move to 64bit windows

[beavereater]

Processor AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 945 Processor
Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 (Gaming graphics 2431 MB)
Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H Motherboard

The system performances says my system is currently OK to run Win 7 64bit. I started with 32bit because I was waiting for the apps I use to bring out their 64bit versions. The apps I use (And would need to upgrade) are:

Adobe Suite: Photoshop, Premier Pro, After Effects, Lightroom etc.

I'm not sure if my 3rd party plugins for these will work or not, I'm still looking into that.

If I do make the move to 64bit is there anything else I should think of upgrading (More RAM?)

I want my render times on AE to go a bit smoother. I often get (With heavy comps) stuff that won't render all the way out. Precomposing works sometimes, but not always. I also want to simply speed things up overall.

Any information or advice is much appreciated!

[redwudz]

I would probably add 4GB more RAM. RAM doesn't help all that much for encoding, but for editing and Photoshop it does help. You can add more than 4GB if you like, but I've been happy with 8GB with my W7 64bit system. If you check Task Manager>Performance while encoding, you'll see that very little RAM is used.

Most all newer software will run on W7 64bit. Most of my software is 32bit and seems to work well enough.

I don't use any of the software you listed except Photoshop, so others could probably give you better software advice.

[jagabo]

The software won't run significantly faster on 64 bit windows unless they are running out of memory and resorting to the swap file, and you add more memory.

[stiltman]

With Win7 64bit and After Effects, minimum of 8Gb of RAM

[dragonkeeper]

I would definitely go 64bit if i were you. I don't know how much rendering you do but 64 bit systems seems to give a bit of a speed boost somewhere along the lines of 12-15%. Well maybe not that much but it definitely helps.

[jagabo]

Many 32 bit programs actually run slower on 64 bit Windows because they are running in a virtual 32 bit machine.

And it's a pain running a mix of 32 bit an 64 bit programs. 32 bit video software requires 32 bit codecs and file readers/splitters. 64 bit video software requires 64 bit codecs and file readers/splitters. So you have to track down both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of many things.

[deadmeow]

The only benefit from a 64 bit OS is to access more than 4 gigs of memory. I have a Phenom IIX6 1090T with 4 gigs of memory, and I started with Win7 64 bit, but went back to Win XP 32 bit.

If you switch to 64 bit windows (XP/VISTA/7), you won't notice any difference, and you may have a small number of programs that don't run on a 64bit OS.

[ranchhand]

Guess I pretty much agree with all above; for couple of years been running W7 Ulti/64bit, 4 gigs 1066 RAM on an AMD quad. One advantage of the Ultimate OS disk is that you can install either 32 or 64 bit system, so I have used both, and I really don't see any difference in performance. Slight annoyance that a couple of my favorite old proggies won't run on 64 bit, but not enough of a problem to knock it. I guess next time I would install 32 bit but right now its not worth the work to reinstall all my programs just to change back to 32 bit.

[Ennio]

Many 32 bit programs actually run slower on 64 bit Windows because they are running in a virtual 32 bit machine.

And it's a pain running a mix of 32 bit an 64 bit programs. 32 bit video software requires 32 bit codecs and file readers/splitters. 64 bit video software requires 64 bit codecs and file readers/splitters. So you have to track down both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of many things.

I have heard this many times before indeed.

Maybe an option is to make a double boot so you can run both 32 or 64 bit, depending on your needs of the moment?

Ennio

Added: Coming to think of this all, will all apps have benefit of the multi core CPU's nowadays? I am too thinking about building a new pc, but will it have significant advantage to buy, let's say, a new 8 core CPU?
And with a new mobo, will I be able to run videohardware for my old CRT in combination with a lcd monitor? Mmmm... questions...

[jagabo]

will all apps have benefit of the multi core CPU's nowadays?

No. Some are still single threaded and don't benefit from multiple cores. Single threaded apps can see some benefit -- if you run multiple instances or run other CPU hungry programs at the same time. And, depending on how old your old CPU is, IPC has improved over generations so even single threaded apps on a new CPU with the same clock speed will run faster. And some CPUs can boost the clock speed for a single threaded task -- see Intel's Turbo Boost.

I am too thinking about building a new pc, but will it have significant advantage to buy, let's say, a new 8 core CPU?

Most video encoders are multithreaded. They run much faster with multicore CPUs. If you do much video encoding you should consider 4 cores to be the minimum now. If you're coming from the XP 2000+ listed in your profile you'll see a big jump in performance with just about any modern CPU.

And with a new mobo, will I be able to run videohardware for my old CRT in combination with a lcd monitor?

As long as the new motherboard or graphics card has the video output required by your CRT. VGA? Composite?

[sohaibrazzaq]

I don't see a point of running AE/photoshop in 32 bit OS's, for any medium to serious ae work, you need tons of memory and you are stuck with 4GB max (that too would only show around 3.2gb) in 32bit os's which is not nearly enough for ae.

Don't take me wrong and i am not saying that some of the guys above me are lying about program compatiblity but i am running 64bit OS since 2007 and i never had any serious compatibilty problem and you will hardly find any program or driver not available for 64bit unless its a very old one.

And getting more ram is no longer an issue unless u r complete broke, they are dirt cheap now. I am using ae with 12gb corsair dominator and the performance is impressive.

[jagabo]

Yes, DRAM is at historically low prices now. The recent shift towards iPads has resulted in a glut of desktop DRAM.

[Ennio]

The hardware in my profile was no more up-to-date, sorry. Just updated.

My hardware is now:

WinXP Pro 32 bit SP4
ASUS P5GD1-FM
Intel P4 560 HT 3.6 GHz
4 GB RAM DDR1
nVidia Gforce 6600
Plextor ConvertX PX-M402U
Buffalo BR-X816U2
Pioneer DVR-108
Plextor Premium 2

Still it seems to me then that a new mobo, cpu and (lots of) RAM is no waste of money. I want to invest in a new videocard too, but will it have any benefit? I am encountering no problems now with my videocard. My guess is that video editing and encoding will have no extra load on the GPU, am I right? Just outputted picture will. Nooo, I don't use composite. I have my calibrated EIZO T68 monitor connected with a heavy duty VGA --> 5 x BNC, shielded 75 ohm cable. My feeling says I Wanna keep it that way. The monitor has no digital inputs. If I do need a new videocard, it has to be equipped with a VGA out connector. Now, DVI can output analog component out also, but I am afraid what it will do to my picture quality. So, big question here is: must I replace my videocard? Any advice please?

Is it worth waiting for the reviews on the new 8 core bulldozer from AMD or should I stick with Intel?

And as far as 32 bit apps (maybe) not working properly on 64 bit OS, I find it absolutely no problem to make a dual boot. Only then in 32 bit OS I will have about 3,2 GB RAM to be allocated, so: will then there be a chance that CPU is not able working 100 % due to having not enough memory? Mmmm, anyone?

Another thing is, stick to Windows XP or switch to Windows 7? My XP 32 bit pc runs very smoothly now, and my short experience with windows 7 SP1 is that I can't find things anymore. At first sight it runs ok though...


Cheers

Ennio

[jagabo]

My hardware is now:... Intel P4 560 HT 3.6 GHz... Still it seems to me then that a new mobo, cpu and (lots of) RAM is no waste of money.

Even from that CPU you'll see a big increase in encoding speed with most encoders and other CPU intensive apps.

I want to invest in a new videocard too, but will it have any benefit?

Is your current card PCIe or AGP? If AGP you'll have to upgrade anyway. Whether you get any improvement in performance depends on what software you're using. Some encoder can now use the GPU for decompression and compression of video (or even both the CPU and GPU). Using those you might get faster encoding with a GPU that has the ability (your Geforce 6600 doesn't). But in my experience, and all the reviews I've seen, all the GPU encoders deliver lower quality than the CPU renderers. Windows 7 uses the GPU's 3d abilities a lot now so you may see a small bump in Desktop performance.

I have my calibrated EIZO T68 monitor connected with a heavy duty VGA --> 5 x BNC, shielded 75 ohm cable. My feeling says I Wanna keep it that way. The monitor has no digital inputs. If I do need a new videocard, it has to be equipped with a VGA out connector. Now, DVI can output analog component out also, but I am afraid what it will do to my picture quality. So, big question here is: must I replace my videocard? Any advice please?

The analog output of DVI-I or DVI-A is usually the same RGB as the standard D15 VGA connector. There is no reduction of video quality over a D15 output. Most cards come with the adapter.

Is it worth waiting for the reviews on the new 8 core bulldozer from AMD or should I stick with Intel?

It will depend on the software you use. From What I've seen the 8 core bulldozer may be able eek out a small win over a similarly priced quad core Intel CPU in some well-multithreaded applications. x264 video encoding, for example. But in other cases the Intel CPU may win. See this comparison of the 6 core AMD vs a 4 core i5 2500K for example:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2421.html?prod%5B47...d%5B4788%5D=on

I managed to get an i5 2500K for U$180 a few months ago. I saw that Microcenter had them for $150 a few days ago.

And as far as 32 bit apps (maybe) not working properly on 64 bit OS, I find it absolutely no problem to make a dual boot. Only then in 32 bit OS I will have about 3,2 GB RAM to be allocated, so: will then there be a chance that CPU is not able working 100 % due to having not enough memory? Mmmm, anyone?

Very few apps require more than 2 GB of memory. Actually, very few require even 1 GB of memory. You'll have no problems related to the ~3GB memory limit of 32 bit Windows unless you run multiple memory hungry apps at the same time.

Another thing is, stick to Windows XP or switch to Windows 7? My XP 32 bit pc runs very smoothly now, and my short experience with windows 7 SP1 is that I can't find things anymore.

If you're looking at 64 bit Windows you'll find there is a lot more hardware support in Win7. Many vendors don't supply 64 bit drivers for XP. In theory, Win7 is more secure than XP. It has more eye-candy, if you like that sort of thing. Personally, I find things like transparent title bars to be a distraction, not an improvement. I disable it. It's annoying that MS moved everything around making things hard to find. It doesn't take too long to get used to though.

[Ennio]

Fortunately I have some money to spend (for a new pc, that is...). It's within my budget to buy an Intel i7-2600. Now, the Intel-site says it has 4 cores, 8 threads. Does that mean it will perform @ 8 x 3,4 Ghz? I mean, what increase ratio can I expect compared to my system now...

And what mobo will you advice with that processor? I just bought an external disk-drive with USB 3.0 interface so will any mobo with USB 3.0 support just do? I am not familiair with overclocking, so that will be of minor importance. I guess I'll just stick with the stock speed as I am expecting to use the new pc for years to come and wanna keep thangs stable. If I have to buy a new cooler, no problem. Memory is cheap. As I am working a lot on my GB network for media purposes it is important though that there is a good GB LAN controller onboard. My videocard is PCI-E, it is now in a PCI-E 16x slot though. Will that give problems with new, faster PCI-E slots?

I heard about triple channel memory on certain Intel chipsets. Will this memory be a significant speed-up? Any suggestions for a good mobo? I prefer stability and quality over low price. Like I said, I will use this new hardware for years to come.

I don't give much about half-transparent folders and all that graphical candy as you call it. I always disable this b$ as it will cost only resource power.

And what more things I have to think about, if I wanna go dualboot with WinXP 32 and Win7 64 bit....

Thanks for the given replies and those to come

Ennio

[jman98]

And what more things I have to think about, if I wanna go dualboot with WinXP 32 and Win7 64 bit....

Are you sure you REALLY need to do that? If you buy Windows 7 Ultimate it comes with a free 32 bit XP virtual machine. I've got a very small number of old programs that I run in it because they can't run at all under Win 7 64 bit. Maybe you have a good reason for dual booting, but I think that in a lot of cases Microsoft's XP VM will be enough.

This thread is kind of long and honestly, I don't have time to read ALL of it, so I apologize here if you actually covered your reasons and I missed them. I really just wanted to point out that the XP VM might do the trick for some (most?) users.

[jagabo]

I really just wanted to point out that the XP VM might do the trick for some (most?) users.

Yes, XP Mode under Win7-64 runs most 32 bit and 16 bit software that doesn't require specific hardware. It's certainly worth a test. You can also use the free versions of VMware and VirtualBox, but with those you'll need a separate XP license.

The down side is you have to keep track of 64 bit software, 32 bit software, and 32 bit software running in XP Mode -- all of which uses different codecs, file readers, and file splitters. Add to that the fact that there are two different A/V subsystems in each, VFW and DirectShow. That gives you six different A/V systems to worry keep track of! And, of course, any particular piece of software can use its own built in, private codecs.

[El Heggunte]

...

...

and you will hardly find any program or driver not available for 64bit unless its a very old one.

Actually, there is a "minor" annoyance in the latest 64-bit OSes from Microsoft:

Driver signing requirement

64-bit versions of Windows Vista (and of Windows 7) allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode; this feature cannot be easily overridden by system administrators.[4][5]

In order for a driver to be signed, a developer will either have to pay Microsoft for the driver to be tested by Microsoft's WHQL Testing[6] or, if WHQL testing is not required, to purchase a "Software Publisher Certificate"[7] with which to sign the driver.

The following criticisms/claims have been made regarding this requirement:
that it reduces Vista's compatibility with older hardware[8]
that it disallows experimentation from the hobbyist community.[9] The required authenticode certificates for signing Vista drivers are expensive and out of reach[10] for small developers, usually about $400–500/year (from VeriSign).
that it might exist not only for security reasons, but also to enforce Digital Rights Management policies, especially the Protected Video Path[citation needed] .

Unsigned drivers could initially be installed through the use of tools included with Vista,[11] as well as some third party utilities such as Atsiv.[12] However Microsoft has closed these workarounds with hotfix KB932596,[13] which is included in Service Pack 1. Microsoft claims that using strict driver handling means more security, while critics[who?] note that few if any security attacks have manifest in software drivers, which are almost always written by equipment manufacturers.

Apologies for quoting Wikipedia, but we never know when a pesky Microsoft fanboy will feel like deleting any criticism to The Big Company.

[jagabo]

It's within my budget to buy an Intel i7-2600. Now, the Intel-site says it has 4 cores, 8 threads. Does that mean it will perform @ 8 x 3,4 Ghz?

Not exactly. Hyperthreading makes each core look like 2 cores to the OS. But that doesn't mean you get twice the performance out of those cores. And the usual issue of how well multithreaded a particular piece of software is will also make a difference. Compare a Core i7 2600K and i5 2500K. The i7 has 4 cores, 8 threads (and a little more clock speed), the 2500K has 4 cores, four threads:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/compare,2421.html?prod%5B47...d%5B4788%5D=on

I mean, what increase ratio can I expect compared to my system now...

Again, it will vary depending on the software and how you use it. You can expect anywhere from no change at all to 8x or more compared to your P4 system. The Core series has a lot of other architectural improvements so you can't compare it clock-for-clock and core-for-core.

And what mobo will you advice with that processor?

I don't keep up with motherboards. But the Z68 chipset is the one to get now.

I just bought an external disk-drive with USB 3.0 interface so will any mobo with USB 3.0 support just do?

Yes, in theory. I've heard of some incompatibility issues with some USB 3 controllers and some external drives.

My videocard is PCI-E, it is now in a PCI-E 16x slot though. Will that give problems with new, faster PCI-E slots?

No.

I heard about triple channel memory on certain Intel chipsets.

Only with some chipsets. None of the Sandy Bridge (2500K, 2600K) motherboards support it.

Will this memory be a significant speed-up?

It's a moot point. But more memory bandwidth is usually of little benefit to real world applications on Sandy Bridge CPUs. Middle of the road dual channel DDR-3 1333 or 1600 is sufficient.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4503/sandy-bridge-memory-scaling-choosing-the-best-ddr3

And what more things I have to think about, if I wanna go dualboot with WinXP 32 and Win7 64 bit....

You can have dual boot on the same drive, but I prefer to use separate drives and bays like these:

http://www.amazon.com/KingWin-KF-1000-BK-Single-Internal-SATA/dp/B00126U0VA/

Bare drives just slide in/out.

[Ennio]

Hey, I read on the Intel site the i7 2600K has a built-in graphics processor? An Intel HD Graphics 3000. I suppose this processor is better than my current videocard.

Two questions: How on earth do I connect my monitor then to the mobo? And, what if I wanna keep using my old videocard, can I disable this in-built GPU processor (in eg. BIOS)?

Or - this is just a wild idea from me - , maybe the built-in GPU can "help" the CPU (more speed?) when I don't use it's graphical features and use my own videocard? Or am I rambling something impossible now?

Cheers

Ennio

[budwzr]

I want my render times on AE to go a bit smoother. I often get (With heavy comps) stuff that won't render all the way out. Precomposing works sometimes, but not always. I also want to simply speed things up overall.

Any information or advice is much appreciated!

Adobe software is not really optimized for Windows. It's unclear how it uses system resources and therefore it's hard to know where beefing up the hardware will help.

I don't know what features are in Adobe Suites, but the examples below might have a counterpart.

Myself, I use Vegas, and as an example, if I'm working in Vegas and want to edit a still that's already on the timeline, I can minimize and go to the file on disc, open it with another software, edit it, save it, close the software, then open Vegas and the still is automatically refreshed, even if I move it to a different folder or drive.

As you say, pre-rendering can make a dramatic difference, so an optimized workflow might benefit you as well. My general workflow is to build UP like a pyramid, and Vegas has a concept called "Nested Veggies" whereby saved project files can be thrown on the timeline, and previewed, but the media is not loaded into ram.

Composites can be rendered out to individual PNG sequences beforehand, especially things that animate. Example, a spinning globe that also moves. The spinning can be prerendered.

A lot of people put the whole "kitchen sink" of parts on the timeline at once and wonder why they need so many tracks, and it becomes confusing, and preview playback stutters, and they blame the software or computer.

[jagabo]

Hey, I read on the Intel site the i7 2600K has a built-in graphics processor? An Intel HD Graphics 3000. I suppose this processor is better than my current videocard.

Intel has always had very poor graphics performance compared to ATI and Nvidia. Intel is something like four generations behind them in processing power. The HD2000 and HD3000 have improved quite a bit but they are still way behind. The HD3000 is a bit more powerful than your GeFore 6600 but it won't be a huge improvement. There are some video applications that can use the GPU for encoding (Mediacoder, BadaBoom, TMPGEnc Video Mastering Works, ArcSoft MediaConverter etc.). The 6600 doesn't support that but the HD3000 does. The i7 2600K is about the same speed with GPU and CPU encoding (depending on the settings and encoder) but all the GPU applications I've tried deliver lower quality. I wouldn't use them. GPU power only means a lot when gaming.

Two questions: How on earth do I connect my monitor then to the mobo?

You buy a motherboard that supports the onboard GPU. It will have VGA, DVI, DisplayPort, and/or HDMI connector(s). For example:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128502

And, what if I wanna keep using my old videocard, can I disable this in-built GPU processor (in eg. BIOS)?

Yes. You'll want a motherboard based on the Z68 chipset so you still have access to the GPU features, even if you're not using it as your graphics card.

Or - this is just a wild idea from me - , maybe the built-in GPU can "help" the CPU (more speed?) when I don't use it's graphical features and use my own videocard? Or am I rambling something impossible now?

There are a few applications that can use both the CPU and GPU to eek out a little more performance. No big shakes from what I've seen.

[Ennio]

Ok, I think I'm getting there.

... You'll want a motherboard based on the Z68 chipset so you still have access to the GPU features, even if you're not using it as your graphics card...

Let me see if I get this right, jagabo. As I understand now, correct me if I'm wrong:

1. If I'll use a motherboard with Z68 based chipset, I can have access to the built-in GPU features but I can disable the GPU in BOIS (with which the GPU will not work at all).

2. I can use another chipset mobo, on which the CPU itself will work ok, but the built-in graphical features will not work (so it won't show in BIOS).

Are these 2 assumptions correct?


Regards

Ennio

[jagabo]

1. If I'll use a motherboard with Z68 based chipset, I can have access to the built-in GPU features but I can disable the GPU in BOIS (with which the GPU will not work at all).

Yes.

2. I can use another chipset mobo, on which the CPU itself will work ok, but the built-in graphical features will not work (so it won't show in BIOS).

When Sandy Bridge CPUs were released there were two chipsets for it (H67 and P67, I think). One allowed overclocking but you couldn't use GPU encoding if the GPU is disabled. The other didn't allow overclocking but allowed the use of GPU encoding with the GPU disabled. That was considered a "flaw" because the overclockers were also the most likely to want to use a more powerful graphics card but still want access to GPU encoding. The z68 allows for overclocking and GPU encoding with the GPU disabled.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4456/sandy-bridge-buyers-guide

[Ennio]

Ok I got it. Now, I think I go dualboot with WinXP 32 bit and Win7 64 nevertheless. This raises an important question for me: how do do know of the apps I use if they are 32 or 64 bit? I wanna install and use native 32 bit applications in 32 OS and for 64 bit apps in the 64 bit OS. Is there an easy way to tell or should I go to each developer/author's site and find out, if possible?

Thanks

Ennio

[jagabo]

how do do know of the apps I use if they are 32 or 64 bit?

Generally, if the app doesn't specifically claim to be 64 bit, it's 32 bit. Ie, you have to go out of your way to locate the 64 bit versions.

[Ennio]

Ok, clear. Thanks jagabo

Ennio

[valvehead]

Ok I got it. Now, I think I go dualboot with WinXP 32 bit and Win7 64 nevertheless. This raises an important question for me: how do do know of the apps I use if they are 32 or 64 bit? I wanna install and use native 32 bit applications in 32 OS and for 64 bit apps in the 64 bit OS. Is there an easy way to tell or should I go to each developer/author's site and find out, if possible?

Thanks

Ennio

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The vast majority of 32 bit programs run just fine in Win7x64. Unless you have specific older hardware or software that don't work in Windows 7, then you probably won't need XP.

[Ennio]

... vast majority of 32 bit programs run just fine in Win7x64. Unless you have specific older hardware or software that don't work in Windows 7, then you probably won't need XP.

This can be true, valvehead. However I have to learn about Win7 64 bit also because it's as good as brand new to me. If I encounter things that I can't solve or (wanna) understand directly, it can be comfortable to be able and go back to "my old trusted WinXP", as I feel it. Also I wanna be able to compare 32 bit apps running in 32 and 64 bit OS, just for the sake of it. Should I have issues with them in 64 bit I can run them solely in XP. XP licenses are sooo cheap nowadays I don't mind.

And when going dual boot, what's the best to do? First install winxp or win7? I do not have that much experience with this. I did a dualboot once with XP and Ubuntu, where Ubuntu was the 2nd OS I installed and thangs worked properly.


Cheers

Ennio

[valvehead]

This can be true, valvehead. However I have to learn about Win7 64 bit also because it's as good as brand new to me. If I encounter things that I can't solve or (wanna) understand directly, it can be comfortable to be able and go back to "my old trusted WinXP", as I feel it. Also I wanna be able to compare 32 bit apps running in 32 and 64 bit OS, just for the sake of it. Should I have issues with them in 64 bit I can run them solely in XP. XP licenses are sooo cheap nowadays I don't mind.

That's understandable. The two OS's are pretty different with respect to user interface, and it may take a bit to get used to Windows 7. The biggest change I had to get around was that the Control Panel was completely reorganized.

Some changes are really nice. I like the new taskbar; the window previews are quite handy. The search box on the Start Menu is so much faster than clicking/hovering through multiple folders to open the desired program. I also like Aero quite a bit, especially since I have Switcher installed and tied to certain mouse buttons. Switcher is similar to Expose on OS X, except that it is much more customizable.

And when going dual boot, what's the best to do? First install winxp or win7? I do not have that much experience with this. I did a dualboot once with XP and Ubuntu, where Ubuntu was the 2nd OS I installed and thangs worked properly.

It's been a while since I dual-booted XP and Win7, but I'm pretty sure you have to install XP first. I think it has to do with XP's installer not detecting existing installs of newer versions of Windows properly.