Another new computer decision help request

[Chalenge]

No its not. 64 bit might be faster because you have fewer programs loaded on it but the two OSs are the same speed.

The cost difference is in telling people to get more RAM (more than 4 GB) for a 64 bit OS. Most people will never use the extra memory and the 64 bit OS is no faster. Waste of money.

[columbus]

a 64 bit data path will put more data through then a 32 bit data path.  64 bit OS will be faster even is just a small percentage 5%-10%.
you dont have to have more then 4Gigs to run the 64 bit OS.  it just takes advantage of it if you do.  keep in mind i am talking about the OS, some 32 bit apps may actually run slower on a 64 bit OS.

[AAJagerX]

Ok, so what is the verdict on hybrid drives?  Looking at one for my rig.  I'd like to hear some opinions. 

[Chalenge]

a 64 bit data path will put more data through then a 32 bit data path.  64 bit OS will be faster even is just a small percentage 5%-10%.
you dont have to have more then 4Gigs to run the 64 bit OS.  it just takes advantage of it if you do.  keep in mind i am talking about the OS, some 32 bit apps may actually run slower on a 64 bit OS.

No sir. The OS doesnt run any faster. It provides an environment in which some programs can address more memory. You think because 64 bit is larger than 32 bit that it moves data faster? Its simply not true. All the 64 bit or 32 bit name means is that it can address memory with a larger or smaller address length. Unless your program is specifically designed to use more than 3.5-4 GB it wont even make use of more memory and the 64 bit environment isnt doing anything for you. Most of the 64 bit games available dont really get anything out of being 64 bit. They dont give you a single frame more and usually will give less because people think since they are on a faster OS (which they arent) that they can run higher settings or enthusiast textures or whatever. If you want things to run faster spend money on better hardware (and dont waste money on SSDs) like faster CPUs or memory SATA 3 HDs and so on.

Now if you have a program that can make use of larger memory addressing AND can make use of multi-core CPUs then you probably want to run an i7 system on Windows 7 64 bit because it is probably the best memory handling OS going and especially with multi-threading apps (mostly limited to engineering programs like AutoCAD or video and audio processing). The best game I have seen for i7 systems is FSX and even it doesnt use much of the latter cores and none of the virtual cores but it will use more memory. AutoCAD or AeroCAD (the Lockheed Martin version) probably BRLCAD (the Army version) may and 3D Studio will use multicore and the larger memory (all you got) but the only real reason they are faster is because they dont have to swap data off and on the HDs.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

No sir. The OS doesnt run any faster. It provides an environment in which some programs can address more memory. You think because 64 bit is larger than 32 bit that it moves data faster? Its simply not true. All the 64 bit or 32 bit name means is that it can address memory with a larger or smaller address length. Unless your program is specifically designed to use more than 3.5-4 GB it wont even make use of more memory and the 64 bit environment isnt doing anything for you. Most of the 64 bit games available dont really get anything out of being 64 bit. They dont give you a single frame more and usually will give less because people think since they are on a faster OS (which they arent) that they can run higher settings or enthusiast textures or whatever. If you want things to run faster spend money on better hardware (and dont waste money on SSDs) like faster CPUs or memory SATA 3 HDs and so on.

Now if you have a program that can make use of larger memory addressing AND can make use of multi-core CPUs then you probably want to run an i7 system on Windows 7 64 bit because it is probably the best memory handling OS going and especially with multi-threading apps (mostly limited to engineering programs like AutoCAD or video and audio processing). The best game I have seen for i7 systems is FSX and even it doesnt use much of the latter cores and none of the virtual cores but it will use more memory. AutoCAD or AeroCAD (the Lockheed Martin version) probably BRLCAD (the Army version) may and 3D Studio will use multicore and the larger memory (all you got) but the only real reason they are faster is because they dont have to swap data off and on the HDs.

That's a pretty general statement there.

For example wikipedia states the following:

Pros and cons

A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of main memory. This is not entirely true:
Some operating systems and certain hardware configurations limit the physical memory space to 3 GB on IA-32 systems, due to much of the 3–4 GB region being reserved for hardware addressing; see 3 GB barrier. This is not present in 64-bit architectures, which can use 4 GB of memory and more. However, IA-32 processors from the Pentium II onwards allow for a 36-bit physical memory address space, using Physical Address Extension (PAE), which gives a 64 GB physical address range, of which up to 62 GB may be used by main memory; operating systems that support PAE may not be limited to 4GB of physical memory, even on IA-32 processors.
Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and other user mode OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3 GB (depending on the settings) address space available. This limit is currently much higher on 64-bit operating systems and does not realistically restrict memory usage.
Memory-mapped files are becoming more difficult to implement in 32-bit architectures.[citation needed] A 4 GB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is a problem, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.
Some programs such as data encryption software can benefit greatly from 64-bit registers (if the software is 64-bit compiled) and effectively execute 3 to 5 times faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit.[citation needed]
Some 64-bit architectures, such as x86-64, allow for more general purpose registers than their 32-bit counterparts. This is a significant speed increase for tight loops since the processor doesn't have to go out the second level cache or main memory to gather data if it can fit in the available registers.
Example:
for (a=0; a<100; a++)
{
  b = a;
  c = b;
  d = c;
  e = d;
}
If a processor only has the abillity to keep two three values/variables (registers) in fast memory it would need to stop executing and push and pop the stack to be able to process variable d and e as well. A process that takes a lot of CPU cycles. A processor that is capable of holding all the values/variables (registers) in memory can simply just loop through this without needing to halt execution for each iteration just to get the proper data in memory. This behavior can easily be compared with virtual memory.

[Chalenge]

I would warrant that 99.9% of 64-bit OS users wouldnt know how to do that Ripley. Yes I agree its very much like a virtual disk/memory. However... as to the rest of what I said you can refer to the expert Paul Thurrott (Windows 7 Secrets and SuperSite for Windows) and his comments from Windows Weekly #166 (or possibly #165) where he sad the same thing.

Wikipedia? Really? 

[zeromajin]

Wow, I am very fortunate to have attracted this many intelligent board users so quickly. For the record, I enjoy civil debates that are based in fact, not arguing/flaming/fanboying/trolling. If we are willing to admit this or not : it's the way we all learn, by often being proven wrong.

The cost difference is in telling people to get more RAM (more than 4 GB) for a 64 bit OS. Most people will never use the extra memory and the 64 bit OS is no faster. Waste of money.

Wow, that clears up quite a bit for me in that statement alone. I am obviously well outside my element on this board. No wonder you guys are not ready for SSDs if your using systems/apps that have difficulty saturating 4GB of RAM. I run 12GB personally, but I also run 3D engineering software tracking/manipulating vast amounts of data.
I also enjoy often playing, video recording , encoding, resizing and broadcasting my game play all in real time.

And the fact you guys are still discussing 32vs64 bit OS? (esp. now when they cost the same?)

To address other questions/statements that were actually directed to me
Tigger29

If you were so confident in its reliability, then why not store anything else on it?

You've misinterpreted my reasoning, I store only OS, programs, games and current projects on my SSD not because of a question of reliability, but because of volume limits.
Also, a Blu-ray movie, music file, or picture isn't going to benefit from he added speed (movies won't play any better). My SSD is only 128GB whilst my storage is 4TB. So I prioritize the programs, and data that will benefit the most.

Skuzzy

1)  SSDs have not proven they are more reliable than HDs.  Get back to me in 5 years and tell me how well your SSD is doing.  I have already killed one SSD (trimmed its brains out), while I have Seagate Cheetahs that have been operating for 10 years nonstop.  There is not an SSD, which would survive at all, for anything close to that time period.  Not yet.
....
Eventually, all SSDs will fail due to lack of spare cells.

Nearly all the arguments you state are non sequiturs. "Get back in 5" is a rhetorical statement that pre assumes failure in that time frame. I too posses at least 2 WD drives that have ran for 10 years, now ask me/and yourself how many HD drives you and I have worked with that failed in 1-3 years? I've worked with literally hundreds of HDDs over the last 12 years, and have 2 that lasted that long. I would argue that an SSDs mean time to failure would be much more impressive.

To help everybody understand, good-high end SSDs will last far longer than the cheap SSDs due to the nature of the wear leveling design, write amplification and finally the quality and type of the NANDs (SLC/MLC).
And remember cheap vs high-end is just as analogous to HDDs
 
First of all, all NANDs have finite WRITE lifespan, not READ. They can have unlimited read lifespan, it doesn't take much to read. Write lifespan is dependent on which NAND type it is and the quality of it.

SLC: Single Layer Cell,

MLC: Multiple Layer Cell, it means one bit is written per cell for SLC where as MLC can have multiple bits per cell.

SLC can have 100,000 P/E cycles (Program and Erase), meaning it can be written 100,000 times before it can no longer be written, what this mean that while you can still read those data, you can no longer write to it. Unlike HDD, once a sector is dead, you can't read data off it.

MLC are now around 5,000-10,000 P/E cycles depending on the quality of it.

The smaller the the capacity of the SSD, the faster that P/E cycle get used up per cell, which means 30GB SSD will die "gracefully" much faster than a 120GB SSD. However understand that, in order for the SSD to die completely, each cell has to be dead or the controller itself crapped out.
What this mean is that 30GB will decline in capacity for writing capacity. Suddenly 30GB becomes 29.8GB only, slowly dying over time yet all data is still there.

Good SSDs usually have extra reserve of NANDs for this purpose as well, 60GB probably have 4GB of NANDs in reserve for multiple purposes.

So a good 30GB MLC SSD can last 3-5 full years of hardcore usage (24/7 intensive workload). The same SSD but with SLC NANDs will last far far more than that, maybe 10-20 years. 60GB MLC would probably last far more than 10 years. 120GB should last 20+, 1TB would last a century.

I will concede the point that this is all extrapolation, and am willing to cut these figures in half to increase their reliability. 

Also consider the my "hardcore usage" is not likely under the usages we discussed. Your only WRITING to the drive when you install new programs. How often are you doing that? Furthermore, how often do people use the same PC for 10+ years?

Lets just say that you erase/write every cell once a week, @ 1000 write limit per cell, that is still 19 years of usage.

I think people are just intimidated by the term finite, which is surprising when you consider no tech is EXPECTED to last 10+ years.

So yeah, I think they are pretty darn reliable.

If you don't endorse a certain tech because you think its impractical for a specific application, or cost prohibitive, just say so. Don't imply false ideas about it though, to support this position.

On a more personal note, I'm glad I did find this forum. The forums I normally post in are mostly "preaching to the choir" since they are all high-end users already, and I apologize if some of my perspectives overreach the needs of the avg user on this board.

That being said, I feel I have far more to contribute to this forum. It seems there is a distinct lack of "advanced" users and a quick flip through the pages it seems my new found friends Skuzzy and Tigger29 are somewhat overworked. My goal is not to be contrary, but to provide good information to those who ask for it.   
     

[zeromajin]

Skribetm

mind running ATTO on the C300 please?

Here you go mate np.

[skribetm]

Skribetm
Here you go mate np.

that does it for me, one 40GB ssd coming my way. 
should work very well with this eight core i snagged a few days ago.

btw, on your bench, atto is likely writing to previously written cells.
hence the less than spec-rated write speeds. (is trim working for you?)
even so, it still performs a lot faster than an hdd.

this is on an empty mushkin ssd.


on top of trim, even older ssd's take advantage of wear-leveling algorithms via the OS/AHCI.
that should ensure no flash cells are used more than others.

thanks for the bench run! <S>

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I would warrant that 99.9% of 64-bit OS users wouldnt know how to do that Ripley. Yes I agree its very much like a virtual disk/memory. However... as to the rest of what I said you can refer to the expert Paul Thurrott (Windows 7 Secrets and SuperSite for Windows) and his comments from Windows Weekly #166 (or possibly #165) where he sad the same thing.

Wikipedia? Really? 

Yes, Wikipedia. Please direct link to the actual text of your webcast you were referring if you may

The speed of the 64-bit system comes from the extra registers and yes it takes a coder to take advantage from it. This is again one of those discussions like 'a format deletes all your data'

[zeromajin]

that does it for me, one 40GB ssd coming my way.   
should work very well with this eight core i snagged a few days ago.

Yeah, the write speeds are a bit below spec, but I honestly don't take advertised specs for their word anyhow. Often manufactures run specific benchmarks under specific circumstances to achieve optimal values to promote. Write speed doesn't really concern me a great deal, although your Mushkin appears to be slower, it's far more balanced.

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite (defending SSDs) I'll say that a 6-8 core processor will provide little to no measurable gain outside of benchmark results.

That being said, I understand your only paying $200 for this CPU so it's certainly is not as if your losing money on the purchase. (In fact you could probably flip it and sell it for more when people say "8 CORES OMG!")

But I'm sure your also aware that the G34 Socket is primarily a server board as oppose to a workstation/gaming board, prioritizing large workload over actual speed.   

[Chalenge]

Yes, Wikipedia. Please direct link to the actual text of your webcast you were referring if you may

The speed of the 64-bit system comes from the extra registers and yes it takes a coder to take advantage from it. This is again one of those discussions like 'a format deletes all your data'

Wow! Dont know how to use google all of the sudden like? 

http://twit.tv/ww?page=0%2C0%2C2

Bottom right corner. 

[guncrasher]

you guys are getting too technical for the rest of us.  there's about 10 threads from past year dealing with the same is ssd crappola yes/no question.  so please stop trying to prove who's right/wrong, only time will tell  .

semp

[cattb]

This is good stuff to read. For the stuff I don't understand, I can just google and dig deeper and learn.

[Chalenge]

Actually... Ridley just said that even a 32 bit system can access more memory than 4 GB which proves the original "you dont need 64 bit" remark.

As to SSDs go get one. I have three. THey arent worth the price. After you have it installed you look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself "why did I do that?" and if you are so impatient that two or three seconds is all that important (I do the stealth defrag at every boot so dont look at me!) then you still wont be happy in a few more days after you get used to it.

SSDs are great for restoring an OS though. There is no disputing that.