I know that in visual studio 2010 there wasn't 64 bit version. Is there 64 bit version for vs2012?


No, there isn't.

Probably for the same reasons stated for Visual Studio 2010 (no need for the additional address space, and because for this application it would bloat it, slow it down and will take much too long to port to such an architecture, not to mention - the 32bit version works on 64bit machines).


Microsoft have now announced that Visual Studio 2022 will be a 64-bit application.

I expect one of the main drivers is enabling the loading and debugging memory dumps that are larger than the addressable 32 bit space of ~4GB (which, given how long Windows has been 64 bits, are no longer that rare).

  • If I want to build OpenCV for 64bit machine, can I do it with this visual studio? Sep 4 '13 at 19:10
  • @AbidRahmanK - Yes. It is just that Visual Studio itself (the application) is 32bit.
    – Oded
    Sep 4 '13 at 19:11
  • 1
    I wanted to ask, I am using 64bit windows, 64 bit Python and 64 bit Numpy. Only missing is that there is no 64 bit VS. Still it will be able to build it for x64? Sep 4 '13 at 19:13
  • 3
    @AbidRahmanK - Like I said. Yes. You can build for x64 with Visual Studio. The Visual Studio application is 32bit, but yes, it can build for x64.
    – Oded
    Sep 4 '13 at 19:22

No there is no 64 bit version.

You can check out this link (Thought to add the reason why it is not added)

why not 64 bit right away?



  • 2
    Such a marketing bullshit - "buy x64 because you'll be able to use more RAM and our software will run faster" VS "we do not provide x64 and you do not need it at all - it wastes CPU and 4GB of RAM is enough for everyone" Nov 11 '13 at 16:32
  • 1
    @taras.roshko What they say about MSVC is: "We are too lazy to port so much code - so you shouldn't really require us to do so." Anyways, I always thought that the idea behind standards (mainly C++ here) was that porting between architectures is only necessary where you do some architecture-dependent stuff. Many C/C++ programs compile and work well with little porting at all.
    – j_kubik
    Jan 6 '14 at 2:57
  • @j_kubik Have you really run into any MSVC projects that don't work because of 32 bit memory limitations? I haven't. I get what you are saying but honestly MSVC is one of their best products
    – Yablargo
    Jan 13 '14 at 17:53
  • @Yablargo I don't really use MSVC, but I agree that MSVC really doesn't really need 64bit (yet). Under linux I use g++ - it's 64 bit but it's just because everything is. compilers probably don't need that just yet. I have an impression though that porting g++ went rather swiftly (hmmm... or was it already written ages ago for some other non-i386 compatible 64-bit server machines? need to research that in a spare moment.)
    – j_kubik
    Jan 14 '14 at 5:32
  • Fair enough. I guess it comes down to "we can't justify the cost" which can make sense. If nothing else, software engineers have a bad habit of making improvements that are not necessarily required ;). With Linux -- it won't run a 32 bit binary at all, right? It could be that indeed MSVC in its current state will always be quicker 32-bit without a major overhaul.
    – Yablargo
    Jan 14 '14 at 14:19

No. There are apparently no plans also.
