At a second look, there is a performance comparison for Stata/MP at
http://www.stata.com/statamp/report.pdf. On page 31, the report states
that it is not beneficial to break down the results by platform. In
addition, I'm also guessing that a 64-bit machine can be costlier to
purchase than a 32-bit machine. If so, and if speed rather than memory
is the main issue then I would focus on the speed and numbers of the
CPUs rather than 32-bit vs. 64-bit. Definitely get the MP version of
Stata, if you have the money.
-Anders
On 6/29/06, Anders Alexandersson <andersalex@gmail.com> wrote:
Matissa Hollis <m73hollis_stata@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...] I'm wondering if folks have experience with
> Windows x64. If so, does it make a big difference in
> running Stata? Is it worth the trouble negotiating
> all the other compability problems?
At work I use Stata 9 for Windows x86-64 without any problems. At the
beginning I noted a bug in ODBC and saving PNG files but StataCorp, as
usual, resolved the issues quickly. I'm not aware of any Stata bugs in
the current version. I found that compatibility problems that are not
Stata related were more troublesome. At the beginning, I had to spend
some work on getting a 64-bit printer driver, 64-bit antivirus
software, and a 64-bit license for SAS. Now these issues are resolved,
but I still don't know how to use Latex on my 64-bit Windows XP. I'm
hoping that MikTex will be available later this year but there is no
guarantee.
I think the key question is: Do you need to use larger datasets than a
32-bit OS can handle? If yes, get the 64-bit Stata version. If not,
which version will be faster? For a speed comparison before Stata/MP,
see http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2005-07/msg00828.html. I
don't know about speed comparisons of the 32-bit and 64-bit versions
of Stata/MP.
-Anders Alexandersson
andersalex@gmail.com
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/