Windows 7 64-bit now used by majority of Steam owners

While many PC users have hardware and operating systems in their machines that are considered old or even obsolete, PC owners who use the Steam download service from Valve tend to stay more on the cutting edge of PC hardware and software development. Valve has given the option for Steam users to upload their hardware specs to the company to create a survey of their users.

In the newly updated Steam survey results for March 2012, they show that for the first time, the 64-bit version of Windows 7 is now used by a slight majority of people who agreed to send information for the survey. The numbers for March show that 53.91 percent of Steam users have the 64-bit version of Windows 7 installed, a massive increase of 10.89 percent compared to February.

This shows that, for PC gaming at least, gamers clearly want the 64-bit version of Windows 7 installed on their rigs. The 32-bit version of Windows XP is a distant second with 14.78 percent, followed by the 32-bit version of Windows 7 at 13.76 percent.

Other parts of the survey show that 31.21 percent of Steam users have 5 GB or more RAM installed on their PC. 48.64 percent have two processor cores in their CPU but that 40.02 percent have four cores inside.

Image via Valve

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Hollywood movie studios target more file sharing sites

Next Story

Smoked by Windows Phone gets smoked

41 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Little off for me.

Win7 x64
24GB Ram
16 core 3.0GHz (32 if HT on but some games take a crap with that so its usually off).

necrosis said,
Little off for me.

Win7 x64
24GB Ram
16 core 3.0GHz (32 if HT on but some games take a crap with that so its usually off).

you know i dont have an issue like that but if you end up having that issue instead of turning HT Off in the Bios or UEFI just launch the game and open task manager and set infinity level that will make it easy for you to just turn off some threads/cores

notuptome2004 said,

you know i dont have an issue like that but if you end up having that issue instead of turning HT Off in the Bios or UEFI just launch the game and open task manager and set infinity level that will make it easy for you to just turn off some threads/cores
Nah. Its HT in general. It has been known for a while to cause issues with some games/applications since day one.

I actually did try cutting back the cores on one game (FFXIV) but nothing worked till I completely shut off HT in the BIOS. Tho I do think the game is not even remotely coded properly for multi core.

I remember Neowin having an article or reference within in mentioning that 7x64 was the most used...over a year ago. So what's with this "now"?

Panda X said,
I remember Neowin having an article or reference within in mentioning that 7x64 was the most used...over a year ago. So what's with this "now"?

Pertains to adoption in other fields such as gaming.

Any serious gamer with decent hardware would always use 64 bit windows becuase of the 32 bit windows 3.5GB or 4GB total RAM limit. dont think BF 3 would like 1.5GB main ram coupled with a 2GB gfx card. sloooow as hell. so the above chart is kinda like duuuh no shizzle

techguy77 said,
Another reason 32bit OS Windows 8 shouldn't be even released. What a waste of time by Microsoft.

I have to ask.. how is cutting off a portion of their customer base in any way a good thing for Microsoft?

Max Norris said,
how is cutting off a portion of their customer base in any way a good thing for Microsoft?

Less time spent on testing, the ability to remove old code etc.

If Apple can do it, so can Microsoft.

techguy77 said,
Another reason 32bit OS Windows 8 shouldn't be even released. What a waste of time by Microsoft.

if it was upto Microsoft XP would be 64bit only. but thanks to hardware manufactures staying with 32bit even while MS was trying to push 64bit since 98 times. then had to rewrite XP to be 32bit.

Ace said,
Less time spent on testing, the ability to remove old code etc.

If Apple can do it, so can Microsoft.


Apple dictates the hardware, Microsoft doesn't. Dropping support for something that's still in wide use just means less options for the consumer, and less sales for Microsoft. Just look at the chart above, 64 bit is the majority sure, that's what, ~21% or so of millions of systems still using 32 bit? That's a lot of lost sales. The only people who would benefit from such a move would be those on the forums who suggested it in the first place, sure doesn't help anyone else.

Max Norris said,

Apple dictates the hardware, Microsoft doesn't. Dropping support for something that's still in wide use just means less options for the consumer, and less sales for Microsoft. Just look at the chart above, 64 bit is the majority sure, that's what, ~21% or so of millions of systems still using 32 bit? That's a lot of lost sales. The only people who would benefit from such a move would be those on the forums who suggested it in the first place, sure doesn't help anyone else.

Apple does not dictate hardware cause Apple hardware is low end PC.

Ace said,

Less time spent on testing, the ability to remove old code etc.

If Apple can do it, so can Microsoft.

...and that is why Apple has 2% market share and Microsoft has 92%. 64 bit is not a requirement for every user and every PC. For instance, we have 70 desktops at work, all are used just for Microsoft Office and web browsing. What is the signicant gain one will get running 64 bit Windows 7 on these machines? Not to mention they have Pentium processors and 1 GB of RAM installed. I installed Windows 7 64 bit on one just to get a feel of the performance and it was crappy. Windows 7 32 bit was much better and it does what it needs to do while extending the life of the hardware and giving us value.

Ace said,

Less time spent on testing, the ability to remove old code etc.

If Apple can do it, so can Microsoft.


Have Apple finally made a true 64bit OS? Last time I checked, some parts were 32bit (bootloader/firmware and some other parts).

Shadowzz said,

if it was upto Microsoft XP would be 64bit only. but thanks to hardware manufactures staying with 32bit even while MS was trying to push 64bit since 98 times. then had to rewrite XP to be 32bit.

Microsoft never tried to push x64 during the Win98 days, why would they most machines had 16MB RAM, this was nothing to do with the hardware manufacturers, remember Microsoft only just pushed 32bit in Windows 95 for the consumer space, NT 3.5 was 32bit but was only making small inroads in a market dominated by Novell Netware. The only systems who were 64bit during those days were UNIX, such as the Alpha's etc..

x64 really caught on when AMD released the x64 spec in 2003 on their processor's, intel solution just didn't work very well. The first consumer/pro version of a Microsoft x64 Client was WinXP x64 released in 2005 which in turn was based on Windows 2003 x64, most apps and antiviruses even treated XP64 as Win2k3.

Itanium is a completely different architecture and was never going to arrive on the desktop space due to it's incompatibility with x86 instruction set.

BannedForTruth said,

Have Apple finally made a true 64bit OS? Last time I checked, some parts were 32bit (bootloader/firmware and some other parts).

Yeah Mac OSX is 64bit, bootloaders and firmware doesn't really affect the systems ability to access large amounts of memory, the increase x64 register set and the ability to run 64bit apps, all of the userland including finder is 64bit in Lion which was the reason for the steep cut off for older machines, i.e. the Core Duo's which are 32bit without the x64 extensions.

I have 3 out of 4 systems running 64 bit Windows, been on 64 bit exclusively since Vista, started out Windows XP Professional x64 edition (didn't have much compatibility problems), but it was a good start for it make it mainsteam as it is now.

Slow news day? Seriously Windows 7 has been over XP for months now, heck Vistas was even beating it last month (7 canabilzed Vista's share this month is seems).

Why not just talk about the interesting point that an "Unknown 64 bit" popping up this month which is blantantly Windows 8

A "slight majority"? More than 50% of surveyed users are using it, and the next OS down (Windows XP 32-bit) has less than 15%! And according to the percentage changes, Windows 7 64-bit was at 43% last month, so it's probably been top for quite a long time, but I can't find past survey results to confirm that.

Rufus Pearce said,
but Steam itself is still only 32 bit :-(

This, why?... They should already offer a 64 it version, there are noticeable advantages.

Lucas said,

This, why?... They should already offer a 64 it version, there are noticeable advantages.

Not really... the Steam application itself is just a glorified web browser with some IM and download manager capabilities. And the Steam Overlay is just a small GUI that hooks into Steam. I don't think a 64-bit app would gain them anything.

The Source engine however, I wouldn't mind that been upgraded to be 64-bit

Lucas said,

This, why?... They should already offer a 64 it version, there are noticeable advantages.

What advantages are there to steam running as a 64 bit program? I can't think of any.

I've got win7 x64 im my quad core Phenom II machine with 4GB ram and a mate bought my old system for his wife that had an duel core Athlon 64 x2 4800+ with 4GB ram in it that also ran win7 x64 (much better than the 32bit might I add)

Reacon said,
8 GB of ram is useless. I never come within 60% of 4 GB outside of a game.

I bet you don't use browsers.
I have 8GB Ram and 6-core CPU, but that's clearly not enough for me. System is constantly swapping.

BannedForTruth said,

I bet you don't use browsers.
I have 8GB Ram and 6-core CPU, but that's clearly not enough for me. System is constantly swapping.
-.-' and you clearly don't know what swap space / paging is actually meant for...

Reacon said,
8 GB of ram is useless. I never come within 60% of 4 GB outside of a game.

Useless? Depends on how you use your computer. I needed to upgrade to 16GB because 8GB just wasn't enough...

DJ Dark said,
-.-' and you clearly don't know what swap space / paging is actually meant for...

Perhaps he meant that he uses so much of the RAM that the system is swapping to disk thus slowing down his machine, i.e. to support that he is finding 8GB too little.

I have 8GB on my machine and between VM's, productivity apps, games and photo work it's suprising how quick you can use up 8GB.

Pleased to see x64 is leading the way, i shudder at the memory of trying to use a x64 machine is the good old days (XP x64, it was great but no drivers, app support etc..).

REM2000 said,

Perhaps he meant that he uses so much of the RAM that the system is swapping to disk thus slowing down his machine, i.e. to support that he is finding 8GB too little.

I have 8GB on my machine and between VM's, productivity apps, games and photo work it's suprising how quick you can use up 8GB.

Pleased to see x64 is leading the way, i shudder at the memory of trying to use a x64 machine is the good old days (XP x64, it was great but no drivers, app support etc..).

Actually thats not what I was referring to.. Even if your only using 500MB of ram out of 8GB, your still gonna page to disk.

since Vista I'm using 64 bit windows. But I had to complete renew my printer and scanner because there was no driver for the old one.
annoying if you have to replace still good working things because of bad driver support

That was quick, I only got the prompt to submit my hardware details survey the other evening.