# Photoshop 64 bit or 32 bit, its it make the different?



## once2work

While I discover the "Lighting Effect" not found in my PS CS5 and I'm running Mac OS 10.7.5 under 64 bit, after search on the web, Adobe said it had to switch back to 32 bit and the "Lighting Effect" filter return to the filter gallery. Also, from LR4.1 selected few pix and finish HDR in PS save into LR, the frame show in blank in LR, but not in 32 bit mode of PS.

These are the problem I facing with the 64 bit. I don't know much the different between these two, would it be only the processing speed differ as somebody said 64 bit is faster, or any image quality different of 64 bit to 32 bit?

Like to hear more.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

There's no difference in image quality.  It's just to do with the code for the program itself.  64-bit software can access more memory than 32-bit, and some operations will be faster.  You can read more about the pros and cons here: http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/64-bit-os-benefits-limitations.html  The downside is they have to rewrite the program and all of its plug-ins in order to run them in the 64-bit version, and that wasn't complete for CS5 so you had to switch to the existing 32-bit code for certain tools.  In CS6, Lighting Effects now available in the 64-bit version too.


----------



## once2work

Thank you Queen,
This is the only forums I always have the answer without blur, after your advice and the reference from the link to Adobe, I switch back to 32-bit, some of my plug-in like Nik is back, hope the HDR work well too that I need to probe.

Thank you again Queen.

Paul


----------



## Tony Jay

The effect of running PS as a 64-bit application can be quite amazing.
I do a lot of landscapes and stitching of multi-shot panoramas.
With a 32-bit version of PS the panoramic stitching process would take upwards of 30 minutes to complete.
I got a bit frustrated by this and acquired and installed a 64-bit version of Windows 7.
I then re-installed PS CS-5 as a 64-bit application.
I then, as an exercise, re-did a recent panorama that had previously taken well over 30 minutes to complete.
I got up to go and make a cup of tea since it was going to take a while - obviously...
Actually I didn't even get out of my chair before the process completed - about 10 seconds!

Yes, for some uses of PS the difference may not be so obvious - for me the difference was astounding!

Tony Jay


----------



## Hal P Anderson

Tony Jay said:


> Yes, for some uses of PS the difference may not be so obvious - for me the difference was astounding!


Yep. That's where being able to use tonnes of memory comes into play. Panoramas need lots of memory, and if it isn't available (because it cannot be addressed), PS will have to use disk storage instead of RAM. All the time gets eaten by disk reads and writes.


----------



## janemanny

The 64 bit computers can run both 32bit programs and 64 bit programs. 32 bit computers cannot run 64 bit programs, because the bit sizes are fundamentally different.  Latest Laptops with pre-installed Windows are usually x64 i.e. 64 Bit, old Desktops and Laptops could be having Windows x86 which means 32 bit. 

Technically x86 simply refers to a family of processors and the instruction set they all use. It doesn't actually say anything specific about data sizes. The term x86 started out as a 16-bit instruction set for 16-bit processors (the 8086 and 8088 processors), then was extended to a 32-bit instruction set for 32-bit processors (80386 and 80486), and now has been extended to a 64-bit instruction set for 64-bit processors. It used to be written as 80x86 to reflect the changing value in the middle of the chip model numbers, but somewhere along the line the 80 in the front was dropped, leaving just x86.


----------



## tspear

@janemanny

Nice summary, but I thought 8086 was actually an expansion of the 8080 chip which was 8 bit. I do not recall what the difference was but there was a major change in the memory processing with the jump to the 16bit 8086.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


----------



## PhilBurton

tspear said:


> @janemanny
> 
> Nice summary, but I thought 8086 was actually an expansion of the 8080 chip which was 8 bit. I do not recall what the difference was but there was a major change in the memory processing with the jump to the 16bit 8086.
> 
> Tim
> 
> Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk


No, the 8086_ instruction set_ was different from the 8080.  There was also a Zilog clone called the Z80, which was faster than the original Intel 8080.

Phil Burton


----------



## tspear

PhilBurton said:


> No, the 8086_ instruction set_ was different from the 8080.  There was also a Zilog clone called the Z80, which was faster than the original Intel 8080.
> 
> Phil Burton



Phil,

I did not say there was no change. I said the 8086 came from the 8080 (8 bit).   Not exactly definitive: x86 - Wikipedia
My dad actually had a z80 chip in his Northstar Horizon computer. I recall when we got the new memory board with 16K;  making 32k total!. The board  was the length of the case and roughly six inches high. 180k hard sector floppy disks....


----------

