Haven't we had 64-bit processors for at least 5 years now? There shouldn't be a price difference... In fact, I don't think that you'd really be able to buy a 32-bit processor anymore. Operating Systems and programs are a different story.
Wikipedia:
"2001: Intel finally ships its 64-bit processor line, now branded Itanium, targeting high-end servers. It fails to meet expectations due to the repeated delays in getting IA-64 to market.
2003: AMD introduces its Opteron and Athlon 64 processor lines, based on its AMD64 architecture which is the first x86 based 64 bit processor architecture. Apple also ships the 64-bit "G5" PowerPC 970 CPU courtesy of IBM. Intel maintains that its Itanium chips would remain its only 64-bit processors.
2004: Intel, reacting to the market success of AMD, admits it has been developing a clone of the AMD64 extensions named IA-32e (later renamed EM64T). Intel also ships updated versions of its Xeon and Pentium 4 processor families supporting the new instructions."
Win 7 seems to be handling 64 bit fairly well. I didn't see any gaming needs that require 64 bit and the power enhancement it creates (like 32gb ram) but for graphical and sound programs, it may be a really good power up. Afterall, 32 giga ram means lots of plug ins.
Yes, we've had processors, but not operating systems.
Windows vista 64 bit is riddled with bugs, and does not operate to the potential a 64 bit OS should. Windows 7 64 bit fixed a lot of those issues, and runs -far- better than vista 64 ever did.
Still, the only thing it really does is make the OS itself run faster. Most programs are still designed to run as 32 bit applications, as was said before, so they wont really run that much faster than they would on a 32 bit os. The main difference is that with a 64 bit os, you can effectively use more RAM than you would be able to otherwise.