32 bit is no longer valid

[Peter]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus
Speaking in general terms, the addresses of the 3-4 GB region of RAM will get remapped to the 4-5 GB region of address space, so 64-bit Vista will see and use the full 4 GB RAM while devices still get to access the 3-4 GB virtual address space as if they were running in 32-bit mode. So, with 4 GB RAM, Vista 32-bit will miss 1 GB (more or less) whereas Vista 64-bit will see and use all 4 GB.

Make that get to reside in and physical and it's perfect.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

..........................................................................

Speaking in general terms, the addresses of the 3-4 GB region of RAM will get remapped to the 4-5 GB region of address space, so 64-bit Vista will see and use the full 4 GB RAM while devices still get to access the 3-4 GB virtual address space as if they were running in 32-bit mode. So, with 4 GB RAM, Vista 32-bit will miss 1 GB (more or less) whereas Vista 64-bit will see and use all 4 GB.

Would that really happen...?

Wouldn't the *32 driver still "expect" it to reside in the 3-4GB area...?

Would the OS remap it automatically...?

 

[imported_RedStar]

i am running 64 bit vista business (RC1) with a nvidia 8800 gts 320 mb playing at 1680 *1050 res ..

2 gig of 6400 OCZ ram

lately, the system has been very stable ..the latests nvidia driver update reduced framerates again but increased stability.

Anyhow ...driver support is bad for older hardware at least.

Crysis runs at optimal settings (medium) very well until the mountain part..then it becomes a slide show. Setting most settings to low and no shadows makes it run well again. Crysis has crashed 2x now. Overall, loved the game and have not tryed multiplayer yet.

I am happy, overall with vista 64. But i do think i'd better hurry up and increase the memory ..and get a new vid card

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

I wish you would stop embarrasing yourself, wordsworm...

Here is the very first comparison of performance, on my perfectly legal dual boot machine loaded with Windows Genuine Advantage approved Operating Systems in dual-boot configuration.

3DMark06 results in "invalid" 32-bit Windows XP versus totally "high end" 64-bit Windows Vista Ultimate.

...........................Windows XP Home x86...................Windows Vista Ultimate x64

Main Test Results

3DMark Score...............11602 3DMarks....................................10783 3DMarks

SM 2.0 Score......................5467 Marks........................................5137 Marks

SM 3.0 Score......................5262 Marks........................................5060 Marks

CPU Score..........................2630 Marks........................................2303 Marks

Detailed Test Results

Graphics Tests

1 - Return to Proxycon..........44.849 FPS......................................42.704 FPS

2 - Firefly Forest...................46.265 FPS......................................42.917 FPS


CPU Tests

CPU1 - Red Valley....................0.83 FPS.......................................0.727 FPS

CPU2 - Red Valley..................1.334 FPS.......................................1.167 FPS


HDR Tests

1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0).......50.427 FPS...................................48.143 FPS

2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0)..........54.82 FPS...................................53.049 FPS

Now - don't get me wrong. I like Vista, and gaming seems smoother than in XP. But we like numbers, and they speek for themselves - even if minute in terms of difference.

And this is just the beginning...

I think those figures are almost meaningless for real world functions. 3DMark06 doesn't mean a thing in my world, which is publishing and graphics. In that area, Vista 64-bit is more desirable to me going forward because a) security is better; b) I find Web browsing much faster; c) the addressable memory space is so much greater, and I expect to use much of it due to Illustrator and Photoshop; d) it's the wave of the future. 800 points in 3dMark is quite literally splitting hairs, and is probably not visible in day to day use for just about anything. So far, I really like what I'm seeing in Vista 64-bit; it just feels like a cutting-edge OS to me. 32-bit? Wouldn't touch it now even if it gave me a slightly higher e-penis reading.

And please note, I get 11706 in 3DMark06 with an 840/1311 GPU memory overclock setting. But this is a pretty muscular system. So that's pretty much maxed out until I eventually buy a new video card (which I am in no mood to do for quite some time).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

I wish you would stop embarrasing yourself, wordsworm...

Here is the very first comparison of performance, on my perfectly legal dual boot machine loaded with Windows Genuine Advantage approved Operating Systems in dual-boot configuration.

3DMark06 results in "invalid" 32-bit Windows XP versus totally "high end" 64-bit Windows Vista Ultimate.

...........................Windows XP Home x86...................Windows Vista Ultimate x64

Main Test Results

3DMark Score...............11602 3DMarks....................................10783 3DMarks

SM 2.0 Score......................5467 Marks........................................5137 Marks

SM 3.0 Score......................5262 Marks........................................5060 Marks

CPU Score..........................2630 Marks........................................2303 Marks

Detailed Test Results

Graphics Tests

1 - Return to Proxycon..........44.849 FPS......................................42.704 FPS

2 - Firefly Forest...................46.265 FPS......................................42.917 FPS


CPU Tests

CPU1 - Red Valley....................0.83 FPS.......................................0.727 FPS

CPU2 - Red Valley..................1.334 FPS.......................................1.167 FPS


HDR Tests

1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0).......50.427 FPS...................................48.143 FPS

2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0)..........54.82 FPS...................................53.049 FPS

Now - don't get me wrong. I like Vista, and gaming seems smoother than in XP. But we like numbers, and they speek for themselves - even if minute in terms of difference.

And this is just the beginning...

I think those figures are almost meaningless for real world functions. 3DMark06 doesn't mean a thing in my world, which is publishing and graphics. In that area, Vista 64-bit is more desirable to me going forward because a) security is better; b) I find Web browsing much faster; c) the addressable memory space is so much greater, and I expect to use much of it due to Illustrator and Photoshop; d) it's the wave of the future. 800 points in 3dMark is quite literally splitting hairs, and is probably not visible in day to day use for just about anything. So far, I really like what I'm seeing in Vista 64-bit; it just feels like a cutting-edge OS to me. 32-bit? Wouldn't touch it now even if it gave me a slightly higher e-penis reading.

And please note, I get 11706 in 3DMark06 with an 840/1311 GPU memory overclock setting. But this is a pretty muscular system. So that's pretty much maxed out until I eventually buy a new video card (which I am in no mood to do for quite some time).

isn't Illustrator and Photoshop still 32 bit?
-with no plans to port it anytime soon?

and i seriously doubt web browsing is any faster because you are on a 64-bit system

i doubt Vista 64 is any more "cutting edge" than Vista 32 ... unless you mean rough around the edges.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i see ... you were stretching something to the ridiculous to make a point. And i will have to agree that FPS are a "measure" of only part of the picture. However, FPS graphs will show a LOT more ... so the 'min/max/av' is pretty useful in a summary of results.

Its not ridiculous when FPS are the basis for most assumptions that more RAM makes no difference in flawed reviews and comparisons. If anything, testing should be conducted similarly to storage reviews rather than GPU reviews.

i can't quite agree ... i believe watching the FPS in FRAPS [for example] does indicate repeated/skipped frames, hitching, or rubber-banding. Not to mention, a honest and attentive reviewer will mention issues related to gaming "smoothness"

Again, averaged into total frames and even with the frames within that second to come to Frames Per Second the impact might be minimal or completely undetectable, but when observing such performance drops the impact is clearly obvious. For example, if you were at 50FPS in a GPU intensive frame sequence then transitioned to 10 consecutive frames that were actually less GPU intensive but HDD thrashing caused those 10 frames to be skipped, you would still see 50FPS in 2 consecutive seconds with an FPS monitor. What you might see on screen is your character at one position but then lurching forward to another position instead of your character moving smoothly if those 10 frames were rendered to its new position (which would be a 50 to 60FPS increase if there was no thrashing/skipping).

I've already brought Crysis up as an example with its timedemo as an example of how FPS simply won't give you an accurate picture of what's going on.
Crysis Benches from VR-Zone
Keep in mind, I'm only linking these results because they show a bunch of different tests, but anyone can mimic them on their own PCs and most likely have already. What you will notice in many reviews is that people throw out the first run. Why? Like you said, most "responsible reviewers" will mention something about texture loading or thrashing. Even if they didn't, the difference is so miniscule in terms of FPS it would be lost in the average of 3 results. But when you actually watch the demo runs, the differences are extremely obvious, as each camera turn may result in a hitch/pause on the first run. Nearly impossible to pick-up in a quantifiable test but taken as a whole you're looking at the demo taking 2-3s longer. Even if the offending transitions were only a fraction of a second, they're certainly obvious enough that they would impact your gaming experience.

How does this bench show more RAM translate into better performance with this example? Instead of having to constantly flush/cache new textures similar to the first run, a game can keep more textures cached resulting in smoother gameplay similar to the 2nd runs and beyond.

When you look at these results in comparison to 64-bit or more RAM, the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit might not be evident at all until you reach a point where the 64-bit OS can use more RAM and the 32-bit OS can't. It might not seem like a big deal, but if you're cruising along at 60FPS but then the game starts getting jerky/choppy seemingly out of nowhere, its going to be huge impact on your gaming experience, even if it doesn't result in a drop in FPS.

As for reviewers mentioning issues related to gaming "smoothness" or even load times, they certainly do, but realistically people often don't read such "subjective" comments, they just look at the pretty pictures. But when you actually see the difference in person, the difference is quite obvious and extreme. This is another reason reducing memory is helpful so that you can actually know what to look for and see how increasing memory helps improve performance and the main reason I find it rather incredible you don't understand more memory = more performance when the game or app is actually able to take advantage of it.

Well - logically - if you can't *notice* it, then it does not make a practical difference. i can only give my hopefully forthcoming experience with the 2 OSes. As to uploading FRAPS videos, i doubt it. Perhaps the graphs.

No, like I said, the difference is *very* noticeable, its just not easily quantifiable. Both yourself and JustaGeek, the two main skeptics in this thread, have already acknowledged performance improvements when either 1) increasing RAM in 32-bit or 2) upgrading to 64-bit so that more RAM could be used by the system/game.

If you wanted to get an idea of where those improvements originated from, you should've taken note of how much RAM HG:L was using with 2GB vs. 4GB (3.5GB addressable or w/e). From that its really quite simple, if HG:L could address a full 3GB in 32-bit with 3.5GB addressable you probably wouldn't see much improvement with 64-bit, however, I don't think it can or will due to system overhead and reserved swap space, which would probably bring its max addressable space to somewhere around 2-2.5GB virtual/physical. With only 2GB that would still be an improvement since you'd benefit from more physical address space, but that's not to say you wouldn't benefit further from an additional 500MB to 1GB addressable in a 64-bit environment if the game was able to use it.

Another option as I mentioned was to monitor HDD and RAM/page file activity even though it'd be a total PITA. This is probably the best way to illustrate whats going on when you see hitching/thrashing or what's going on when you're loading, but still doesn't do justice to what you're actually seeing on the screen.

i can only do either 2 or 4GB of RAM as i don't want to lose my Dual-channel capabilities. i think we're all pretty agreed that 2GB is the minimum for Vista gaming; 4GB is overkill for 32bit systems but we want to test the practical differences between it and the 64bit system addressing the entire 4GB. Perhaps since you have 8GB of RAM you might consider testing the differences for us vs 4GB in your rig.

You can still simulate those tests running in single channel until you get to 4GB. 1x1GB single channel, 2x1GB running single channel, 3x1GB should default to single channel, although some boards report dual channel. At 2x1GB you can also run dual channel and see any differences between single and dual channel but I think most know the difference is no more than 5% and not that relevant for these tests, similar to increasing RAM speed or using DDR2 vs. DDR3.

As for running tests myself, I don't mind running a few, but like I said, running benchmarks isn't exactly what I'd consider fun. I've just finished some changes to my system and will be spending some time enjoying it (especially my new LG HD-DVD/BRD combo drive, which is awesome for those interested in one).

The testing involved is long and tedious and anything short of a FRAPs video or recording with a video camera wouldn't really reveal actual gameplay differences. Load times are easy enough to measure and I've already done that with a few games (again using FRAPs videos), but again they're not quick tests to measure since it typically involves playing the game normally until you reach a point additional RAM is used. In something like an FPS, you might need to load each map once before you see the benefits of additional RAM, so unless you have a dedicated server that you can set cvars for, its not exactly a painless exercise.

Then you get into things like SuperFetch which benefits will almost be completely lost as the caching engine won't know what to cache and will lose whatever cached benefits with each reboot to change system configurations. Even with FRAPs videos the results will be somewhat skewed due to the massive CPU hit in Vista and drop in FPS, although it still accurately captures relative jerkiness in gameplay.

i already know Ready Boost makes Hg:L's gaming performance *worse* ... what else will we find out? i am pretty eager to begin. It is not a matter of "ego" although i'd prefer to be "right". If 64 bit offers me a practical advantage over 32-bit Vista with my current rig and games then i will be taking advantage of MS' upgrade offer. i'll let you know.

BtW, there are generally not a lot of reboots ... you cold boot into Vista and let it settle down [a good while - watch the HD activity] ... run your game benchmark 3 or 4 times and average them ... then you can reboot and repeat to your heart's content; i just find something to do in the meantime [which is usually trying to make sense of the data].

Also, there are several ways to handle it ... you can create a pure gaming environment with no programs installed and run your benchmarks and do the rebooting between games - probably much like the tests tat AnandTech reviews - using a image to make identical environments ,,, or else you can make it a "average user's rig" with AntiVirus, background programs running and internet connected. Whatever i do, it will be the same between OSes so the variables are kept to a minimum

i'm more inclined to test the "average user's rig"

Well, like I said pages ago, the only real way to see the differences is to experience them first-hand. I'm already confident in my findings but that's not to say mvoing to 64-bit/4GB+ is worthwhile for everyone.

As for testing methodology it shouldn't matter much, but I'd be more inclined to simulate typical systems where you wouldn't be overly concerned with what apps are running in the background since that is another practical advantage of more RAM and a 64-bit OS.

 

[poohbear]

well i'll be damned if im reading 25 pages of posts, but can anyone tell me if 64bit drivers are stable and readily available? i plan on upgrading to vista 64 once SP1 comes out, but the drivers and compatiblility issues initially turned me off.:/

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: poohbear
well i'll be damned if im reading 25 pages of posts, but can anyone tell me if 64bit drivers are stable and readily available? i plan on upgrading to vista 64 once SP1 comes out, but the drivers and compatiblility issues initially turned me off.:/

Depends on your hardware as always,however stability I have no issues with,driver wise I have every single 64 bit driver for all my hardware,I even installed Starforce drivers not to meantion SecuROM,TAGES copy protection drivers and its still rock stable.

Compatibility issues depends on what you use etc...obviously you can't use any old 16 bit software due to no 16 bit legacy support in the Vista x64,all my 32 bit games(54 games installed) and normal software ie CCleaner,Firefox,Nero,Quicktime,uTorrent etc... all run fine.

Overall I can't complain at all .

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: RedStar
i am running 64 bit vista business (RC1) with a nvidia 8800 gts 320 mb playing at 1680 *1050 res ..

2 gig of 6400 OCZ ram

lately, the system has been very stable ..the latests nvidia driver update reduced framerates again but increased stability.

Anyhow ...driver support is bad for older hardware at least.

Crysis runs at optimal settings (medium) very well until the mountain part..then it becomes a slide show. Setting most settings to low and no shadows makes it run well again. Crysis has crashed 2x now. Overall, loved the game and have not tryed multiplayer yet.

I am happy, overall with vista 64. But i do think i'd better hurry up and increase the memory ..and get a new vid card

I thought you needed a minimum of 4gigs to install vista64...

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

<snip>

I think those figures are almost meaningless for real world functions. 3DMark06 doesn't mean a thing in my world, which is publishing and graphics. In that area, Vista 64-bit is more desirable to me going forward because a) security is better; b) I find Web browsing much faster; c) the addressable memory space is so much greater, and I expect to use much of it due to Illustrator and Photoshop; d) it's the wave of the future. 800 points in 3dMark is quite literally splitting hairs, and is probably not visible in day to day use for just about anything. So far, I really like what I'm seeing in Vista 64-bit; it just feels like a cutting-edge OS to me. 32-bit? Wouldn't touch it now even if it gave me a slightly higher e-penis reading.

And please note, I get 11706 in 3DMark06 with an 840/1311 GPU memory overclock setting. But this is a pretty muscular system. So that's pretty much maxed out until I eventually buy a new video card (which I am in no mood to do for quite some time).

isn't Illustrator and Photoshop still 32 bit?
-with no plans to port it anytime soon?

and i seriously doubt web browsing is any faster because you are on a 64-bit system

i doubt Vista 64 is any more "cutting edge" than Vista 32 ... unless you mean rough around the edges.

Yes, it's a double-edged sword...

Photoshop will use any memory you can throw at it, as will Illustrator. This is due to their method of using larger banks of RAM as buffers for applying effects and caching data. The 64-bit OS enables me to just explode the limits I find when using those programs. Yes, clearly they are 32-bit apps, but there's stilla clear benefit. Photoshop is a 32-bit app on Mac OS, also, but plenty of Photoshop Mac users max out their RAM so they can do their work more effectively... just a thought.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: poohbear
well i'll be damned if im reading 25 pages of posts, but can anyone tell me if 64bit drivers are stable and readily available? i plan on upgrading to vista 64 once SP1 comes out, but the drivers and compatiblility issues initially turned me off.:/

Depends on your hardware as always,however stability I have no issues with,driver wise I have every single 64 bit driver for all my hardware,I even installed Starforce drivers not to meantion SecuROM,TAGES copy protection drivers and its still rock stable.

Compatibility issues depends on what you use etc...obviously you can't use any old 16 bit software due to no 16 bit legacy support in the Vista x64,all my 32 bit games(54 games installed) and normal software ie CCleaner,Firefox,Nero,Quicktime,uTorrent etc... all run fine.

Overall I can't complain at all .

Yeah, it definitely depends. But so far my experiences using new hardware couldn't be much better. On Poohbear's system I'm not sure how successful it would be. That can be kinda frustrating. Checking the mobo and video card makers' sites will verify one way of the other... almost any 32-bit app should run fine (with the exception of media-related stuff). Others will chime in and have more knowledge, I'm sure.

Originally posted by: konakona

Originally posted by: RedStar
i am running 64 bit vista business (RC1) with a nvidia 8800 gts 320 mb playing at 1680 *1050 res ..
<snip>

I thought you needed a minimum of 4gigs to install vista64...

Not sure about that, it should install just fine with two. An observation: People upthread were noting that Vista 64 has a bug that forces you to take a DIMM out of a 4 GB system to do the install. Then, update the OS and stick the second stick back in. But I myself didn't see this! Of course, I bought my OEM license copy just last week so, it probably has a lot of the updates in it...

 

[Peter]

To everybody who's still thinking 3Dmark06 being slower on 64-bit Windows is a valid point against it:

Well of course it is slower. Duh. Double duh in fact.

(1) It's a 32-bit application that obviously doesn't benefit from the extra performance in 64-bit coding, and thus cannot possibly run any faster.
(2) It's slower because it's running in the 32-bit WIndows-on-Windows sandbox, not natively straight on the OS.

So unless someone brings a proper 64-bit build of 3Dmark06, all you've proved is that 32-bit applications actually run quite well on 64-bit.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: konakona

Originally posted by: RedStar
i am running 64 bit vista business (RC1) with a nvidia 8800 gts 320 mb playing at 1680 *1050 res ..

2 gig of 6400 OCZ ram

lately, the system has been very stable ..the latests nvidia driver update reduced framerates again but increased stability.

Anyhow ...driver support is bad for older hardware at least.

Crysis runs at optimal settings (medium) very well until the mountain part..then it becomes a slide show. Setting most settings to low and no shadows makes it run well again. Crysis has crashed 2x now. Overall, loved the game and have not tryed multiplayer yet.

I am happy, overall with vista 64. But i do think i'd better hurry up and increase the memory ..and get a new vid card

I thought you needed a minimum of 4gigs to install vista64...

Nope,Vista x64 will run fine on less then 4GB ie 2GB.

 

[CP5670]

This is like that John Romero thread a while ago. It always seems to be somewhere on the first page.

I've noticed a few comments here about Vista 64 requiring signed drivers. That is a strange limitation and would make it useless to me for any kind of gaming, since I need to use an unsigned monitor driver to override refresh rates reliably. Does Vista 32 have the same problem?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: CP5670
This is like that John Romero thread a while ago. It always seems to be somewhere on the first page.

I've noticed a few comments here about Vista 64 requiring signed drivers. That is a strange limitation and would make it useless to me for any kind of gaming, since I need to use an unsigned monitor driver to override refresh rates reliably. Does Vista 32 have the same problem?

There are a lot of beta drivers that are still signed,personally I have not had any problems with signed drivers,I have used some beta ones and they were still signed.

Refresh rates you don't worry about with LCDs,I guess you are using a CRT monitor.

Btw most monitor drivers from companies are signed.


No ,Vista x68(32 bit) you can use unsigned drivers.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: CP5670
This is like that John Romero thread a while ago. It always seems to be somewhere on the first page.

I've noticed a few comments here about Vista 64 requiring signed drivers. That is a strange limitation and would make it useless to me for any kind of gaming, since I need to use an unsigned monitor driver to override refresh rates reliably. Does Vista 32 have the same problem?

There are a lot of beta drivers that are still signed,personally I have not had any problems with signed drivers,I have used some beta ones and they were still signed.

Refresh rates you don't worry about with LCDs,I guess you are using a CRT monitor.

Btw most monitor drivers from companies are signed.


No ,Vista x68(32 bit) you can use unsigned drivers.

Well, I modified it to remove the low refresh modes, so it's not signed anymore. XP gives a warning when I install it but doesn't care after that.

I don't have any immediate plans to go to Vista but was going to use the 64 bit version whenever I did upgrade. I guess I'll have to stick with the 32 bit one, unless Vista 64 has a registry hack or something to enable unsigned drivers.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Peter
To everybody who's still thinking 3Dmark06 being slower on 64-bit Windows is a valid point against it:

Well of course it is slower. Duh. Double duh in fact.

(1) It's a 32-bit application that obviously doesn't benefit from the extra performance in 64-bit coding, and thus cannot possibly run any faster.
(2) It's slower because it's running in the 32-bit WIndows-on-Windows sandbox, not natively straight on the OS.

So unless someone brings a proper 64-bit build of 3Dmark06, all you've proved is that 32-bit applications actually run quite well on 64-bit.

99% of all the applications today are 32-bit.

I haven't posted my results to prove anything, in fact, the 32-bit gaming on my Ultimate 64 feels smoother than in x86 XP, regardless of lower 3DMark06 score.

BTW, could you please answer my question about the 3-4GB area on 64-bit Vista...?

Originally posted by: nullpointerus

..........................................................................

Speaking in general terms, the addresses of the 3-4 GB region of RAM will get remapped to the 4-5 GB region of address space, so 64-bit Vista will see and use the full 4 GB RAM while devices still get to access the 3-4 GB virtual address space as if they were running in 32-bit mode. So, with 4 GB RAM, Vista 32-bit will miss 1 GB (more or less) whereas Vista 64-bit will see and use all 4 GB.

Would that really happen...?

Wouldn't the *32 driver still "expect" it to reside in the 3-4GB area...?

Would the OS remap it automatically...?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
i see ... you were stretching something to the ridiculous to make a point. And i will have to agree that FPS are a "measure" of only part of the picture. However, FPS graphs will show a LOT more ... so the 'min/max/av' is pretty useful in a summary of results.

Its not ridiculous when FPS are the basis for most assumptions that more RAM makes no difference in flawed reviews and comparisons. If anything, testing should be conducted similarly to storage reviews rather than GPU reviews.

i am not the one assuming that FPS is the 'be all' and 'end all' in testing performance. We plan to do as extensive testing as our time and sanity allows ... that IS why i am also asking for suggestions on ttesting methodology. [/quote]

i can't quite agree ... i believe watching the FPS in FRAPS [for example] does indicate repeated/skipped frames, hitching, or rubber-banding. Not to mention, a honest and attentive reviewer will mention issues related to gaming "smoothness"

Again, averaged into total frames and even with the frames within that second to come to Frames Per Second the impact might be minimal or completely undetectable, but when observing such performance drops the impact is clearly obvious. For example, if you were at 50FPS in a GPU intensive frame sequence then transitioned to 10 consecutive frames that were actually less GPU intensive but HDD thrashing caused those 10 frames to be skipped, you would still see 50FPS in 2 consecutive seconds with an FPS monitor. What you might see on screen is your character at one position but then lurching forward to another position instead of your character moving smoothly if those 10 frames were rendered to its new position (which would be a 50 to 60FPS increase if there was no thrashing/skipping). [/quote]

again ... along with running FRAPS, i expect to *observe* the benchmarking - imo, it is a lazy or jaded benchmarker that runs the benches without watching the screen - at least for most of the testing

I've already brought Crysis up as an example with its timedemo as an example of how FPS simply won't give you an accurate picture of what's going on.
Crysis Benches from VR-Zone
Keep in mind, I'm only linking these results because they show a bunch of different tests, but anyone can mimic them on their own PCs and most likely have already. What you will notice in many reviews is that people throw out the first run. Why? Like you said, most "responsible reviewers" will mention something about texture loading or thrashing. Even if they didn't, the difference is so miniscule in terms of FPS it would be lost in the average of 3 results. But when you actually watch the demo runs, the differences are extremely obvious, as each camera turn may result in a hitch/pause on the first run. Nearly impossible to pick-up in a quantifiable test but taken as a whole you're looking at the demo taking 2-3s longer. Even if the offending transitions were only a fraction of a second, they're certainly obvious enough that they would impact your gaming experience.

Again, we will be watching closely ... MY decision to upgrade or not is based on these runs
... and throwing out the first run is usually due to Vista; XP usually has no problems with first runs.

How does this bench show more RAM translate into better performance with this example? Instead of having to constantly flush/cache new textures similar to the first run, a game can keep more textures cached resulting in smoother gameplay similar to the 2nd runs and beyond.

When you look at these results in comparison to 64-bit or more RAM, the differences between 32-bit and 64-bit might not be evident at all until you reach a point where the 64-bit OS can use more RAM and the 32-bit OS can't. It might not seem like a big deal, but if you're cruising along at 60FPS but then the game starts getting jerky/choppy seemingly out of nowhere, its going to be huge impact on your gaming experience, even if it doesn't result in a drop in FPS.

As for reviewers mentioning issues related to gaming "smoothness" or even load times, they certainly do, but realistically people often don't read such "subjective" comments, they just look at the pretty pictures. But when you actually see the difference in person, the difference is quite obvious and extreme. This is another reason reducing memory is helpful so that you can actually know what to look for and see how increasing memory helps improve performance and the main reason I find it rather incredible you don't understand more memory = more performance when the game or app is actually able to take advantage of it.

That IS what i am looking for ... you will hear all about it - the differences .. and 'when' and 'if' that "point" is reached. However, i have never encountered a game getting jerky/choppy withOUT an effect on Frame rates.

Well - logically - if you can't *notice* it, then it does not make a practical difference. i can only give my hopefully forthcoming experience with the 2 OSes. As to uploading FRAPS videos, i doubt it. Perhaps the graphs.

No, like I said, the difference is *very* noticeable, its just not easily quantifiable. Both yourself and JustaGeek, the two main skeptics in this thread, have already acknowledged performance improvements when either 1) increasing RAM in 32-bit or 2) upgrading to 64-bit so that more RAM could be used by the system/game.

If you wanted to get an idea of where those improvements originated from, you should've taken note of how much RAM HG:L was using with 2GB vs. 4GB (3.5GB addressable or w/e). From that its really quite simple, if HG:L could address a full 3GB in 32-bit with 3.5GB addressable you probably wouldn't see much improvement with 64-bit, however, I don't think it can or will due to system overhead and reserved swap space, which would probably bring its max addressable space to somewhere around 2-2.5GB virtual/physical. With only 2GB that would still be an improvement since you'd benefit from more physical address space, but that's not to say you wouldn't benefit further from an additional 500MB to 1GB addressable in a 64-bit environment if the game was able to use it.

Another option as I mentioned was to monitor HDD and RAM/page file activity even though it'd be a total PITA. This is probably the best way to illustrate whats going on when you see hitching/thrashing or what's going on when you're loading, but still doesn't do justice to what you're actually seeing on the screen.

i *couldn't* compare Hg:L - it would be apples to oranges - on one partition with 2GB i used Ready Boost which *kills* its performance ... i was also playing *online* and it was *unpatched* ... so forget that premature report of mine entirely. i DO believe i want to monitor HD and page-file activity ... that is what the 2nd LCD is for[/quote]

i can only do either 2 or 4GB of RAM as i don't want to lose my Dual-channel capabilities. i think we're all pretty agreed that 2GB is the minimum for Vista gaming; 4GB is overkill for 32bit systems but we want to test the practical differences between it and the 64bit system addressing the entire 4GB. Perhaps since you have 8GB of RAM you might consider testing the differences for us vs 4GB in your rig.

You can still simulate those tests running in single channel until you get to 4GB. 1x1GB single channel, 2x1GB running single channel, 3x1GB should default to single channel, although some boards report dual channel. At 2x1GB you can also run dual channel and see any differences between single and dual channel but I think most know the difference is no more than 5% and not that relevant for these tests, similar to increasing RAM speed or using DDR2 vs. DDR3.

As for running tests myself, I don't mind running a few, but like I said, running benchmarks isn't exactly what I'd consider fun. I've just finished some changes to my system and will be spending some time enjoying it (especially my new LG HD-DVD/BRD combo drive, which is awesome for those interested in one).

The testing involved is long and tedious and anything short of a FRAPs video or recording with a video camera wouldn't really reveal actual gameplay differences. Load times are easy enough to measure and I've already done that with a few games (again using FRAPs videos), but again they're not quick tests to measure since it typically involves playing the game normally until you reach a point additional RAM is used. In something like an FPS, you might need to load each map once before you see the benefits of additional RAM, so unless you have a dedicated server that you can set cvars for, its not exactly a painless exercise.

Then you get into things like SuperFetch which benefits will almost be completely lost as the caching engine won't know what to cache and will lose whatever cached benefits with each reboot to change system configurations. Even with FRAPs videos the results will be somewhat skewed due to the massive CPU hit in Vista and drop in FPS, although it still accurately captures relative jerkiness in gameplay.[/quote]

i don't want to compare anything below 4GB - that is getting beyond the scope of this thread ... why i suggested *you* make some tests is because you can show what more than 4GB will do.

i already know Ready Boost makes Hg:L's gaming performance *worse* ... what else will we find out? i am pretty eager to begin. It is not a matter of "ego" although i'd prefer to be "right". If 64 bit offers me a practical advantage over 32-bit Vista with my current rig and games then i will be taking advantage of MS' upgrade offer. i'll let you know.

BtW, there are generally not a lot of reboots ... you cold boot into Vista and let it settle down [a good while - watch the HD activity] ... run your game benchmark 3 or 4 times and average them ... then you can reboot and repeat to your heart's content; i just find something to do in the meantime [which is usually trying to make sense of the data].

Also, there are several ways to handle it ... you can create a pure gaming environment with no programs installed and run your benchmarks and do the rebooting between games - probably much like the tests tat AnandTech reviews - using a image to make identical environments ,,, or else you can make it a "average user's rig" with AntiVirus, background programs running and internet connected. Whatever i do, it will be the same between OSes so the variables are kept to a minimum

i'm more inclined to test the "average user's rig"

Well, like I said pages ago, the only real way to see the differences is to experience them first-hand. I'm already confident in my findings but that's not to say mvoing to 64-bit/4GB+ is worthwhile for everyone.

As for testing methodology it shouldn't matter much, but I'd be more inclined to simulate typical systems where you wouldn't be overly concerned with what apps are running in the background since that is another practical advantage of more RAM and a 64-bit OS.

umm ... lots of points ... cool ... keep them coming ... i am *dying* to test this

HOWEVER, i am spending HOURS trying to set up my wireless internet connection thru AT&T and my cellphone ... maybe i will be able to start tonight

i think we will start the new thread tomorrow morning or Sunday

 

[wordsworm]

The reason Apoppin is using 3 GB instead of 4 or 8 is because Vista 32 and XP 32 cannot effectively use 4 GB. 32 bit just isn't high end enough. High end starts at 64 bit. Constraining hardware so that you can live within the limits of 32 bits belongs to the low-middle end. Really, despite the skeptics' fancy dance around this fact, by constraining the hardware, they're just proving my original post: high end starts with 64 bit. 32 bit is no longer valid as a high end OS. You can't outfit the rig to its maximum capacity with 32 bit. That's a fact. This fact should become clearer as time goes on, even to the skeptics.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
The reason Apoppin is using 3 GB instead of 4 or 8 is because Vista 32 and XP 32 cannot effectively use 4 GB. 32 bit just isn't high end enough. High end starts at 64 bit. Constraining hardware so that you can live within the limits of 32 bits belongs to the low-middle end. Really, despite the skeptics' fancy dance around this fact, by constraining the hardware, they're just proving my original post: high end starts with 64 bit. 32 bit is no longer valid as a high end OS. You can't outfit the rig to its maximum capacity with 32 bit. That's a fact. This fact should become clearer as time goes on, even to the skeptics.

The only fact becoming clearer as time goes on - even to the skeptics - is that you don't know what you are talking about. Nor have you apparently learned anything as you don't bother to read anyone's posts that disagrees with your badly preconceived notions - except to look for flaws.

i AM using 4GB of system RAM - check my rig's specs.

And Vista32 does "use" 4GB ... the only difference between it and Vista 64 is that 64-bit Vista will see and use the full 4 GB RAM while devices still get to reside in the 3-4 GB physical address space as if they were running in 32-bit mode. You also have to remember that your 64bit OS is running through an emulation layer - the 32bit Win-on-Win sandbox - for 32-bit games.

Your original point - "high end starts with 64 bi/32 bit is no longer valid as a high end OS" - is absolute ridiculous FUD ... it was dismissed by most of us as premature many days ago.

Stay tuned for the real thread tomorrow. We will get to the truth of any performance differences in 4GB gaming rigs.

 

[Mem]

And Vista32 does "use" 4GB ... the only difference between it and Vista 64 is that 64-bit Vista will see and use the full 4 GB RAM while devices still get to reside in the 3-4 GB physical address space as if they were running in 32-bit mode. You also have to remember that your 64bit OS is running through an emulation layer - the 32bit Win-on-Win sandbox - for 32-bit games.

Just to point out that WOW emulation performance hit is virtually 0,infact Vista x64 can even be faster in some 32 bit games then Vista x68 depending on drivers,ie look at benchmarks here ,you can see WOW emulation is not a factor performance wise with 32 bit games.

WoW64 (Windows-on-Windows 64-bit) is a subsystem of the Windows operating system that is capable of running 32-bit applications and is included on all 64-bit versions of Windows ? including Windows XP 64-bit Editions, Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition and Windows Vista 64-bit Editions. WOW64 takes care of all the differences between 32-bit Windows and 64-bit Windows, particularly involving structural changes to Windows itself.

The WOW64 subsystem is a lightweight translation layer that has similar interfaces on all 64-bit versions of Windows. Its primary purpose is to create a 32-bit environment that provides the interfaces required to allow 32-bit Windows apps to run unmodified in the 64-bit system. Technically, WOW64 is implemented using three dynamic-link libraries (DLLs): Wow64.dll, which is the core interface to the NT kernel that translates between 32-bit and 64-bit calls, including pointer and stack manipulations; Wow64win.dll, which provides the appropriate entry points for 32-bit apps; and Wow64cpu.dll, which takes care of switching the processor from 32-bit to 64-bit mode.

Link.

 

[apoppin]

What is "virtually zero" ?

obviously there is *some* performance hit running 32-bit aps - no matter how efficient the emulation is

and no XP benches .... please ... this is all about Vista

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin
What is "virtually zero" ?

obviously there is *some* performance hit running 32-bit aps - no matter how efficient the emulation is

and no XP benches .... please ... this is all about Vista

Put it this way you won't notice it,and as you and see from benchmarks with drivers ,Vista x64 comes out on top sometimes over Vista x68 so good luck in noticing the difference .

End of the day its not even a factor ,not matter how many die hard Vista x68 users try to make it ,lets just say WOW emulation is so efficient at doing its job .

As to benchies,I only linked above because it has both Vista x68 and Vista x64 included.

I do think some of you guys are taking these Vista arguments too seriously,Vista x68 and x64 have their usess.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: apoppin
What is "virtually zero" ?

obviously there is *some* performance hit running 32-bit aps - no matter how efficient the emulation is

and no XP benches .... please ... this is all about Vista

Put it this way you won't notice it,and as you and see from benchmarks with drivers ,Vista x64 comes out on top sometimes over Vista x68 so good luck in noticing the difference .

End of the day its not even a factor ,not matter how many die hard Vista x68 users try to make it ,lets just say WOW emulation is so efficient at doing its job .

As to benchies,I only linked above because it has both Vista x68 and Vista x64 included.

of course, you are also one of two die-hard Vista64 supporters on this forum who wouldn't admit that 64bit has a little more overhead running 32-bit aps even if it could be proven right here and now.



but so what? that IS completely beside the point ... we are gonna *test* any differences in performance between 64- and 32-bit Vista in a 4GB gaming rig

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: apoppin
What is "virtually zero" ?

obviously there is *some* performance hit running 32-bit aps - no matter how efficient the emulation is

and no XP benches .... please ... this is all about Vista

Put it this way you won't notice it,and as you and see from benchmarks with drivers ,Vista x64 comes out on top sometimes over Vista x68 so good luck in noticing the difference .

End of the day its not even a factor ,not matter how many die hard Vista x68 users try to make it ,lets just say WOW emulation is so efficient at doing its job .

As to benchies,I only linked above because it has both Vista x86 and Vista x64 included.

of course, you are also one of two die-hard Vista64 supporters on this forum who wouldn't admit that 64bit has a little more overhead runnning 32-bit aps even if it could be proven right here and now.

but so what? that IS completely beside the point ... we are gonna *test* any differences in performance between 64- and 32-bit Vista in a 4GB gaming rig

Hold on their apoppin ,don't bring me into your arguments,I like Vista period!.....regardless of Vista x64 or x68.
I think somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning.

Think I get back to online gaming there's no Vista arguments,time to kill .