Should You EVER Use 32-Bit Versions of Apps? (Yes Actually)

[@ThioJoe]

Sponsored: Don't leave you and your family vulnerable to data breaches! Go to aura.com/thiojoe to get a 14-day free trial to Aura.

[@EquaTechnologies]

sigma

[@EquaTechnologies]

am i first?

[@EquaTechnologies]

if i was not first, i shouldn't have rewritten the comment

[@EquaTechnologies]

but who cares

[@_SJ]

The voice note feature is ❤

[@InsaneFirebat]

As a SNES programmer, this makes perfect sense to me. Often times working in 8bit mode is faster than 16bit, because an extra clock cycle is spent decoding the extra byte. I just never really considered it for modern apps. Thanks.

[@dogman_2748]

@@InsaneFirebat If I were to guess, this is most likely due to the CPU cache potentially being able to fit more pointer memory addresses since they're shorter.

[@docwhogr]

it depends on the specific cpu and on the mixture of instructions, this requires a serious research if you like to squish every drop of power out of a cpu...

[@d0rban]

There is also an interesting ABI for x86-64 which compiles 64-bit code with 32-bit pointers, where you can use the full 64-bit range of instructions, but don't have access to addresses above 4GiB. I know there's a Debian port out there that does that. I'm not sure how feasible that would be on Windows.

[@adamp9553]

Larger 64-bit instructions are also going to be slower on 64-bit machines when the code isn't in the cache. They can make up for performance after load and math operations that weren't natively available on 32-bit, but so many operations can just be done with 32-bit anway.

[@TeleviseGuy]

I always wondered why a lot of the games on Steam are 32-bit

[@jmtradbr]

Usually is because they are old

[@rockpie.iso.tar.bz2]

recompile them into x86_64

[@casraf]

Usually they are just outdated and weren't updated, or updating them causes issues that would require re-writing a lot of parts from the game's engine, which might be either impossible (no source access) or very expensive (dev hours) and just not worth it

[@d0rban]

It's also the most widely compatible Windows programs. 32-bit x86 will run on all modern Windows versions Windows 10 onwards regardless of architecture. If the game doesn't require more than 2GB of RAM, or specific APIs that are 64-bit exclusive, why not compile for that?

[@electrothecat]

That is due to three factors: - the age of the game, maybe they found out x64 didnt provide that much of a performance bump due to hardware limits at the time. - the game never ran on more than 2GB to begin with; voxel, indie, 2D, and pixel games are often compiled in x86 just for performance and compatibility sake. - the engine is the limitation, some things would be too hard to recompile in x64, in most of those cases itll mean a full rewrite of an old engine, maybe the game is intentionally using an old outdated engine for a specific reason, edge cases are real.

[@andreasjoannai6441]

1:01 *There is a RAM limit for even 64-bit applications as well. However, it really doesn't matter (at least for now) as that limit is far greater then what most computers have these days. For those wondering, the limit in question is 16 EiB, around 18.446 quintillion bytes, about 18 MILLION terabytes.

[@Lebon19]

If you watched, like, a few minutes more, Thio mentionned exactly this...

[@PlayerEngineer]

bro didnt finish the video

[@RedOneM]

"640 kB ought to be enough for anybody" fake quote that's still relevant today.

[@andreasjoannai6441]

@@RedOneM ... Is why I said "at least for now"

[@JessicaFEREM]

Can't wait for 128bit computers

[@VLS-Why]

Fyi modern processors don't actually use 64 bit addresses, that is just the datapath. Addresses are ~50 bits

[@ThioJoe]

Hmm interesting i’ll have to read more into that 🤔

[@0.Andi.0]

Linux reports like 48 bits

[@Aeduo]

Even more fun, I believe in various cases, those other bits can contain flags and other data used by the OS for various things (though I don't know if these are usable on the application-side, they might only be meaningful in kernelspace).

[@VLS-Why]

@@Aeduo I am CPU engineer, the bits physically do not exist in the silicon

[@Aeduo]

@@VLS-Why I guess this is why they're packing data in there then if they're literally no effect as far as physical memory addresses goes. Messing with virtual memory pointers can probably mess up other runtime things though that might depend on values being consistent, that's mostly what I was referring to with applications.

[@QWERTIOX]

I think you should mention that 64 bit are in fact sometimes faster because of 2GB cap - some 32 bit apps pack few variables in one 32 bit one for example 4 8bit ones but 64bit versions don't and just go with 4 64bit variables and for that reason 64 version can read and write them without any problem where 32bit ones need to do bit shifting and masking to read/write. Good example of this is Team Fortress 2 that received massive performance boost after getting 64bit version. Also 64bit programs could have better precision (depends of implementation) and give more accurate results

[@ThioJoe]

Hm true, though I guess that falls outside the realm of “all other things being equal” if the logic is different

[@lucidattf]

0:43 unless its x86_64

[@igorthelight]

Then it's the same as x64 or AMD64 ;-)

[@lucidattf]

@ yep, just different systems preferring to call it by different names

[@andreasjoannai6441]

On top of that, x86 is technically an umbrella term for 16-bit, 32‐bit, and 64-bit. What matters here is that all of these are based on the i8086 processor.

[@igorthelight]

@@andreasjoannai6441 Yep, true!

[@michaelmalenchek4575]

I'd like to interject here. x86_64 refers to a processor that supports the Intel 8086 and AMD64 extension to x86. x86 refers to a processor just supporting the Intel 8086 (i86) architecture. AMD64 refers to just the AMD64 extention to the Intel 8086 (i86) architecture. Note AMD and Intel cross-license these technologies which is why they both can manufacture processors without violating patent laws.

[@stephenwhite6216]

At 2:26, that's 15.5 and 11.5 MEGABYTES respectively

[@ThioJoe]

[@Pls2M]

that was a K like the old windows which represents Kilobytes not Megabytes

[@Pls2M]

so yes

[@N1r4]

​@@ThioJoewow voice note reply. since when was that a thing

[@xapplezapple3453]

@@N1r4 is it supported for you? for me it has a transcription and says voice reply is not supported

[@treyquattro]

64-bit x86 instructions require more opcode overrides, are often longer, and therefore require more clocks to decode (depending on the length of a multi-byte instruction, from two to around 15 on the latest processors in 64-bit mode). However, to quote a well-used phrase: it's complicated. Modern (x86/CISC) processors are highly pipelined, non-linear, and superscalar with branch prediction and speculative execution so getting the mix of instructions necessary to measure the performance you think you're targeting is tricky, much more so than in the "old days" where each instruction had a predefined and static number of clocks per instruction, there was only one instruction decoded at a time, and there were only 16- or 32-bit modes which were very simplistic by modern standards (that's for e.g. 80386/80486).

[@dtkywtan]

Yes! I'm still using MS Office 2003 SP3 32-bit on a decade old HP z420 workstation, those old school 32-bit Office Apps are lighting fast pretty much on every task such as Excel can launch almost instantaneously upon double-clicking the app or document icons. A big architectural difference between 64 and 32-bit is "maxium RAM addressing capability" which affects how many rows a worksheet can handle, but that doesn't really matter for most average users.

[@Krushx0]

the peak is 32 bit portable programs written into a single exe. Wicked fast. Especially with fast nvme drives. Probably the whole program loaded as whole as a "container" into ram and dissected in ram which is faster oppose to the program already dissected on nvme since some files when you copy it really slow but when you put them into a container and copy it that way that slowness during copying disappear.

[@andbandlast]

Portable programs are probably fast cause the don't ask the operating system where their configuration files are, which could take multiple reads from disk. Assuming the config files don't exist, a non-portable application would still have to ask the operating system where they are stored, then only after that, check if they exist in the expected directory. A portable application on the other hand would only check the directory it resides in, which contents would already be loaded into memory. There are several reasons why copying container files are faster. You're probably referring to .zip, .rar or .7z files, which are faster just by being smaller as they are compressed. But, there are other container files like .tar that don't do compression and, just put a bunch of files into one big file. These are faster because there is overhead for each file copy, so if you copy a lot of files you get a lot of overhead. But, if you put them all into a single file you only get the overhead of one copy. In regards to "dissected in ram", I assume you referring storing a compressed program on disk, then uncompressing it at runtime. You can do this but there isn't much reason to compress programs themselves. Code is small enough your not going to notice a delay loading it into memory. But, the program assets like images, video, and sounds are almost never going to be uncompressed on disk and almost always "dissected"(uncompressed) in memory. Games don't even store images in memory uncompressed, instead working with compressed textures directly.

[@OMGg4m3r]

In a business environment, 32 bit office is used often due to them using an add on that doesn't have a 64 bit version as its for some old software they haven't replaced...

[@God-ld6ll]

"well, isn't it a bit faster?" (a joke)

[@bard_x86]

@@God-ld6ll this will be at the top for sure

[@Mr.Anders0n_]

Yes, more than one. it's -32 bits faster

[@buildingsbyair]

your caption says 64 could be faster, but you said 32 could be

[@smb1397]

32 is the correct one

8:23 As a 3rd semester in collage for Computer Engineering I guess we can assume it's like math using Limit from infinity cuz we only need to see 4 gb instead of inf. So of course it calculates faster. Like how we already chached games to ram instead HDD to see the lookup table

[@QWERTIOX]

1:20 should say 32bit on screen

[@jjmmfi]

Yes

[@ThioJoe]

Ah I didn’t catch that 😩

[@docwhogr]

@@ThioJoe no worries, just reupload the video with the corrections :P

[@fizixx]

I wondered about this, so, thanks for going over this info, Joe!

[@zea_64]

Fun fact: x86_64 supports a mode where you still get access to all the 64-bit features *but* pointers are 32 bits, so you can get all the nice native 64-bit integer stuff and the extra registers added while *also* having pointers take less memory. With memory speed being the big bottleneck these days, it can be a fair bit faster.

[@ionamygdalon2263]

1:16 You should have typed 32 Bit Programs Can be Faster

[@mememachine269]

Was thinking the same

[@redaceFR]

I had seen articles about this specific subject. Turns out that modern CPUs can detect they are running a 32 bit program and "merge" multiple 32 bit operations in the same 64 bits operation. For example they can do an "add" operation of 2 32 bits numbers and use the remaining 32 bits to perform another "add" with different 32 bit numbers because they can handle 64 bits in total at the same time. If I remember correctly what's even more interesting for speed is that 64 bits RAM can handle looking for 2 32 bits addressed numbers in the same clock cycle. Effectively doubling the speed for those specific values. I think this was discontinued at some point tho ...

[@alexandrustefanmiron7723]

Also, do not forget AWE support. You can pin physical pages that you can map into your mem space as needed going beyond the 4gb limit.

[@HellDuke-]

Some caveats on the results. AI cannot give a good synthetic test. If AI is what made the test (as in what should be tested) then it's likely not a very good measuring stick. The other caveat is that the results are not necessarily scalable. In the test the 40% difference might be several milliseconds of difference whereas in an actual application you might still retain a difference of several milliseconds but the operations take 10 times that in genera making the % different. Always be careful with % differences, I'd say for future tests like this always give an absolute value because for all we know the difference will remain the same regardless of how long the operation takes in general.

[@ThioJoe]

Yea i mean it was more of a rough test, and obviously all the tests were repeated loops whereas in a real program not everything is gonna be those types of actions

[@gblargg]

@@ThioJoe How long did the loops run? Some of them are just a couple of seconds, where the time to load the program from the drive might be significant. Hopefully these ran for a minute each test.

[@teamredstudio7012]

Also, not to forget, Wndows 10 ARM does not support x64, it only supports x86 translation

[@SquintyGears]

I haven't tested this, but from what I know a lot of the speed difference is likely due to scheduling and CPU internal threading. Many 64bit operations where designed intentionally to be 2 32bit operations glue together. And can be used both ways. So if the code isn't linear it can do 2 32bit things in a single native 64bit instruction. It gets super complicated to identify exactly where the performance boost comes from when it ends up being platform dependent and microcode version and everything else. Because windows could make the decision at a kernel level scheduling since it's aware of the supported instructions, but it generally doesn't do that for user space programs.

[@MrGrappleMan]

Though that aarch64 was better in this scenario. But 32 bit OS on a 64 bit PC is hella slow and quite inefficient with overhead.

[@401_kb]

Finally! Thanks for clearifying about 32 bit and 64 bit applications in this video. Most people wondered which one to choose. This will be the answer out.

[@Aeduo]

Even more fun is applications which stored addresses in a 32 bit int... then got ported to 64 bits. Wine ran in to a bug along these lines a bit ago because apparently windows was generally putting everything down below 4GB and would generally work just fine. Wine wasn't respecting this and exposing badly written code in a lot of applications. Of course, because Windows did it a certain way, Wine has to do so too to assure these applications work as expected.

[@casraf]

Another reason to choose 32 bit is dependencies on either legacy or very long-living versions that are required for specific things. Some of these don't compile, or misbehave on 64 bit, and they might bottleneck the rest of your app to require 32 bit compatibility. Though that's probably a bit less likely.

[@bhashkarkumar1542]

Thanks for the info......I never thought for this aspect

[@fildisco]

This blew my mind

[@AGoogleUser-e7v]

Are u still alive?

[@andersama2215]

Unless the program you're dealing with conceptually is processing large amounts of data 32bit would be faster, part of the reason is that the instructions themselves are smaller, allowing more of the program to be cached, and sometimes equivalent instructions may be faster. That said, don't install mismatched versions, you can easily end up with weird broken behavior.

[@lerenstuderenopschool]

How do you make these test programs? can You make a tutorial pls?

[@ThioJoe]

[@Zynorius00]

@@ThioJoe what how did not not about this voice feature

[@ThioJoe]

@@Zynorius00 It’s a feature they’re having me test 👀 I don’t think I can say much more than that

[@Zynorius00]

@@ThioJoe really interesting

[@lerenstuderenopschool]

@@ThioJoe Thanks for your Answer. This means a lot that my idol is reacting to my comment.

[@Cursor_Gaming]

Correction: at 1:27, it should say 32 instead of 64 on the screen,

[@AltonV]

Not really. He is talking about 32-bit being faster and the text is an addendum that says 62-bit might be faster in some cases.

[@Cursor_Gaming]

@@AltonV I suppose in the literal sense, but it'd make more sense to put 32 instead of 64 there

[@Dominus_Potatus]

Oh yes, I am surprised as you are. But I did see 32-bit run faster than 64-bit espexcally on around Windows XP - Windows 7 era. I remember had an experience playing games that runs better at 32 bit rather than 64 bit.

[@ace90210ace]

Actually as a developer i can answer why we sont use 64bit always. Its because going to 64bit adds more overhead at cost of performance and ram usage and for 99% of our work we never need 64 bit so we default to 32bit and only enable 64bit if we think theres a specific reason too

[@Raivo_K]

Does this not introduce more work than just using 64bit tho? RAM is cheap these days and performance should be fine unless it's a really old or low end CPU or you need to maintain compatibility with older 32bit OS. I think the funniest example of 32bit program is a certain well known hardware sensor monitoring program that literally has 64 in the name - yet is 32bit.

[@redball4funnys]

"...Why we sont use..." bro he's almost talking french.

[@WackoMcGoose]

Makes sense. If the "upper half" of every pointer address is always all zeroes anyway, why bother?

[@13thravenpurple94]

Loved every moment of this video! Thanks a million! 💙

[@k4rt1]

Hi Thio. 👋

[@whatzause]

There is a reason for using Windows. Because 32-bit XP (YES,XP!) has the only GOOD wave editor: Steinberg’s WaveLab Lite. (Don’t let the “Lite” scare you either; this is a feature-packed, professional-like, powerful audio editor!) I have and use Windows 10, but cannot do without XP for WaveLab and some other applications that were BETTER on XP than any equivalents I have found for WIN10. And BTW, XP, dear sir, is still a solid non-crashing, clonable OS. I have 3 good XP desktops that serve me well and are more user friendly than some later Microsoft releases. I have heard you denigrating XP, and I advise you to stop because that opinion, it turns out, is in poor taste if you don’t see the differences as clearly as one who uses XP successfully every day. Having said that, I do profit from and admire your expertise and videos for the most part. Thank you.

[@Legitti]

Not the speed but 64bit is often more stable 🤔

[@_SJ]

Interesting Thanks ThioJoe

[@RadeonVega64]

🐢

[@ThioJoe]

[@_SJ]

Wow 😧😧😧😧😧 voice reply 👍🏻🙏🏻

[@nigelcox1]

@@ThioJoe Hi Joe, great video as usual, but ? caption error at 1:16

[@RadeonVega64]

@@ThioJoe what

[@GifyTheOld]

Oh, that's good to know, especially for some always running small utility programs and that kind of stuff to save a bit of CPU/RAM usage.

[@MthaMenMon]

You actually feel the pain on the lack of 32 bit versions of things when using an old atom netbook :(. Most games, even if 2D and lightweight, are made with only 64 bit in mind. So no chance of ever running them on those old atom cpus. Even some browsers nowadays dont offer updates to their 32 bit version, like brave.

[@Biaanca5036]

I use old computers so usually my thoughts on the matter are: "Internally - All this program does is ______________. And it'll never, ever, consume a gig of ram to do what it does. _So like.. was ruining backwards compatibility reaaaaalyyyyy worth it"

[@whtiequillBj]

We don't use full 64 but addresses. We usually only have partial support. I think it's 48 but addressed upper and lower memory.

[@AlekseyMalov]

In Task Manager's Details tab you can see if a process is x86 or x64, if you have Architecture column enabled.

[@morthim]

'if is faster to run a 32 bit program?' it can be even faster if the OS makes it so 32 bit programs can run as 64 bit programs. virtual memory means that you can have a 4GB page table of memory which exists within the overlaying 64bit addressspace. the big thing is that when 32 bit programs or 16 bit ones are made parrellel you get huge speed ups.

[@terawattyear]

On the windows XP machine I was working on, HWInfo 64 bit would not run. HWInfo 32 bit would (no surprise). So if you like working with older Windows OS machines, it is handy to have functional test tools. Good video BTW.

[@markmcmullen1371]

Is there a way to force install 32 bit program on a 64 bit version of Windows 10, I have a couple of older programs that pops up a error message "can't install 32 bit program" ?. If you've done one before could you direct me to the video, thank you.

[@Jimmy-bu6zb]

Thanks for making this video, Thio. Though I have a Win 11 PC, still have two 32-bit Asus T100TA small laptops/tablets that still work perfectly. Only 2GB RAM, so after Oct. 2025 will have to decide: ESU Windows 10 for 3 more years (School/Teacher discount)...or perhaps 32-bit MX Linux. I mean, why throw out even MORE e-waste, if things still work well?

[@langhistruk]

You could also consider Debian:)

[@LeBeautiful]

Dam, when I thought 64bit was the new norm

[@DosGamer6601]

the only reason i found for using 32 bit windows is if your computer does not support it or you want to run 16 bit apps

[@ThioJoe]

True, 32 bit versions of Windows do support 16 bit apps. I wonder if there are emulators you can download though and run on 64 bit

[@DosGamer6601]

@@ThioJoe you can run windows 3.1 under dosbox or use some sort of VM

[@Sirdrexl]

The RAM limit would be per-process, right? Modern web browsers have separate processes for each tab, so I would think that while they could add up to more than 4GB (assuming you're using a 64-bit OS), each process could use 2-4GB in 32-bit.

[@TechDunk]

I gotta test this on my games

[@bspringer]

Instructions unclear, downloading 32 bit Chrome now

[@ThePaalanBoy]

So, wouldn't using 32bit version of programs automatically limit resource usage and make it easier to multitask/running multiple programs?

[@guiorgy]

Have you tried comparing the performance of operations on 64 bit integers (or floating point numbers, aka doubles)? I'm assuming that that would be significantly faster on x64

[@9SMTM6]

amd64 or x86_64 actually only uses 48 bit of the 64 bit addresses. So your theoretical limit is far beyond whats actually possible. Also one should consider that the address space of programs is compartmentalized into areas by the OS, for a few reasons, eg. that a program can have an address to memory that the system owns. So you can't even use all 48 bits for the program itself. Though, this compartmentalization depends on the OS,so I guess you might be able to create a bootable program that has access to everything. Theoretically. The 48 bit limitation is unavoidable with current hardware.

[@9SMTM6]

Re. Speed difference. Unless I'm missing something the 32 bit program should be limited to half the runtime at worst. And that's in the limiting case that all the data your program handles are pointers, and that your program speed is bound by the memory bandwidth of loading these addresses. So something like datastructures mostly made out of pointers, which seems to have been one of your examples. But most programs written for speed don't tend to be that way, for started they don't use C#. Additionally, AFAIK, most modern instruction extensions such as SIMD expensions are only available in 64 bit, so you loose out on these potential speedups.

[@TheVirtualArena24]

I saw this on your tweet before.

[@moguus2944]

BUT installing a 32-bit Windows version instead of 64-bit Windows, the system is actually 25% slower compared to running 64-bit Windows

[@t1m3f0x]

Actually there is a reason to use 32 bit Windows, you have to use 32 bit Windows to run 16 bit programs.

[@asan1050]

Thanks for posting this video3

[@MouseQueen7220]

I always thought that 64 bit programs would be faster, as I think 32 bit programs need some kind of translation on 64 bit operating systems. I am pretty sure that newer versions of Mac OS can't run 32 bit apps.

[@SomeRandomDeveloper]

You need to test on different CPUs. A lot of CPUs use a compatibility layer instead now, and 64bit will perform better on those.

[@kamertonaudiophileplayer847]

I imagine how 16 bit will be fast.

[@pepparody]

1:28 The text says 64 bit, but I think you meant 32 bit.

[@tristansewell5986]

What about the security difference?

[@WindowsAurora]

1:15 editing mistake?

[@Rouxenator]

WoW64 is pretty powerfuly. I wonder if the same is true for running 16bit applications on 32bit Windows via WoW32

[@wadmodderschalton5763]

Unless anything is built with code from Google Chrome as the browser is bloated when it comes down to memory as 32-bit support degrades when it comes down to performance on lower ended PCs.

[@evertchin]

It make more sense to hyper optimize for live services, i wonder if this only a windows thing or linux app also benefits from it.

[@Lucas-up6ww]

I want 128-Bit!

[@angelsoul3359]

What if Windows won’t let you install a 32 bit app because it’s “incompatible”? Is there a way to get around this or would that be a harmful thing to do?

[@ThioJoe]

I can’t think of a time it ever wouldn’t let you install an app just because it’s 32 bit 🤔 There must be something else that makes it not compatible. Where does it even say that message, is it an app from the Microsoft Store or something?

[@angelsoul3359]

@ I will find it and let you know. Thanks so much for your response.

[@Raivo_K]

You might have tried to run a 16bit or MS-DOS program instead. Despite the .exe extension modern 64bit Windows is unable to natively run those.

[@angelsoul3359]

@@ThioJoeThe app name is “Linksys EasyLink Advisor.exe”. It came with my router (Yes, I know I need a newer router because mine is no longer supported, lol). The app can now be downloaded from the internet from various sites under various names, usually mentioning that it is a 32-bit app. I ran it on WindowsXP but can’t run it on Windows11. The message I got a few minutes ago when trying to install a version of it was “an administrator has blocked you from using this app for your own protection.” Uh - I am the administrator, lol. The message gave no details.

[@bean_TM]

yea but what about SIMD optimizations. or just better compiler flags to optimize for 64bit? SIMD would work better with 64bit since you have more bits, and compilers can better optimize for that. I think you should have done real work benchmarks instead of making a small program that wont represent how real world applications work. testing is flawed here.

[@redball4funnys]

So why geometry dash 2.206 and up is well optimized than older ones because they're 64-bit?

[@JonathanSwiftUK]

It's not speed or ram that is important but compatibility, going forward, what happens if Windows further reduces support, or removes support for x86, like Intel is also trying to do. Intel don't want 32 bit, and nor does Microsoft. Windows 10 is dead, no longer supported, and Windows 11 doesn't have a 32-bit version, although it can run 32 bit programs. Once Intel stop supporting x86 everybody will have to move to x64. There are companies out there using incredibly old operating systems, like Windows 2003, 2008.

[@tehyonglip9203]

8:31 this is not necessarily true, in C, if you use any integer which is less than 32 bit (e.g. int16_t) the operating have to do additional check to make sure it doesn't overflow, which makes it slower, but not necessarily less memory. Looks like in most cases, using a 32 bit integer is the most compatible with RAM and CPU, because the can read it readily, using anything different forces the compiler to check the range of the integers during the compile time, slowing down your system slightly.

[@ThioJoe]

Hm but would that only be during compiling?

[@Lost-In-Blank]

@@ThioJoe overflowing during execution

[@ohhelloididntseeyouthere]

@@ThioJoe I'm not 100% sure, but I think the original commenter is talking about aligning types to the native word size of the architecture. So if your native word size is 64-bit, for instance, and you use a 16 bit integer, it's possible it will be extended to 64-bit to maintain alignment at runtime. This could have a small performance impact, but with modern CPUs it would be basically insignificant outside of insanely performance critical work or find yourself using an unusual architecture. Otherwise the C compiler isn't doing any kind of range checking. If you overflow a signed 16-bit integer, it's undefined behavior. If you overflow an unsigned integer, it just wraps around. There are also situations like alignment padding of structs where it may pad smaller types to align to larger types, like if you have a struct with an int16_t and an int32_t the compiler will pad the int16_t to align with the int32_t.

[@tehyonglip9203]

​@@ThioJoe Good question, the reason 32 bit file can be read the fastest during compilation is because the OS can read it without any checks. Technically, when you are running an exe file, it should be in the lowest level possible (binary). So it really surpises me when 32 bit outperforms 64 bit. One reason might be because 32 bit has a better optimization because all PCs have to run it?

[@TheVirtualArena24]

5:53 bro is programmer

[@StinCrucing]

What if you compile x64 with 2GB ram limit? Will that be as fast as x86-32😮

[@DarkGamerA]

i wish i had his coding skills and knowhow

[@antonnycer]

Android emulation can run better in a ARM PC?

[@igorthelight]

Could be. Additional testing needed ;-)

[@ThioJoe]

I’m not sure actually 🤔

[@QwDragon]

Why C#? You should've use some language that compiles to native code.

[@prman9984]

Exactly the reason that you have to ask 32 or 64 to begin with. C# does both because it compiles from IL on the user's machine, using as many CPU options as they have available for maximum performance.

[@markkoops2611]

That's not 15.5 KB, that's 15.5MB of RAM

[@alexandrustefanmiron7723]

I'm sorry but what do you do to have a 10/15mb of an exe file ? A... c#.. now I get it!

[@180rotator]

ya

[@cammy85]

VLC 32 bit is more stable dependoing how you like your settings.

[@ThioJoe]

Interesting 🤔

[@Unglue]

Yes

[@thetechrealist]

Eh, I’d only use 32 bit programs for older, crappy computers

[@CYXXYC]

tummy in the video url

[@ThioJoe]

Lol it even has an underscore in front

[@matthewharris517]

And here I am with a PC filled with nothing but 64bit programs Oh well 🤷

[@mrpiratexd]

compare windows 64bit edition vs windows 32bit edition

[@TechTeamAspect]

Me still using 32-bit Windows: 👁👄👁 (im just joking)

[@docwhogr]

windows 32bit are also faster if you can live with the small memory but it depends on the cpu. old atom cpus for example are very bad at 64bit. you should also check amd vs intel and i don't think .net is a good choice...

[@EquaTechnologies]

very sigma

[@Kioki1-x8p]

Imagine a doomsday scenario & you have an old system OS running & you don't have 32-bit program versions in your ssd 🤣😂 & you need it for say medical vaccine research or something like that. I guess having 32-bit versions is also good.

[@Wregst3]

i use 32bit because its older and older automatically means its better

[@z9cubing574]

It saves apce? IG????!!!...,,,

[@RandomytchannelGD]

Hi

[@LedSeng]

I am surprised that YOU were surprised. compared to everything else that you have taught me with your videos that i had no idea about, this particular piece of knowledge i had always assumed to be "common sense."

[@ThioJoe]

I guess I just never thought about it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@EquaTechnologies]

OwO sigma

[@Pls2M]

imma 157th like and 32th comment