provided which have up to date 32bit drivers, the official AMD site you linked also have 32bit drivers when you click on the Adrenalin Edition 18.5.1 release notes
https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-18-5-1
"
The Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 18.5.1 installation package can be downloaded from the following links:

By clicking the Download button, you are confirming that you have read and agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement ("EULA"). If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of these licenses, you do not have a license to any of the AMD software provided by this download.

It's not that tough to find.
 
Deathy said:
It's not that tough to find.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be surprised to know that I couldn't find them either and that I didn't think of using the release notes. In fact , the new way in which they have rearranged the support page makes it painful, since it's unresponsive, to me at least. Sure, you could use the notes, but the thing is that you should be able to get to the support page, select the card you're using and grab the drivers you need from there.

Although, for that matter, we could just grab them from TPU...
 
hat said:
He's right, though. AMD (and nVidia as well, for that matter) have supported 32 bit for long enough. Nobody in their right mind is using a modern high end graphics card on a 32 bit system. 32 bit systems may still have their place, along with those systems that still have to run Windows XP or something because of some necessary application that's not compatible with a newer version of Windows. Nobody should be putting an RX580 in such a system... just like I shouldn't be using drilled/slotted rotors on my car, because I use it for regular driving (and I try to drive easy), not a race track. Sure, I have the option to do that, but should I? It sure wouldn't make much sense, and would in fact be less than ideal, given their increased cost and heavier wear on brake pads for no reason.
Click to expand...
The point I was making isn't about whether or not anyone should. It was more about theirs, yours or my place to tell a user what they may or may not do with their own system. That is their choice. If they want to stick a GTX980 in a 32bit system so they can run a particular 32bit game with blazing fast framerates, that is their choice and no one else's. See what I'm saying? The way @GoldenX statement came off is that they were implying that a GT520 is all that could or should be run, like it was some sort of limit, which is completely untrue. No offense to you GoldenX, just trying to illustrate a point.
 
Deathy said:
Then you are blind. Apart from just using the links PrEzi provided which have up to date 32bit drivers, the official AMD site you linked also have 32bit drivers when you click on the Adrenalin Edition 18.5.1 release notes
https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-18-5-1
"
The Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 18.5.1 installation package can be downloaded from the following links:

By clicking the Download button, you are confirming that you have read and agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement ("EULA"). If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of these licenses, you do not have a license to any of the AMD software provided by this download.

It's not that tough to find.
Click to expand...
It dose not work, those drivers are only for older R7 or R9 and HDxxxx cards, not newer cards like the RX series.
awsfaw3rf.jpg
 
Deathy said:
Then you are blind. Apart from just using the links PrEzi provided which have up to date 32bit drivers, the official AMD site you linked also have 32bit drivers when you click on the Adrenalin Edition 18.5.1 release notes
https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-18-5-1
"
The Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 18.5.1 installation package can be downloaded from the following links:

By clicking the Download button, you are confirming that you have read and agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement ("EULA"). If you do not agree to the terms and conditions of these licenses, you do not have a license to any of the AMD software provided by this download.

It's not that tough to find.
Click to expand...
Those link aren't working. All of them end up at this page;
https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/faq/download-incomplete

EDIT; Just checked and discovered that 32bit drivers that were previously available are now not accessible on AMD's site. This is an odd move for them.

EDIT2; And yet the 18.9.3 drivers are still available on TPU;
https://www.techpowerup.com/download/amd-radeon-graphics-drivers/
 
Last edited:
AMD doesn't like hotlinking.
@lexluthermiester none taken, but you don't game or code for OpenCL on a 32 bit system, there are good options with 32 bit support that aren't Pascal/Turing or Polaris/Vega.
 
lexluthermiester said:
The point I was making isn't about whether or not anyone should. It was more about theirs, yours or my place to tell a user what they may or may not do with their own system. That is their choice. If they want to stick a GTX980 in a 32bit system so they can run a particular 32bit game with blazing fast framerates, that is their choice and no one else's. See what I'm saying? The way @GoldenX statement came off is that they were implying that a GT520 is all that could or should be run, like it was some sort of limit, which is completely untrue. No offense to you GoldenX, just trying to illustrate a point.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying, but the point is moot IMO. Nobody ever puts a GTX980 in a 32 bit rig. Those machines are usually either specialised for one thing or another, or retro builds with the appropriate hardware, and cards like the GTX980 don't go in either.
 
hat said:
Nobody ever puts a GTX980 in a 32 bit rig.
Click to expand...
I have done just that for a few clients. And there is another client that had me build an XP system with a Titan, the last and best card NVidia made XP drivers for. It is being done, but only by a few and for very specific reasons.
 
So would it be pointless investing in an Intel DX2 66Mhz with 4096MB ram ?
 
Many years ago, back in 2005 there was this little chip I used to own, the Pentium 4 630. It was a 64-bit CPU. With all due respect, I think it's time to move on and let it die.

It's time to pull the plug on life-support and let software go where ever software goes when its time is up.

1540648780912.png
 
lexluthermiester said:
That is your opinion. It is not shared by everyone.

Just because it's older doesn't make it useless.
Click to expand...

It is when computers 13 years ago were supporting 64-bit. We don't need to be supporting 32-bit drivers for modern hardware.

Honestly, it doesn't make it worth the effort so there is no reason to be doing it. If you want to run an older OS, then use an older computer. Problem solved.
 
Today I saw a picture of an autoparts store in Poland still running it's software on a Commodore 64. It makes you think about hardware longevity now. Just the smartphone that took the photo would be "billions and billions" of times faster (keeping the joke, the smartphone is made in "China").
Does the Commodore do a good job? Yes. Should it be replaced with something easier to maintain? Yes.
I don't like the idea of depending of the used market to keep a critical system running.
 
GoldenX said:
It makes you think about hardware longevity now.
Click to expand...
Exactly! If it works and does the job needed, who cares how old it is. I know a guy younger than me who still does his personal finances on an Amiga.
GoldenX said:
Just the smartphone that took the photo would be "billions and billions" of times faster.
Click to expand...
Literally!
GoldenX said:
Does the Commodore do a good job? Yes. Should it be replaced with something easier to maintain? Yes. I don't like the idea of depending of the used market to keep a critical system running.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Commodores are very easy to maintain. There are tons of new aftermarket/custom parts available for them.

Anyway, we're a bit off topic..
 
lexluthermiester said:
What do you mean? Commodores are very easy to maintain. There are tons of new aftermarket/custom parts available for them.
Click to expand...
I mean, no new motherboard supports Windows XP natively, and once CSM is killed, the only way to run it will be on VMs. You can't get new socket 775 processors (for example) at good prices. What I mean is that at some point that server running Cobol will be impossible to maintain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top