Yes, but the 64-bit is so slow, that I can't even use Windows Explorer
effectivly. 32-Bit works like it should.

Also, why would my "Winodws Experience score" drop from 5.9 to 4.6 when
switching from 32 to 64-Bit.

"f/fgeorge" wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 23:41:01 -0700, ajf <ajf@discussions.microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've been playing around with both the 32 and 64 Bit versions of Vista
> >Ultimate on my new PC. The system specs are as follows;
> >
> >CPU: Intel Q6600 (Quad Core 2.4)
> >MB: Intel DG965WH
> >RAM: 4Gb (1Gb Transcend PC 800MHz x 4)
> >Video: PNY 8800GTS
> >
> >In Vista 32-Bit, System runs well (Good CPU Utilization) but will not see
> >all 4Gb RAM (3.2+GB Seen), system seems to be using a fair amount of RAM.
> >Windows Experience score Rates the CPU at 5.9
> >
> >In Vista 64-Bit Systetm runs significantly slower than the 32-Bit version.
> >CPU Utilization near 50% with system at idle for all four cores. Running
> >simple software pegs all four cores at 100%. System sees all four Gb and RAM
> >utilization is better than in the 32-Bit. Windows Experience Score has
> >dropped the CPU to 4.6.
> >
> >Two other IT people at work with similar system specs have the same problem
> >in 64-Bit Vista.
> >
> >Anyone getting good results running 64-Bit Vista on an Intel Quad-core?
> >
> >ajf
> FIRST you need to learn to ignore the ram usage in Vista. Is is
> different than any OS before it. The more free ram you have means that
> Vista is not doing its job correctly. Ram is MUCH faster than
> harddrive speeds, therefore Vista is making use of the fast stuff and
> leaving the slower drives for XP.
> Second 32 bit systems have trouble with more than 3 gig of ram, just
> the way it is. Same system, 32 bit versus 64 bit, 32 bit has issues.
>
>