64-bit OS on a 32-bit computer?

westernnomadwesternnomad Posts: 90
edited October 2013 in The Commons

I've been trying to figure this one out for awhile. Everything I see is hearsay and experts, and there are persuasive arguments on both sides of the issue. I would like to hear it from someone who has tried it - or seen it done first-hand:

---Does a 64-bit operating system (Windows 7) work on a 32-bit computer (Dell XPS 630i)? Will it help my XPS realize is full RAM potential? Or will it be a catastrophic mistake to make such an upgrade?

Will Daz be enhanced by the upgrade if it works.
If it works, would I be able to use the 64-bit version of Daz?

Post edited by westernnomad on

Comments

  • BlumBlumShubBlumBlumShub Posts: 1,108
    edited December 1969

    I've been trying to figure this one out for awhile. Everything I see is hearsay and experts, and there are persuasive arguments on both sides of the issue. I would like to hear it from someone who has tried it - or seen it done first-hand:

    ---Does a 64-bit operating system (Windows 7) work on a 32-bit computer (Dell XPS 630i)? Will it help my XPS realize is full RAM potential? Or will it be a catastrophic mistake to make such an upgrade?

    Will Daz be enhanced by the upgrade if it works.
    If it works, would I be able to use the 64-bit version of Daz?


    Hi there.

    I have it on good authority that a 32 bit motherboard will not support a 64 bit operating system.

    Sorry,
    Barry.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,205
    edited December 1969

    ...speaking from first hand experience of someone who actually tired that, no, it won't. It will refuse to install once it detects the the incompatibility.

  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,504
    edited December 1969

    It's a physical limitation, not a software one. Most PCs these days are 64-bit however, and have been for the past few years. If you're serious about wanting decent RAM and processing power you definitely want to upgrade to a modern PC. Even a cheap one would be more powerful than 32-bit unit.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,205
    edited December 1969

    ...again speaking from experience, I agree. These days you really need the improved processing power and as much memory as you can afford. I am currently working on a 64 bit i7 system with 12G of Ram. That is actually close to the average these days.

    A few months ago when I was rendering a scene with a lot of transmaps (something like 14 plant groups with UE lights) memory usage topped out at just over 10G. That would have been a surefire crash & burn on a 32 bit system.

    I actually was running 4.5 on my old 32 bit notebook before the workstation was completed, and the best I could render was a simple scene with one (maybe two) Genesis character(s) (+ clothing & hair), a fairly basic background, maybe a few props and no raytracing or UE. On average the application and scene took about 25% of my available memory leaving me with about 1.5G as overhead for rendering. That is not a lot.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 102,363
    edited December 1969

    Having a 32 bit OS isntalled doesn't mean you can't run a 64 bit version - you need to check the compatibility of your particular system (hardware needs to be compatible, and drivers are needed too). If you want to test, you could burn a live CD for a 64 bit version of Linux and see if that will work.

  • LeatherGryphonLeatherGryphon Posts: 11,650
    edited December 1969

    Kyoto Kid said:
    ...again speaking from experience, I agree. These days you really need the improved processing power and as much memory as you can afford. I am currently working on a 64 bit i7 system with 12G of Ram. That is actually close to the average these days. ....

    Wow, you must be reading different catalogs than I am! 8-o My impression is that the average computer on the shelves or on-line would be an i5 with 6GB. Finding a machine with an i7 or more than 8GB is a little bit of work and a not a little bit more money.

  • LeatherGryphonLeatherGryphon Posts: 11,650
    edited October 2013

    Having a 32 bit OS isntalled doesn't mean you can't run a 64 bit version - you need to check the compatibility of your particular system (hardware needs to be compatible, and drivers are needed too). If you want to test, you could burn a live CD for a 64 bit version of Linux and see if that will work.

    True, during the early days of 64-bit hardware there were many systems that had a 64-bit processor but shipped with a 32-bit operating system (and 2GB memory ) with the option of upgrading to 64-bit OS and more memory later. However, this is not a guarantee that if your system reports that it has a 64-bit processor that the system will run properly with a 64-bit OS. The system might have peripheral chips (video, disk, network, etc.) that might not be compatible with 64-bit software and might have been obsoleted before proper drivers were written for them. If your system documents actually say that a 64-bit OS upgrade is possible you're probably OK. However, if you don't have that assurance then an upgrade may or may not work.

    Post edited by LeatherGryphon on
  • TotteTotte Posts: 14,064
    edited December 1969

    The main issue is the processor, early CoreDuo processors and some other in the same generation lack 64 bit instructions. The if your motherboard doesn't have wired the bus wider than 32 bits that another problem.

  • icprncssicprncss Posts: 3,694
    edited December 1969

    When you go to System>Properties, what does it tell you?

  • StratDragonStratDragon Posts: 3,251
    edited October 2013

    the XPS630 was manufactured in 2008, it comes with either a dual or quad core Intel CPU or Core 2 extreme
    all these CPU's will support 64 bit OS if your computer shipped with any one of them installed.

    Post edited by StratDragon on
  • stem_athomestem_athome Posts: 518
    edited October 2013

    ---Does a 64-bit operating system (Windows 7) work on a 32-bit computer

    Do you have a 64 bit socket? (sorry, sounds a bit cheeky that)

    Dell XPS 630i

    I have seen a review of that, it was shipped with windows Vista 64 bit.

    Rather than guessing on what motherboard/CPU you have on your system, please download and run CPU-Z, that will show the motherboard socket information, which in turn tells us if it is 64 bit.


    Download CPU-Z http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html
    There is a ZIP download (on that page) if you prefer to use that version, it does not need to be installed.

    In the CPU-Z information, look at the "CPU" tab-> "Package". What info is given? Also, just to be sure, what info is given (on that same tab) for "Processor Name"?


    Post edited by stem_athome on
  • Takeo.KenseiTakeo.Kensei Posts: 1,303
    edited December 1969

    Short answer : No; Your processor must be 64 bit for a x64 OS to work

    BUT : if I'm not mistaken, your Dell XPS 630i has a 64bit Processor (Core 2 Quad?) . So You should upgrade to a 64bit OS to benefit of 64 bit architecture

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,205
    edited December 1969

    Kyoto Kid said:
    ...again speaking from experience, I agree. These days you really need the improved processing power and as much memory as you can afford. I am currently working on a 64 bit i7 system with 12G of Ram. That is actually close to the average these days. ....

    Wow, you must be reading different catalogs than I am! 8-o My impression is that the average computer on the shelves or on-line would be an i5 with 6GB. Finding a machine with an i7 or more than 8GB is a little bit of work and a not a little bit more money.
    ...from what I have gathered on the forums here and elsewhere this is about average for a 3D CG rig that is capable of running most 3D software.

    The average "on the shelf" system is for those who just want to read their email, surf the Net, balance their chequebooks, bare their lives on TWIT-er/Farcebook, watch YouTube vids, play solitaire/chess/Tetris, store recipes, download snapshots from their camera, stream films on Hulu, etc.

    Actually my almost 7 year old duo core 32 bit notebook can do all that.

  • Lissa_xyzLissa_xyz Posts: 6,116
    edited October 2013

    It depends what you're looking for. i5s don't have hyperthreading, so they get recommended to most gamers and casual users. i7s do, and are generally recommended to more higher-end users, so it's all based on user needs and what you're searching out.

    Post edited by Lissa_xyz on
  • LeatherGryphonLeatherGryphon Posts: 11,650
    edited October 2013

    Kyoto Kid said:
    Kyoto Kid said:
    ...again speaking from experience, I agree. These days you really need the improved processing power and as much memory as you can afford. I am currently working on a 64 bit i7 system with 12G of Ram. That is actually close to the average these days. ....

    Wow, you must be reading different catalogs than I am! 8-o My impression is that the average computer on the shelves or on-line would be an i5 with 6GB. Finding a machine with an i7 or more than 8GB is a little bit of work and a not a little bit more money.


    ...from what I have gathered on the forums here and elsewhere this is about average for a 3D CG rig that is capable of running most 3D software.

    The average "on the shelf" system is for those who just want to read their email, surf the Net, balance their chequebooks, bare their lives on TWIT-er/Farcebook, watch YouTube vids, play solitaire/chess/Tetris, store recipes, download snapshots from their camera, stream films on Hulu, etc.

    Actually my almost 7 year old duo core 32 bit notebook can do all that.

    If it weren't for security problems and the ungodly increases in speed necessary to check all the nooks & crannies for bugaboos, one could read one's email, surf the net, balance one's checkbook , tweet to the twits, fart in the farcebook, play solitare/chess/Tetris, store recipes, process images, with Windows98 with an i486 processor and 128MB of RAM provided the graphics chip was modern and one wasn't in a hurry.

    A few years ago we were all just humming away nicely with 32-bits and 2GB. A few years earlier than that we were sending rockets to the moon with less memory than your watch. If we all didn't need to have pictures to be able to do anything, the computer interface could be written in 8KB of RAM. 64-bits was the next logical step to permit another level of obsolescence. There's absolutely no need for the average person to actually NEED 64-bits. The average person could get along just fine with a 16-bit machine but there's no profit in that so they are convinced that they need 64-bits and are sold machines that far outstrip what they actually need.

    Agreed that we 3D people have special needs but we're all a little "special" in the head anyway.

    Post edited by LeatherGryphon on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 41,205
    edited December 1969

    ...I still loved it when NASA had to bring in a 78 year old retired engineer to modify a progrmme on Voyager-1 because none of the new kids these days can write tight, clean concise code (required for the old onboard systems) anymore.

  • LeatherGryphonLeatherGryphon Posts: 11,650
    edited October 2013

    I've been in the computer arena for 40 years but I'm still flabbergasted by the idea that I can put my lifetime's collection of music on one SDHC-micro card (11x15x1mm) in my MP3 player that plays for 45 hours before needing to replace the battery. Yeah, yeah, I know, one could say similar things about video or data storage, but I have several moving boxes full of CD's that have all been transferred to the SDHC card and that's visually impressive to me.

    Note: that I'm not a gadget junkie. I don't have a smartphone, I get along just fine with a TracFone that only gets used about once a month. I don't have a tablet computer, I don't have a portable DVD player and I don't have an electronic map system in my car. I only recently (in the last month) deigned to purchase an MP3 player after years of reflection on the subject. 8-o Perhaps before I die I'll get a digital infrared thermometer.

    Post edited by LeatherGryphon on
  • TheWheelManTheWheelMan Posts: 1,014
    edited December 1969

    ...Finding a machine with an i7 or more than 8GB is a little bit of work and a not a little bit more money.

    I disagree with this slightly. i5 are, or at least have been, more prominent because they are decently priced for the average consumer. However, i7 are hardly difficult to find, and not all that expensive, depending upon what you consider expensive of course. I paid less for my i7 12 Gig Dell in January than I did for my core 2 duo 5 years ago.

  • icprncssicprncss Posts: 3,694
    edited December 1969

    I've been in the computer arena for 40 years but I'm still flabbergasted by the idea that I can put my lifetime's collection of music on one SDHC-micro card (11x15x1mm) in my MP3 player that plays for 45 hours before needing to replace the battery. Yeah, yeah, I know, one could say similar things about video or data storage, but I have several moving boxes full of CD's that have all been transferred to the SDHC card and that's visually impressive to me.

    Note: that I'm not a gadget junkie. I don't have a smartphone, I get along just fine with a TracFone that only gets used about once a month. I don't have a tablet computer, I don't have a portable DVD player and I don't have an electronic map system in my car. I only recently (in the last month) deigned to purchase an MP3 player after years of reflection on the subject. 8-o Perhaps before I die I'll get a digital infrared thermometer.

    I have a dumb phone. It makes phone calls. Period. Not that I ever turn it on. I only carry it with me when I go out in case I need to call 911 or AAA.

    I do have one of the first hand held GPS. I bought it with my American Express from the Sharper Image Catalog in September of 1990 and had them overnight express it to Saudi Arabia because we suddenly realized we didn't know where the heck we were. Stupid desert all looked the same. Still works. Of course it only gives you longitude and latitude and doesn't talk so I guess it isn't much help to the modern driver.

  • LeatherGryphonLeatherGryphon Posts: 11,650
    edited October 2013

    icprncss said:
    I've been in the computer arena for 40 years but I'm still flabbergasted by the idea that I can put my lifetime's collection of music on one SDHC-micro card (11x15x1mm) in my MP3 player that plays for 45 hours before needing to replace the battery. Yeah, yeah, I know, one could say similar things about video or data storage, but I have several moving boxes full of CD's that have all been transferred to the SDHC card and that's visually impressive to me.

    Note: that I'm not a gadget junkie. I don't have a smartphone, I get along just fine with a TracFone that only gets used about once a month. I don't have a tablet computer, I don't have a portable DVD player and I don't have an electronic map system in my car. I only recently (in the last month) deigned to purchase an MP3 player after years of reflection on the subject. 8-o Perhaps before I die I'll get a digital infrared thermometer.

    I have a dumb phone. It makes phone calls. Period. Not that I ever turn it on. I only carry it with me when I go out in case I need to call 911 or AAA.

    I do have one of the first hand held GPS. I bought it with my American Express from the Sharper Image Catalog in September of 1990 and had them overnight express it to Saudi Arabia because we suddenly realized we didn't know where the heck we were. Stupid desert all looked the same. Still works. Of course it only gives you longitude and latitude and doesn't talk so I guess it isn't much help to the modern driver.

    Just one question. If you were lost in the desert without a GPS, how did the overnight express people find you to deliver it???? 8-o

    Post edited by LeatherGryphon on
  • TheWheelManTheWheelMan Posts: 1,014
    edited December 1969

    icprncss said:
    I've been in the computer arena for 40 years but I'm still flabbergasted by the idea that I can put my lifetime's collection of music on one SDHC-micro card (11x15x1mm) in my MP3 player that plays for 45 hours before needing to replace the battery. Yeah, yeah, I know, one could say similar things about video or data storage, but I have several moving boxes full of CD's that have all been transferred to the SDHC card and that's visually impressive to me.

    Note: that I'm not a gadget junkie. I don't have a smartphone, I get along just fine with a TracFone that only gets used about once a month. I don't have a tablet computer, I don't have a portable DVD player and I don't have an electronic map system in my car. I only recently (in the last month) deigned to purchase an MP3 player after years of reflection on the subject. 8-o Perhaps before I die I'll get a digital infrared thermometer.

    I have a dumb phone. It makes phone calls. Period. Not that I ever turn it on. I only carry it with me when I go out in case I need to call 911 or AAA.

    I do have one of the first hand held GPS. I bought it with my American Express from the Sharper Image Catalog in September of 1990 and had them overnight express it to Saudi Arabia because we suddenly realized we didn't know where the heck we were. Stupid desert all looked the same. Still works. Of course it only gives you longitude and latitude and doesn't talk so I guess it isn't much help to the modern driver.

    Just one question. If you were lost in the desert without a GPS, how did the overnight express people find you to deliver it???? 8-o

    Because they had a GPS. *insert rim shot here*

Sign In or Register to comment.