32bit vs 64bit machines

Within the next year or so you wont have much of a choice. New software will not be written for 32 bit. As it is, Windows 10 is not available on 32 bit. So eventually you will want to switch!

And that's a $4,700 18-core CPU. It better win.

PassMark - CPU Mark High End CPUs - Updated 2nd of September 2015 shows that 2.30 Ghz is on top of the list.

The issue with the A6300 is that it only has two memory slots and can only take 2 x 2GB of RAM for a total of 4 GB. Pretty low by todays standards, but still workable. Cheap upgrade too.

CPU is still one of the in-between processors that HP used, however it is nestled in a slot 775, which means it can take a Core 2 Duo E8xxx or E6xxx CPU.

All that said, I think I'm going to agree with pconroy though, invest in a new computer. If you did upgrade to 4GB of RAM, it might be okay for now, but you'll soon figure out you'll want more. However, cheap upgrade. It would be around $30-35 to max out the memory. 32 bit OS will see about 3.5 GB of it, the rest would be dedicated to motherboard and video addressing.

As for comparing old to new, while Moore's law is still proving to be true, the actual speed of the processors is leveling off. The way they gain speed now is with more internal cache and more cores on the CPU. When it comes to 99% of what the average user does, they wouldn't notice much of a difference between a 2008 Core 2 Q68xx processor and todays i5. I actually downgraded one user that was having problems with their i7 PC down to a Core2 and they told me about a week later that it seemed faster. Ha!

CPU speeds went from 1 Mhz to 4 Ghz in a relatively short period of time, but then they started going backwards. Common speeds now are typically right around 3 Ghz. Again, caching, efficiency and multi-cores are making up for it.

It's really hard to make that call for you. Would I invest in any hardware upgrades to that machine? No! That machine is circa 2007. That's eons in computer time.

Does it still work?
If not, buy a new system.

There's NO way I'd do anything to that machine (except install Linux and toss it as another server on my network.)





About umpteen years ago, maybe as I was tossing out a 486-33MHz machine it dawned on me that a computer is the only device I know of that as it ages, loses no performance but loses all value.

I paid about $3000 for that machine back in 199-something. 10 years later, it was still working JUST AS WELL as the day I bought it, yet it had become effectively worthless.

TheBearAK wrote:
To the OP:

What processor is in that Pavillion? 2008 is in the Core2 range, and most Core2's were 64 bit. Just because your OS says 32 bit, doesn't mean it is 32 bit.

Your video issues could be many things. Is that using on-board video or does it have a card?

Note that even with a card, the video reserves address space out of the 4 GB available to 32 bit OS.

On consumer machines, 64 bit is address space. Not a larger pipe. 32 bit can address 4 GB of address space. This includes memory, system board, and add-on cards, such as video.
On consumer machines, the only speed difference is due to the amount of available resources for the processor. (freeing up the processor to do other things).

Once you go to 64 bit, the limitation on memory size becomes a motherboard/memory issue. Because the way memory is made, some memory slots can only address up to a certain amount, per-slot. For example, most consumer motherboards have 4 or 6 memory slots. Each memory slot may only be able to address 8 GB of RAM each, making the Max memory 4x8GB or 6x8GB.

The true upper limit of 64 bit address space is 2^64. (over 18 quintillion).


The reason I keep saying "consumer" machines is because workstations and servers that use Xeon or Opteron processors will also have a 64 bit path. While a Xeon may have a slower Ghz rating than an i5 or i7, the memory bandwidth available to a Xeon makes it faster for massive CPU hungry programs such as data modeling.

Back to OP's computer... The CPU can be a Core or Core2 processor and still be a 32 bit machine. Some manufacturers did that when the Core CPUs were released. Typically it was the Core Duo or earlier CPUs. This was simply a cost saving ploy.

What model of Pavillion do you have? Around the time of that, HP's top seller was the A6400 series. That particular series is interesting because it used the "transistion" CPU known as the E2200. Basically a Pentium D dual core using a Slot 775. What is interesting is they were upgradeable to a Quad Core2 (Q6600 is popular and cheap!). And it could hold up to 4 x 2 GB memory modules.

Simple upgrades:

Q6600 CPU $60-75
4 x 2 GB RAM $60-70
Video Card $75-100

Adding the video card and not using On-board video can make a difference as most older on-board video was crappy.

Here's my machine stats: HP a6300f, Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2180 2GHz, RAM 2GB, 32 bit OS.

So is this worth upgrading to Win7 or should I just get a new system??

cts

ps. I forgot to add that you would need a 64 bit version of Windows as well. Because of possible driver issues, I don't think I'd take that machine beyond Windows 7.

To the OP:

What processor is in that Pavillion? 2008 is in the Core2 range, and most Core2's were 64 bit. Just because your OS says 32 bit, doesn't mean it is 32 bit.

Your video issues could be many things. Is that using on-board video or does it have a card?

Note that even with a card, the video reserves address space out of the 4 GB available to 32 bit OS.

On consumer machines, 64 bit is address space. Not a larger pipe. 32 bit can address 4 GB of address space. This includes memory, system board, and add-on cards, such as video.
On consumer machines, the only speed difference is due to the amount of available resources for the processor. (freeing up the processor to do other things).

Once you go to 64 bit, the limitation on memory size becomes a motherboard/memory issue. Because the way memory is made, some memory slots can only address up to a certain amount, per-slot. For example, most consumer motherboards have 4 or 6 memory slots. Each memory slot may only be able to address 8 GB of RAM each, making the Max memory 4x8GB or 6x8GB.

The true upper limit of 64 bit address space is 2^64. (over 18 quintillion).


The reason I keep saying "consumer" machines is because workstations and servers that use Xeon or Opteron processors will also have a 64 bit path. While a Xeon may have a slower Ghz rating than an i5 or i7, the memory bandwidth available to a Xeon makes it faster for massive CPU hungry programs such as data modeling.

Back to OP's computer... The CPU can be a Core or Core2 processor and still be a 32 bit machine. Some manufacturers did that when the Core CPUs were released. Typically it was the Core Duo or earlier CPUs. This was simply a cost saving ploy.

What model of Pavillion do you have? Around the time of that, HP's top seller was the A6400 series. That particular series is interesting because it used the "transistion" CPU known as the E2200. Basically a Pentium D dual core using a Slot 775. What is interesting is they were upgradeable to a Quad Core2 (Q6600 is popular and cheap!). And it could hold up to 4 x 2 GB memory modules.

Simple upgrades:

Q6600 CPU $60-75
4 x 2 GB RAM $60-70
Video Card $75-100

Adding the video card and not using On-board video can make a difference as most older on-board video was crappy.

The Texan wrote:
I guess 8.1 Van confirms what I was told, the "free" version that MS is offering is the 32 bit version, with no way to upgrade from it to a 64 bit version without a complete wipe and clean install.

Most Windows 7 and 8.1 PCs out there have 64-bit versions of Windows already installed and get a free upgrade to 64-bit Windows 10 like the following HP PC that cost $178.

The installed operating system is Windows 8.1 (64-bit)

HP Stream 200-010 Mini Desktop Computer

mlts22 wrote:
I see entire languages devoted to the "it compiled successfully, ship it" method of software development. This is why we have so many security problems with almost every single piece of software out there, just because there is no thought of doing anything but making a mass of half-baked code before a deadline.

Maybe I'm showing my age, but I remember Word 3.0 running on a Mac Plus, which had a spell checker, and did 95% of the features Word 2013 does... but would entirely fit, with a copy of the OS, and space for Word documents, in less than 800k of disk space. WordPerfect for MS-DOS is another example.

MS WordPad is more akin to Word 3.0 and uses up about 4.4MB.

MS Word 2013 does things far above and beyond that of Word 3.0, you just don't use it for that. If all you need is Word 3.0 capability, save yourself the money and just use the built-in WordPad application. :)

Either way, 64bit is the way to go unless you're trying to play Kings Quest I on your machine, at which point I believe they have emulators for that. :)