32 bit is no longer valid

[wordsworm]

After reading Anandtech and a few other articles surrounding the recent release of v92 using 4GB of memory, I came to the realization that using 32 bit Vista isn't a valid OS to be testing the hardware. I had made a few posts to find out if I was correct, and there was some small contention. Since then, I emailed nVidia, and have since discovered that indeed, running a GTX with 768MB of RAM will cripple the motherboard RAM by 768MB. The 256MB GT will cripple it by only 256MB. How much of a difference will 512 MB make to a game? I don't really know. I *do* know that I read several posts suggesting that though 2 GB for Crysis is recommended, 4GB is going to improve the experience.

So, then I thought about SLI and crossfire, and realized that the RAM problem would only be compounded to the point where it makes no sense to run SLI on a 32 bit OS at all. I know I'm not half the guru that Anand or any of the others who run sites like these - heck, I'm not even a guru. I still don't know how to OC my computer. But this seems to me basic math and simple logic: you can't call the recent article "NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 & GeForce 8800 GT 256MB: Playing with Memory and G92" accurate to a satisfactory degree if more RAM is crippling the tests. Anand was not the only one to run the tests on 4GB of memory on Vista 32. Some others tested 2GB on Vista 32, which actually makes sense. However, I've not been able to find tests done on these cards using Vista 64, which makes a whole lot more sense.

Anandtech, amongst others, deals with enthusiast equipment, and it's definitely striking me as counter-intuitive to be seeing it stuck in the past when it comes to the OS.

It was mentioned that Windows 2000 was capable of running more RAM, but the caveat is that it created a map and that full access to the additional RAM was not possible. RAM is capped at 4.2GB regardless of that older technology. It would be nice if the enthusiast community as a whole began to embrace the 64 bit revolution as the only way to go for those who want the best. Furthermore, it would give the sites a chance to see how much of a difference there is in running Crysis on 4 vs 8 GB of memory.

Just to add some fuel to the flame: Anandtech just posted an article, SLI nVidia's 3 way SLI, again using Vista 32 bit, 4 GB of RAM, and 3 GTX video cards each at 768 MB of RAM. This means that the motherboard is being crippled down to barely 3 GB of memory to make way for the SLI. Some have mentioned that 2 GB is all one needs, but then I have to ask why doesn't the review make use of 2 GB instead of 4 GB so that everything is equal when testing the 3 configurations?

 

[Ares202]

if they fixed 64 bit operating systems i would "embrace the 64 bit revolution"

64 bit xp has no drivers
64 bit vista is just crappy

and crysis works fine on 2gb, the max usage i get when running crysis is 1.3gb, that leaves me 700mb of memory doing nothing

im running xp 32 bit and a 512mb video card, theres also a good review of 64 bit vs 32 bit on crysis somewhere and it leads to no performance gain,

Plus why do you trust Nvidia they will want to everyone to move to new OS's as this will increase there graphics card sales as new OS usually means new system for alot of us

 

[Cheex]

I've heard cases of people running Vista x64 flawlessly.

I'm ready and willing to embrace it. As soon as I get my 4GB kit (before year end).

 

[wordsworm]

64 bit XP was an OS before its time as far as I can tell. This OS came out in the day when no one was talking about 4GB of RAM, because I wanted to have room to add another 4GB. There was no good reason for the upgrade. Now, we're at that impasse, and so far my experience with Vista 64 has been pretty impressive. I'm already running with 2 sticks of 2GB, for a total of 4GB on my machine. Everything I have, except for something from TASCAM and an old webcam, works very well. I remember reformatting XP at least 3-4 times because of viruses within 1 year - until I switched to Firefox/Zone Alarm as my defense against the malicious. Currently, I am using the default firewall and avast's 64 bit antivirus program - so far so good. Although, I'm still too scared to use Internet Explorer.

Now, you also mentioned that there's a comparison of 64bit vs 32bit with Crysis. I may have seen the same review. However, it is flawed in one regard: it didn't compare the two OSes with 32 bit running 4GB and 64bit running 8GB. This may not seem fair to you, but think of it this way: imagine a full sized car being outfitted with a compact car's engine. It would be ridiculous to then race a compact vs the full sized version with the compact engine. It makes more sense to put a full sized V8 in the body of the car that can take the larger engine, and then run the race to see which body offers the greater potential for speed. I try to avoid analogies as best I can, but somehow I think it's a valid comparison.

I trust Nvidia to know what happens when you put more RAM in a video card on a motherboard with 4GB of RAM and an OS that's running at 32 bits. It doesn't make sense for them to promote 64 bits since the only people concerned with the 4GB barrier are people who want a performance video card in the first place. It's not as if they put on their SLI product: for 64bit oses only. In fact, I haven't even seen a warning: 'don't install with more than 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit OS or risk losing motherboard RAM!' They just clarified an issue that I had with the articles I've seen coming out, comparing the v92 with v90.

 

[chizow]

Hmmm I coulda swore AT said they were going to start using Vista Ultimate x64 as their testbed going forward with the 8800GT review being the last with x86 XP. Valid point though, if they're going over 2GB they should really be using x64.

As for Vista x64, it certainly had its run of problems, largely compounded by lots of changes in the hardware industry, new OS and x64 on top of all that. For the most part though the problems I've had with Vista x64 have been worked out through MS hot fixes, BIOS updates or IHV driver updates. You may still have some problems with legacy apps, hardware and drivers (Nostromo and X-Fi just got a working x64 driver recently) and there's still some annoying/unresolved issues like Adobe Flashplayer with IEx64, but as of now my Vista x64 install is as stable if not more stable than XP SP2.

There's also definitely a tangible benefit from running more than 2GB in current games that are large address aware. Games that use large/varied detailed textures or games that transition often will see significantly less HDD paging/thrashing and faster load times when re-zoning etc. You'll also be able to run more apps/games simultaneously and not have to worry about your PC being a game-only box while you're gaming. SuperFetch will also make use of extra memory, leading to slightly faster load times for apps/games you run often.

 

[apoppin]

Vista 32 can still easily address ~3.5GB of total system memory
--maybe late '08 or '09 Vista 64 will make sense for gaming

 

[Dacalo]

I am going to jump to x64 as soon as MS ships my copy in a few months, but for now, 32 bit Vista will do. Have 512MB video card with 4GB RAM and Vista says I have around 3.25GB free. Not sure where 250 MB went.

 

[1ManArmY]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I've heard cases of people running Vista x64 flawlessly.

I'm ready and willing to embrace it. As soon as I get my 4GB kit (before year end).

I'm running Vista 64 bit Home Premium with minimum incompatibility issues. The only 2 devices that do not work are my Microsoft Force Feedback Joystick (go figure) and my 5 X 1 scandisk card reader for digital photo's everything else is rock solid. I haven't downloaded any Crysis updates to see if the 64 bit version is working because I've been to busy with COD4 Multiplayer.

 

[1ManArmY]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I am going to jump to x64 as soon as MS ships my copy in a few months, but for now, 32 bit Vista will do. Have 512MB video card with 4GB RAM and Vista says I have around 3.25GB free. Not sure where 250 MB went.

The 32 bit OS can only see 3.3 GB of your 4 GB of RAM

 

[Golgatha]

I dual boot WinXP Pro 32bit and Vista 64 with 4GB of RAM. Here's my take on the situation.

1) Any games that don't support Vista 64 are old enough that 2GB of RAM is sufficient for good performance. Having 2-3GB of usable RAM lets the OS take what it needs and gives a full 2GB of RAM to the running program I'm using; in this case a game.

2) Any games that support Vista typically support both the 32 and 64bit version of the OS.

3) Future games will support Vista and those are the ones that are going to need more than 2GB of RAM to run at top performance.


I have 4GB of RAM in my system, I still prefer to work under WinXP, and also play the vast majority of my games under WinXP. The games that are installed under Vista 64 are games that utilize DX10 or show some benefit with more than 2GB (Crysis, Company of Heros, Supreme Commander, and World in Conflict currently).

 

[MarcVenice]

1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I am going to jump to x64 as soon as MS ships my copy in a few months, but for now, 32 bit Vista will do. Have 512MB video card with 4GB RAM and Vista says I have around 3.25GB free. Not sure where 250 MB went.

256MB dedicated to device I/O memory locations segregated off by your BIOS.

 

[Harmattan]

I've been running Vista 64 since March with only one compatibility problem: iTunes. That piece of crap software still doesn't work on Vista 64. I have many older peripherals: HP 420p printer (circa 1999), Saitech X52, Fantom 250GB backup (technically not Vista-compatible). Other that f&*k$n' iTunes, it's been all daisies.

Only other software incompatibility I've seen is with Intel TAT.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
I have 4GB of RAM in my system, I still prefer to work under WinXP, and also play the vast majority of my games under WinXP. The games that are installed under Vista 64 are games that utilize DX10 or show some benefit with more than 2GB (Crysis, Company of Heros, Supreme Commander, and World in Conflict currently).

Thing is that most reviews will be using titles such as the ones you listed, as all of them now are mainstays in current reviews. OP was pointing out something he saw as a flaw in using 32-bit, which would be valid since the idea is to run a high-end rig that wouldn't bottleneck the GPU otherwise.

And just to clarify a bit in terms of tangible performance gains. Sometimes there isn't a drop/gain in FPS with more RAM, it more or less the hitching/stuttering people complain about although that doesn't always result in a drop of FPS. Other times there is a big drop in FPS as it seems as if everything freezes momentarily (Fly-by demos or static travel routes show this well). More RAM helps alleviate these issues along with some of the other benefits I listed already (faster zoning/load times etc).

 

[nanaki333]

i'm a little bummed my ipod touch doesn't work with vista x64 still.

 

[LightningRider]

I run Vista 64 Ultimate with no problems whatsoever.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

Uhm video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

 

[j0j081]

Vista and XP 64 bit run flawlessly even on my old socket 754 rig so I have a hard time believing newer systems have problems with it assuming all your drivers are okay.

 

[shikhae]

I've been running Vista 64-bit for the past 6 months and I haven't had any compatiblity issues yet.
There were a few minor issues but they seem to have been resolved by hotfixes and BIOS updates.

Regarding the topic of which OS to use for testing, I do agree that as system memory and graphics memory continue to grow, that a 64-bit OS may be more appropriate. Particularly with memory intensive games.

However I am willing to bet that the majority of gamers and enthusiasts who read these reviews and are interested in these benchmarks have not yet adopted a 64-bit OS, let alone Vista 64-bit. They are probably more interested in in testing done on a system similar to what they own themselves because the results would be more accurate with respect to their current systems.

 

[clickynext]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I've heard cases of people running Vista x64 flawlessly.

I think that at this point, flawless is the norm, and compatibility problems have become exceptions.

 

[wrangler]

Vista Ultimate 64 runs perfectly for me. I love it.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I've been running vista ultimate x64 since May and it's been exceptionally stable for me. Lately however I've had nvidia driver lockups which cause the system to become unstable at times but that's it. Now I've also got problems with my creative x-fi cutting out while playing cs:s. It will distort heavily and/or just leave blank spots in my sound.

 

[nullpointerus]

EDIT:

I ran Vista 32-bit and 64-bit for at least several months each on the same hardware during this past year, and I definitely prefer the 64-bit version. Gameplay is smoother (less fps but also less stuttering) and more stable. Compatibility issues are pretty much a given: iTunes, for example, still complains at startup because its CD-burning kit does not work on 64-bit OS's. But I've found suitable replacements for all such software.

Unfortunately, I recently tried the public preview of Vista SP1 RC (to troubleshoot a hardware compatibility problem that I was told is fixed in SP1 RC), but found out later that the SP1 RC installer erases all previously-created restore points. You can go back to the point just before SP1 setup began, but you cannot undo the installation of the special build of Windows Update that gives access to SP1 RC. Kinda stupid, IMO, but whatever.

Anyway, I'm stuck in a loop installing Vista x64 for like the fourth time in several days because the 3.5 .NET Framework for x64 keeps crashing at the last step (after playing with the registry for 30 minutes). This is on a clean install with stock speeds and no PSU issues. *sigh* But I seem to have a knack for breaking .NET installations on any version of Windows...

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
...Now I've also got problems with my creative x-fi cutting out while playing cs:s. It will distort heavily and/or just leave blank spots in my sound.

I thought Creative posted a new X-Fi driver to address a problem like this?

You may want to check for a driver update at:
http://www.creative.com

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: XBoxLPU

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
1ManArmy, that's incorrect, it can see up to 4096mb of ram, but 512mb is lost because of the videocard, and some more ram is lost due to other expansion slots. People with a 768mb videocard will only see roughly 3gb. And 2gb is just fine for most if not all games, 3gb should cover ALL games, and 4gb is just overkill. Right now, I don't think it's necesary to benchmark using Vista 64x and 4gb of ram or more.

Uhm video card memory doesn't take away from system memory

It does on a 32-bit Windows client OS when you start butting up against your maximum addressable space.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
I am going to jump to x64 as soon as MS ships my copy in a few months, but for now, 32 bit Vista will do. Have 512MB video card with 4GB RAM and Vista says I have around 3.25GB free. Not sure where 250 MB went.

That happens even with only a 256MB video card. Nvidia is wrong. The amount of virtual memory sucked up is always ~800MB as far as I can tell if your video card has more 256mb of memory or more. I've moved to 64bit now and I don't have these probs anymore.