Performance will comes from having smarter computer and not from having faster computer !!!

64 bits don't mean faster... if a 32 bits computer is like a car ( 2 row of 2 seat ), 64 bits computer are like bus ( more row and more seat by row )... if both have the same engine, the bus will be slower that the car !!!

What is really needed is a revolution at the engine level... a new way... somehing like the experimental optronic computer, quantum computer, DNA computer, or chemical computer...

As today, I7 are nothing more that glorified 8086 ( from 1976 )...

What make actual processor being fast are mainly due to their multi core and their instruction set architecture ( MMX, SSE, AES, etc )... in some way, modern graphic card are like a car turbo, able to ease the central processor job...

And i repeat, actual 32 bits processor are in fact 36 bits address range capable... actual 64 bits processor are in fact 48 bits address range capable... all is about marketing... in fact, it will not surprise me that tomorrow, somebody speak of 128 bits processor for the same product that we have today... will not be a true lie since the Pentium 3 from 1999 have introduce SSE set with 128 register !!! Well, my graphic card is a 384 bits card... and it is a old one...

The Hardware industrie is producing new stuff so fast that you could build a new  high end top notch PC every week

My computer is more that 4 year old...but in benchmark test, it is around 200 percent more powerful that a recent i7 extreme edition... Of course, it is a workstation computer, not a limited desktop computer... what is called a high end desktop computer is nothing more that a low end when compared that the next class...

but what does a high end pc do with a overall blocking and slow operation system...

Well, the old 32 bits windows 2000 datacenter is able to use 32 gb ram... Windows server R2 2003 datacenter is able to use 128 gb ram... a lot of old Windows OS was better the the actual Windows 7... mainly the professional version ( real one, not these labeled professional/ultimate for marketing reason )...

Majority of actual change are GUI related and not OS related... in linux world, we have a OS ( linux kernel ) and a lot of GUI ( Gnome, KDE, etc )... in fact, actual win7 kernel is always based on the old NT-kernel from 1993...

Industry will never move to  Win7 because it don't add any real value to the OS itself... Industry don't care of a cute 3D desktop with fancy effect who use a lot of resource... they need only a efficient and stable system... and it is what server/datacenter edition of windows give to them...

I think wincustomize should buy me a copy since I have bought almost every master skin they put out since 20003"

Have I been here THAT long? ....

64bit has been around for ages and if it weren't for a few very stubborn companies, it'd taken off years ago. but what good is a 64bit os when adobe doesn't seem to be able to create a stable 64bit version of flash. it's better now (still not very stable), but I'm convinced adobes refusal to upgrade their widely used flash has been one of the strongest anti-64bit decisionpoints - I know it was for me, when I first tried using a 64bit linux about 7 years ago and had to go back to 32 because of it.

This is completely and utterly wrong. your car analogy fails.

And 64bit IS faster than 32bit, up to a theoretical 4 to 5 times faster.

examples:

h264 encode: 0% speedup

divx encode: ~60% speedup

7z compression: 23% speedup

hash calculations: 3x to 4x the speed.

Win7.

Sorry but unless someone gives me a copy for free, no way. I have no need for shiny windows and 1000 annoying popups.

What we need is to be able to properly play games on Linux!

Agreed the car analogy vs a bus is a bad example. It is obvious that Thoumsin only has a shallow understanding of CPU architecture. 

Its funny how history repeats I remember similar arguments from ludites who argued that 8bit was the way to go and that 16bit wasn't what it was cracked up to be, and then again 16 vs 32 bit. 

If you are putting together a new computer and you want windows you would obviously install Windows 7 64 Bit. The only exception is if you had some expensive hardware that you can't get drivers for - but in that case why not holdonto your old 32 bit windows xp box?

32 vs 64 what a non-issue to be arguing about

Actually the vast majority of changes in vista and windows 7 were under the hood changes. altering the way things work in a fundamental manner (to be much better).

for example, windows 7 can have both an AMD and an nVidia and an intel GPU, each one with its driver installer, each one working properly (and driving an individual montior/s).

this is simply not possible in winXP and required major architectural changes. (the specific purpose was not that of course, it was to improve the way video is handled overall, this is just one of the results of the new method). Networking has never been more stable and smooth, rebooting due to installation of program or driver are now extremely rare, a driver crash does not cause windows to crash (it can power cycle just the GPU and reload its driver), and so on and so forth.

Well, my computer is not a server and it is not a personal PC... it is between the two... it is called a "work station"... a "work station" is somehow a single server board in desktop casing...

Spec are very similar to a MAC pro... dual quad core Xeon... Xeon being the industry equivalent of desktop processor... for benchmark, seek on these forum... there was a benchmark topic some time ago and i have post my result... good luck with the "search" function from these forum

Well, when i have wrote my car analogy, i have think that seat row was register ( more row in a bus )... number of seat in the row is relative to the register size ( 64 bits in place of 32 bits )...

Several of your cited speedup are mainly due to SSE instruction set... in fact, since the i7 gulftown serie, a AES-NI instruction set was added, these last will speed up encryption software greatly... next year, a new set called AVX, suitable for intensive calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial applications, will be introduced in the planned in the "Sandy bridge" processor... as today, only Linux kernel 2.6.30, windows server 2008 and windows 7 SP1 are compatible... having 256 bits register who can be extended to 512 or 1024 bits is certainly something who will push me to move from my old XP pro x64 to the future windows 8...

I am not against progress when progress is real... and recent processor have faster/better extension set... i remember long time ago... moving from a 386sx to a 486dx... the important thing was the dx part, a ALU instruction set... same thing with actual processor... extension set are more important that the fake 64 bits address range... in fact, very few desktop computer will be able to add enough ram on the motherboard for reach the limit of 32 bits motherboard ( who are 36 bits since the pentium pro )... so much computer have only 2 memory slot... what is the need to have a address range of 256 TB? Specially when 32 bits OS allow a max of 64 gb !!! 32 bits Windows desktop OS cannot access it directly mainly due to licensing... but the kernel is able to access it... it is proven with the 32 bits server/datacenter edition of windows...

Nobody obligate you to read my post... and i think that everybody on these forum have enough brain for decide by themself if they wish or not reply to my post !

Well, i have windows XP pro x64... and it work good on my desktop computer... have solaris and linux too... my laptop is with Vista x64... simply don't use it because it crash when my ram is in raid mode with 8 bits control... my computer is on 24/24 7/7 and very stable... i have several expensive x64 3D application who simply don't work with windows 7... it will work with server 2008 R2 but i don't wish spend a lot of money on a new OS since the actual one work good for now... very possible that in the future, my 3D application will be made windows 7 ( or windows 8 planned to be released next year ) compatible... in so case, i will move to the more recent compatible OS...

I am not against x86-64, i am not against progress... but i become tired of the false marketing excuse who push people to buy new material/OS/Software... Computer world is not more about progress but about making more money faster... computer performance have made fewer progress in the last 10 year that in the last decade of the previous century !!!

Thoumsin - Impressive cable routing with the power cables. Nice and clean.

well, from one of my previous post :

What make actual processor being fast are mainly due to their multi core and their instruction set architecture ( MMX, SSE, AES, etc )...

Funny, it seem that you are not able to read what i have wrote... certainly my mistake...

well, it is not the only difference... have speak about the special instruction set too, about CPU able to use GPU... have can speak of serial line for connect to memory, of CPU cache, etc...

No merit here... i have simply follow the instruction of the box manual... good airflow is very important for power hungry system like mine... at full power, the system use a little more that 1350 watt !!!

Hmmm... power use can be a very valid reason for the industry to move on recent processor... electricity bill are recurrent cost for business... and each generation of processor lower the ratio "power used/gigaflops"...

This was the original post... have show that the 2 gigabyte limit was in now way related to 32 bit system ( there is 32 windows OS who use several Terabyte of RAM )... Have show that Windows 7 64 bit was not the single available 64 bit OS ( i use XP pro x64 )...

At personal level, why do i like XP pro x64? It is the only desktop release of Microsoft where kernel and base code is identical to a server version... This is evident when the System Information tool reports the current OS as Windows Server 2003 x64 and not Windows XP !!! And it is why i am not attracted to Win 7 who remain a limited version of Windows server 2008...

Yes, it is good that people upgrade their system... but it is wrong to push them for the wrong reasons... several people have show here that 64 bit was the way to go for several reasons... who can show me that i am wrong to remain with Windows XP pro x64 ? Who can prove me that i am limited to 2gb by application if i don't move to Windows 7? My actual OS limit me to 128 GB of physical memory ( motherboard support only 32 gb ) and 16 TB of virtual memory... Isn't enough for any application created in the next few years ?

Devs wish us to move all on Win7 for a very simple reason... make their life more easy... making a software 100% compatible with two OS is more difficult that make it for one OS... Win7 will prevail and not fail like Vista... but the migration ask time... as today, more that 50% of people remain use the simple desktop version of XP... Devs work become more difficult due to these transition period and they try to push people to move faster using false excuse... i am not against moving faster but i am against the false excuse... using a lie for justify something is wrong, same if the "something" is good...

Why limit yourself to one single OS... i use a linux boot loader called GRUB... for now, when i start my computer, i can choice between Kubuntu, Solaris, and XP pro x64...

For those who have XP 32 bits and by example Win7 x64, for have the best of each world, without the limitation of some of the Virtual Machine system, simply install both system and use a boot loader...

I plan to buy windows 8 when i will be released but it don't mean that i will fully switch to it... unless all my actual application are upgraded to windows 8, something very improbable...

I did read it, but I was in a pretty bad mood.

Though calling the I7 a glorified 8086 then pointing out its massive differences doesn't work.

Anyway, my apologies.  I need to get some caffeine.  :]