windows 7 64 bit?

[dude_gamer]

if your motherboard supports DDR3 then no issues..else you need to get DDR2 RAM

Exactly which D41 model ? we have DG41WV(supports DDR3) , DG41RQ & DG41TY(does NOT supports DDR3)

Ohh its my bad luck that i have DG41RQ.Ok no problem.is there 4gb,6gb and 8gb DDR2 all are available?how much cost for these all?which RAM Brand is best?

 

[noob]

Corsair , Kingston , Transcend are good brands... Make sure that if you are going to use same old RAM then buy new one having same frequency..

 

[dude_gamer]

Corsair , Kingston , Transcend are good brands... Make sure that if you are going to use same old RAM then buy new one having same frequency..

To skip Compatibility issue i will buy Kingston only because i already have kingston 2GB RAM DDR2 RAM.thanks Noob.

 

[meetdilip]

You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

 

[skeletor]

Been tired of repeating this a thousand times.

AMD invented the 64-bit architecture which was backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This architecture is known as 'amd64'. Intel because they are morons, on the other hand were pursuing a completely new 64-bit architecture named Itanium 64 or IA-64 which was NOT backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This was to earn more money $$. IA-64 failed because of this reason. Then Intel licensed 'amd64' from AMD and calls it "Intel 64" now for obvious reasons.

amd64 is also called x86_64 or x64. Intel prefers calling it "Intel 64" because of obvious reasons.

So, every processor out there in the market now is an amd64 processor. This is the reason WHY you are able to use a 32-bit OS currently in your Core 2 Duo processor. And this is again the reason why you will be able to use 32-bit applications in a 64-bit OS if you install it.

Cleared?

Ignore what Windows 7 upgrade advisor says. Every 32-bit application works fine in Windows 7 64-bit.

There you go. See in the screenshot and see how many 32-bit applications I am running completely fine. example, Avast AntiVirus.

Spoiler

*i.imgur.com/XdRBQ.png

The only thing you need to take care of is, install 64-bit hardware drivers. That's it.

 

[coolpcguy]

Intel because they are morons, on the other hand were pursuing a completely new 64-bit architecture named Itanium 64 or IA-64 which was NOT backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This was to earn more money $$. This was to earn more money $$. IA-64 failed because of this reason

No.

The Itanium was targeted at servers. Not at consumers. Intel wanted to continue the 32-bit brigade for consumers & the IA-64 at the high-end server market.

AMD, however with their amd64 architecture hit the consumer market. IA-64 was massively delayed & Intel to had license it from AMD to remain in the consumer space.

 

[Joker]

pretty much the same thing...intel would have released ia-64 for consumers too for increasing their margins if any consumer wanted to use more than 3.5 gb ram. 3.5 gb ram bubble had to burst.

u can see what they do now....non-overclockable processors...overclockable processors....non-overclockable chipset...overclockable chipset. only to increase their margins.

 

[dashing.sujay]

You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

Every 32-bit application works fine in Windows 7 64-bit.

It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

 

[noob]

Been tired of repeating this a thousand times.

AMD invented the 64-bit architecture which was backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This architecture is known as 'amd64'. Intel because they are morons, on the other hand were pursuing a completely new 64-bit architecture named Itanium 64 or IA-64 which was NOT backwards compatible with x86 or 32-bit. This was to earn more money $$. IA-64 failed because of this reason. Then Intel licensed 'amd64' from AMD and calls it "Intel 64" now for obvious reasons.

amd64 is also called x86_64 or x64. Intel prefers calling it "Intel 64" because of obvious reasons.

So, every processor out there in the market now is an amd64 processor. This is the reason WHY you are able to use a 32-bit OS currently in your Core 2 Duo processor. And this is again the reason why you will be able to use 32-bit applications in a 64-bit OS if you install it.

Cleared?

Ignore what Windows 7 upgrade advisor says. Every 32-bit application works fine in Windows 7 64-bit.

There you go. See in the screenshot and see how many 32-bit applications I am running completely fine. example, Avast AntiVirus.

Spoiler

*i.imgur.com/XdRBQ.png

The only thing you need to take care of is, install 64-bit hardware drivers. That's it.

why this stupid KIES is still installed on your system ? o

 

[skeletor]

It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

no. This is a complete myth. The difference is only in how much RAM they can utilize. Generally.video encoders are helped. Except those hardly 5% boost in general. And running 32-bit apps is also doesn't mean performance penalty.

why this stupid KIES is still installed on your system ? o

To check firmware updates on a random day.

 

[meetdilip]

It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

Think you missed this part

You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

Even if you have 64 bit OS ( I have) many apps are still 32 bit and works normally.

 

[Joker]

It makes no sense installing 32 bit apps on 64 bit, unless 64 bit is not available. Because 64-bit OS/apps give 30-40% performance increase (read as better execution of instruction set).

that is not true. it is virtually the same performance. running 32bit apps is also the same performance on amd64. minor differences can be there.

if u run x86 32-bit application on itanium 64...then you have a point as those will be emulated and huge performance loss compared to itanium 64 apps.

 

[dude_gamer]

OK guys if i want to install windows 7 64 bit with best performance then i want minimum 4GB of Ram.

I am using kingston 2GB RAM DDR2(800MHz).My Intel motherboard (DG41RQ) compatible with DDR2 RAM only.So,only option available to buy Kingston 4GB DDR2 or 8GB DDR2(because if i buy another 2GB RAM then it is useless after 2 year because latest technology comes in every year).

But i am little bit confused that my old RAM is 2GB DDR2 800MHz.So, if i buy 4GB DDR2 1066MHz then it will compatible with my old 2GB 800 MHZ RAM.

And other question i didn't found 8GB RAM information in KINGSTON site,Do they manufacturing 8GB or 1GB/2GB/4GB only?

 

[clmlbx]

first kingston does have 8Gb ram..

If you are Home or basic office user you don't need 4Gb Ram.. Listen

windows 7 64bit will run perfectly even with 2Gb Ram.. you don't need to add more.

Facts are

only 64bit version can utilize more then 4GB ram ..

windows 7 64bit will use this much ram only if any programme needs it..like 3D and designing apps. or say Games...

For normal use.. 2Gb is sufficient but ya windows 7 runs best with 4Gb any version (32bit or 64bit)

 

[dude_gamer]

first kingston does have 8Gb ram..

If you are Home or basic office user you don't need 4Gb Ram.. Listen

windows 7 64bit will run perfectly even with 2Gb Ram.. you don't need to add more.

Facts are

only 64bit version can utilize more then 4GB ram ..

windows 7 64bit will use this much ram only if any programme needs it..like 3D and designing apps. or say Games...

For normal use.. 2Gb is sufficient but ya windows 7 runs best with 4Gb any version (32bit or 64bit)

my friend told me in this matter that 64 bit OS utilize full RAM otheside 32 bit OS utilize only 70-80% of total RAM.
Is it true?

 

[clmlbx]

Not at all ..32bit utilizes all available ram with max of 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram

here is the restriction 32bit can not use more then 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram..

Now people who use 64bit because they have need for more ram & fast calculations .. to use more ram they need to shift to 64bit..

uses of more ram:-

Games
3d apps
Designing tools
virtual netwrork (vmware and other apps)

even apps should be 64bit.. to utilize power of 64bit calculations..

 

[dude_gamer]

Not at all ..32bit utilizes all available ram with max of 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram

here is the restriction 32bit can not use more then 4Gb (3.7 - 3.8gb something) ram..

Now people who use 64bit because they have need for more ram & fast calculations .. to use more ram they need to shift to 64bit..

uses of more ram:-

Games
3d apps
Designing tools
virtual netwrork (vmware and other apps)

even apps should be 64bit.. to utilize power of 64bit calculations..

I am playing High graphics game.so shall i go with 4GB of DDR2 Kingston or if i buy other brands then is it compatible with each other.The ram i have is 2gb Kingston ddr2 899MHz.

 

[clmlbx]

It will help in games only if you have good graphic card.. pls mention make and model of graphic card..

 

[dashing.sujay]

no. This is a complete myth. The difference is only in how much RAM they can utilize. Generally.video encoders are helped. Except those hardly 5% boost in general. And running 32-bit apps is also doesn't mean performance penalty.

If you think what I'm saying is myth, then correct your knowledge man. What you've said is not even a myth, absolutely wrong.

*Due to wider registers, thus much more addressing of memory can be done, that's why 4GB gap is uplifted. This 4GB limit uplifting is just an added advantage of 64-bit.

*I don't stress over 30-40%, but at least 10% performance is gained on average, in execution of instruction sets and especially virtual memory gains from it.

*Though 32-bit apss are supported from ground, but in reality they have to go through a software simulation due to 64-bit memory referencing which creates the performance gap.

Think you missed this part

You can install 64 bit Windows on 2 GB RAM too, just that it won't give any advantage. It will work like a 32 bit Windows.

Even if you have 64 bit OS ( I have) many apps are still 32 bit and works normally.

I didn't missed any part, and I haven't said 32-bit won't work normally. I just said if 64-bit is available then it makes no sense using 32-bit due to above stated reasons.

that is not true. it is virtually the same performance. running 32bit apps is also the same performance on amd64. minor differences can be there.

if u run x86 32-bit application on itanium 64...then you have a point as those will be emulated and huge performance loss compared to itanium 64 apps.

See, there is some "virtual" gain at root level (read execution of instruction sets). But yeah, no performance gain be seen "practically" by normal users. Yeah, that simulation plays a very imp role in degrading performance of a 32-bit app over a 64-bit app. Though, In case of Itanium its totally diff case. It has got a separate 32 bit core to handle that.

 

[skeletor]

I accept my mistake of using the word "only" there. Replace it by "the main difference".

30-40% is certainly a myth.

Now coming to the point,

If you think what I'm saying is myth, then correct your knowledge man. What you've said is not even a myth, absolutely wrong.

*Due to wider registers, thus much more addressing of memory can be done, that's why 4GB gap is uplifted. This 4GB limit uplifting is just an added advantage of 64-bit.

*I don't stress over 30-40%, but at least 10% performance is gained on average, in execution of instruction sets and especially virtual memory gains from it.

*Though 32-bit apss are supported from ground, but in reality they have to go through a software simulation due to 64-bit memory referencing which creates the performance gap.

Point 2 is fine. 10% gain can be there because of being a x86_64 app. 30-40% was a pretty huge number you said. That kind of gain is mainly because because a process would be using more than 4 GB RAM or really high optimization. Run on 32-bit with PAE, it would see a similar gain because the process will be able to address more RAM.

Point 3 is wrong. NO SOFTWARE **SIMULATION**. Only compatibility. That was the _point_ why amd64 was created by AMD. That was the reason why they didn't choose Itanium 64. Performance gap is there...but it is 4-5% at max.

Quoting from Wikipedia itself:

x86-64 is an extension of the x86 instruction set. It supports vastly larger virtual and physical address spaces than are possible on x86, thereby allowing programmers to conveniently work with much larger data sets. x86-64 also provides 64-bit general purpose registers and numerous other enhancements. The original specification was created by AMD, and has been implemented by AMD, Intel, VIA, and others. It is fully backwards compatible with 32-bit code.[1](p13) Because the full 32-bit instruction set remains implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties,[2] although existing applications that are recoded to take advantage of new features of the processor design may see performance increases.