32-bit vs 64-bit for Gaming

[CrystalBay]

The thing is more complex games will start to use more than 2GB address space sooner than later, especially with DX10 .

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3034

 

[aCynic2]

Originally posted by: aCynic2
I have VC++ 6.0 and gameSpace, as well as Thunderbird and Firefox I need to make sure they work flawlessly on Vista before I consider it.

I'm quoting myself because there is something so fundamental about this, that it needs stating:

I've invested hundreds of dollars into software. Vista would cost me a $100 or more to run it.

And I gain nothing from it. My computer already runs what i need it to run and does so very, very well. Vista and XP64 add nothing.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: aCynic2

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: aCynic2

Originally posted by: misle
Sounds like 32 bit is the way to go even with a 64 bit processor.

I agree for now. 64-bit is too new. For those of use with a heavy reliance on working 32-bit software should wait another year for Vista and WinXP 64-bit to stabilize.

I disagree ,I have been running Vista x64 HP since Jan and I game a lot ,not had any real problems with games I have installed,only very old and I mean very old 16 bit games won't run due to no 16 bit legacy support in Vista x64.

I have VC++ 6.0 and gameSpace, as well as Thunderbird and Firefox I need to make sure they work flawlessly on Vista before I consider it.

Firefox and thunderbird work great on Vista x64 I can vouch for that ,infact I'm using 64 bit version of Thunderbird with 32 bit Firefox as I type this post (yes you can use 64 bit version of Firefox too but it does not have the software web support like the 32 bit version has).

 

[hooflung]

I currently run 2g e4300 @ 2.7ghz stock voltage/hsf and I decided while DDR2 is cheap I'll invest in another 2gig. I don't like the performance of my work pc ( athlon x2 5600+ w. 4g and xp pro sp2 ) because every now and then windows looses its mind with more than 4g installed.

I own Vista Ultimate so when my ram comes in for my home PC I am installing the 64b version of vista. There are definite reasons why you should consider it and serious gaming, database development or systems administration are the main reasons for it.

64bit text editors that can load large log files with no problem or entire data dumps without pausing bleeding edge computers is definitely for the win.

 

[Shyatic]

Wow, I am running on 32 bit because I had the assumption that 32 bit software wouldn't work properly. What a moron I am

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: aCynic2

Originally posted by: aCynic2
I have VC++ 6.0 and gameSpace, as well as Thunderbird and Firefox I need to make sure they work flawlessly on Vista before I consider it.

I'm quoting myself because there is something so fundamental about this, that it needs stating:

I've invested hundreds of dollars into software. Vista would cost me a $100 or more to run it.

And I gain nothing from it. My computer already runs what i need it to run and does so very, very well. Vista and XP64 add nothing.

truly spoken by someone that hasn't used Vista

XP is primitive by comparison
-and to think some of you guys chided me for sticking with Win2K ... Win2K to XP is like Win98 in comparison without the SE ... in contrast, XP to Vista is like Win98 compared to Win2K or XP
-get with the program or get Linux ... you will have to upgrade for DX10 gaming[period]


IF you have all brand-new HW, then Vista 64 is probably for you
--i chose WinVista32 because it is OEM and tied to my MB which i expect to replace in a couple of years

this very new AT article might help you to choose between 32 and 64-bit:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3034

 

[doggyfromplanetwoof]

64bit all the way.

 

[aCynic2]

Originally posted by: apoppin\truly spoken by someone that hasn't used Vista

XP is primitive by comparison
-and to think some of you guys chided me for sticking with Win2K ... Win2K to XP is like Win98 in comparison without the SE ... in contrast, XP to Vista is like Win98 compared to Win2K or XP
-get with the program or get Linux ... you will have to upgrade for DX10 gaming[period]

Spoken like a true fanboy who eats up eveything told to him w/o questioning. Only the last thing in this list is anything quantifiably factual and even that has a caveat. Eventually eveything will be DX10, but not now. If every company decided to make everything DX10 now, they would lose a great deal of money, because not everyone can afford to suddenly buy Vista.

Everything else is personal opinion. This to that is like that to other other thing. Pheh!

Oh, please.

 

[TheSlamma]

My 64 bit vista crashed and could not even be repaired.. I went back to XP for now until atleast sp1 if not 2

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
My 64 bit vista crashed and could not even be repaired.. I went back to XP for now until atleast sp1 if not 2

What do you mean by crashed... and were you running properly supported hardware?

99% of vistas current issues are related to crap drivers from OEMs.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: aCynic2

Originally posted by: apoppin\truly spoken by someone that hasn't used Vista

XP is primitive by comparison
-and to think some of you guys chided me for sticking with Win2K ... Win2K to XP is like Win98 in comparison without the SE ... in contrast, XP to Vista is like Win98 compared to Win2K or XP
-get with the program or get Linux ... you will have to upgrade for DX10 gaming[period]

Spoken like a true fanboy who eats up eveything told to him w/o questioning. Only the last thing in this list is anything quantifiably factual and even that has a caveat. Eventually eveything will be DX10, but not now. If every company decided to make everything DX10 now, they would lose a great deal of money, because not everyone can afford to suddenly buy Vista.

Everything else is personal opinion. This to that is like that to other other thing. Pheh!

Oh, please.

fanboy of what?

i was very resistant to change to Vista - like you - i even blabbed about it negatively in this forum based only on my experience with old HW and RC2 ... unlike you i actually tried Vista
--so i speak from my experience

you have no experience with Vista, do you?
-it certainly shows and your personal opinion is invalid in this case as you have nothing to compare to.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
My 64 bit vista crashed and could not even be repaired.. I went back to XP for now until atleast sp1 if not 2

Did you even bother to find out what caused the crash?...As you know I have be running Vista x64 since January and I'm amazed how solid it is(even after my PSU blew up while in gaming ,my Vista still booted up after a new PSU replacement),remember Vista is an OS so it can't fix driver or hardware problems,99% of time the cause is not the OS,unfortunately most people blame the OS without even trying to discover the real cause of the problem.

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: OVerLoRDI

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: misle

Can I setup a Dual boot for XP and Vista?

Should be able to, though I am not sure of the exact procedures to installing them both. Likely, you'd have to have the separate partitions, or hard drives, set up before hand.

It really seems to me that it wouldn't be worth it. WinXP works great for everything, you are in essences gimping yourself by running Vista... sure it looks nice but in the end it is just shinny with features that I usually just end up turning off. Part of me desires to still be running windows 2000

I've actually been running Vista for 75%+ of my computing. And Oblivion is more stable in Vista than XP Pro (figure that one out). In XP I am getting a ton of CTD's. In Vista, I've had one CTD.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA...Let me first address that 4GB argument. it is valid when there's a game that is going to use significant amount of ram - over 3GB, but there's no a single game that uses more than a 2GB of RAM...

You are wrong. How is Supreme Commander not a game? Also, I got 4GB of memory unaware of the limitation. I was thinking about how good it will be for video encoding and extracting large DVD/HDD images. I think those are valid reasons to want more than 2GB of application workspace. Also, I don't see why applications and games could not spin off two threads with 2GB address space each unless performance is impacted significantly.

Originally posted by: postmortemIA2GB of RAM is a limit for any single 32-bit application, and all games are made to take this into account.

Wrong. As the article points out, games just crash when they hit the limit without so much as giving the reason as opposed to server apps that handle this gracefully.

Originally posted by: postmortemIAThis limit is passed to 64-bit versions of Windows in two ways because game app is still 32-bit or it was built primarily for 32-bit.

As the article shows, the limit is not in the program type, but in the header (which can be easily modified).

Originally posted by: postmortemIAThus this is like proof: There's no single game on market that takes more than a 2GB of RAM.

Once again: Supreme Commander. More to follow... I mean, do you think it's going to be the last XBOX 360 game PC port?

Originally posted by: postmortemIATherefore, you could have 3.25GB or 4GB or 44GB or 444GB of RAM, it wouldn't matter. As long as there is enough RAM to put OS and game, and 3GB are enough for that.

How about a little extra to put those quad-cores to use with some multi-tasking? Windows Media Center Edition with background encoding for Portable Media Centers and XBOX 360 will certainly eat a bit more memory. Not only that, did you forget about Vista's tendancy to use all available memory to have things paged and ready to go? Not just system memory either... anything it can use that's faster than a HDD (TurboCache). Fact: Vista can use as much memory as it can get... even in 32-bit mode.

THE ARTICLE

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
For games perspective, there's no difference and absolutely no benefit to go 64 bit. Nor of having more than 3GB of RAM.

Let me first address that 4GB argument. it is valid when there's a game that is going to use significant amount of ram - over 3GB, but there's no a single game that uses more than a 2GB of RAM.

2GB of RAM is a limit for any single 32-bit application, and all games are made to take this into account. This limit is passed to 64-bit versions of Windows in two ways because game app is still 32-bit or it was built primarily for 32-bit.

Thus this is like proof: There's no single game on market that takes more than a 2GB of RAM.

Therefore, you could have 3.25GB or 4GB or 44GB or 444GB of RAM, it wouldn't matter. As long as there is enough RAM to put OS and game, and 3GB are enough for that.

Lets go back in time remember Dos,Win95,98, and even XP ?.....do you remember how games required more ram as time went on,do you think games will just stop at 2GB-3GB and never need or even break the 4GB barrier?..Do you relize there are some serious DX10 demanding games coming down the road that will need and benefit from more then 2GB of ram etc(there has even been some talk by games developers that they like Vista x64 due to the no 4GB restrictions....If you think that no games will ever need or require more then 2GB-3GB of ram then you must be on a different planet.

As already mentioned Vista will make use of all available ram you throw at it(within its limitations),going Vista x64 bit gives you a longer life span and and no worries of the 4GB barrier.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: postmortemIA...Let me first address that 4GB argument. it is valid when there's a game that is going to use significant amount of ram - over 3GB, but there's no a single game that uses more than a 2GB of RAM...

You are wrong. How is Supreme Commander not a game? Also, I got 4GB of memory unaware of the limitation. I was thinking about how good it will be for video encoding and extracting large DVD/HDD images. I think those are valid reasons to want more than 2GB of application workspace. Also, I don't see why applications and games could not spin off two threads with 2GB address space each unless performance is impacted significantly.

Originally posted by: postmortemIA2GB of RAM is a limit for any single 32-bit application, and all games are made to take this into account.

Wrong. As the article points out, games just crash when they hit the limit without so much as giving the reason as opposed to server apps that handle this gracefully.

Originally posted by: postmortemIAThis limit is passed to 64-bit versions of Windows in two ways because game app is still 32-bit or it was built primarily for 32-bit.

As the article shows, the limit is not in the program type, but in the header (which can be easily modified).

Originally posted by: postmortemIAThus this is like proof: There's no single game on market that takes more than a 2GB of RAM.

Once again: Supreme Commander. More to follow... I mean, do you think it's going to be the last XBOX 360 game PC port?

Originally posted by: postmortemIATherefore, you could have 3.25GB or 4GB or 44GB or 444GB of RAM, it wouldn't matter. As long as there is enough RAM to put OS and game, and 3GB are enough for that.

How about a little extra to put those quad-cores to use with some multi-tasking? Windows Media Center Edition with background encoding for Portable Media Centers and XBOX 360 will certainly eat a bit more memory. Not only that, did you forget about Vista's tendancy to use all available memory to have things paged and ready to go? Not just system memory either... anything it can use that's faster than a HDD (TurboCache). Fact: Vista can use as much memory as it can get... even in 32-bit mode.

THE ARTICLE

One application (Supreme Commander) is hardly a proof that everything is pink how you state it. The 2GB barrier exists for msot games, and they are built to not use more than 2GB.

Now, if that barrier can be moved to 3GB, it means 64-bit adoption is gonna be even slower.

 

[the Chase]

Going with the 64bit OS makes some things easier. I had to do the 2GB limit fix in the AT article for the Project Reality mod for bf2. So I modified the bf2 executable using Visual Studio C++ to tell the OS to not limit virtual memory to 2GB.

Having the 64 bit version of Windows already I didn't have to modify the OS like he did in the article. And games that already flag the OS to be LARGEADDRESSAWARE which I believe almost all future games will do it's nice to have the 64 bit version of any OS even if you have "only" 2GB of system memory.

My vote for people shopping for a new OS at this stage of the game would be a 64bit version of that OS.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Going with the 64bit OS makes some things easier. I had to do the 2GB limit fix in the AT article for the Project Reality mod for bf2. So I modified the bf2 executable using Visual Studio C++ to tell the OS to not limit virtual memory to 2GB.

Having the 64 bit version of Windows already I didn't have to modify the OS like he did in the article. And games that already flag the OS to be LARGEADDRESSAWARE which I believe almost all future games will do it's nice to have the 64 bit version of any OS even if you have "only" 2GB of system memory.

My vote for people shopping for a new OS at this stage of the game would be a 64bit version of that OS.

i look at it this way, Vista all the way ... a solid upgrade over XP

BUT, i have a lot of old aps ... brand new HW ... so i might have issues upgrading them. Vista 32 OEM is only $100 ... worry-free

it is worth $100 to have Vista tied to my MB which will likely be in service for a total of 2 years ... till Penryn is old news.

at that time, perhaps intel will get SERIOUS about 64-bit and i can spend another $100 ... the price of 2 new games

sheesh

you talk like Vista is thousands of dollars and that you will be married to her in 32-bit form - stuck for many years ... i'll just dump her when the time comes and grab her younger more attractive sister

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: the Chase
Going with the 64bit OS makes some things easier. I had to do the 2GB limit fix in the AT article for the Project Reality mod for bf2. So I modified the bf2 executable using Visual Studio C++ to tell the OS to not limit virtual memory to 2GB.

Having the 64 bit version of Windows already I didn't have to modify the OS like he did in the article. And games that already flag the OS to be LARGEADDRESSAWARE which I believe almost all future games will do it's nice to have the 64 bit version of any OS even if you have "only" 2GB of system memory.

My vote for people shopping for a new OS at this stage of the game would be a 64bit version of that OS.

i look at it this way, Vista all the way ... a solid upgrade over XP

BUT, i have a lot of old aps ... brand new HW ... so i might have issues upgrading them. Vista 32 OEM is only $100 ... worry-free

it is worth $100 to have Vista tied to my MB which will likely be in service for a total of 2 years ... till Penryn is old news.

at that time, perhaps intel will get SERIOUS about 64-bit and i can spend another $100 ... the price of 2 new games

sheesh

you talk like Vista is thousands of dollars and that you will be married to her in 32-bit form - stuck for many years ... i'll just dump her when the time comes and grab her younger more attractive sister

I went OEM Vista x64 HP seem to be and is right the choice for me,my next major upgrade will be on my backup PC,yes OEM Vista x64 on that too when the time comes,as to Vista's little sister (Vienna) I'm sure most of us will be installing that when the times comes and yes we'll see the same old argument threads like we now see between XP and Vista .


Side Note: I'm really impressed with Vista x64 gaming and software compatibility,only had to replace one software, very old 16 bit Printmaster package(I installed the newer 32 bit Printmaster 16 suite).

 

[apoppin]

the way i look at it there are two ways to go once you decide on Vista

the *worst* you can do is a "$100 mistake" if you get WinVista32 ... that you have TWO YEARS to "fix"
[to save for]

Heck, i might be dead in two years .. i am having FUN with Vista 32 right now ... ZERO issues ... none ... not one single issue ... all my games run perfectly and all my apps too ... everything ... not one slight hangup ... OK?
i have ANCIENT applications that cost many hundreds of dollars yet work perfectly in Win32 that i need to replace to run 64bit.
... i have not a 'hint' of an issue and i sleep well - even knowing Mr. Gates "scammed me" out of an "extra" $100 by forcing me to upgrade - again - in 2009 from Vista32-bit to Vista 64.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: apoppin
the way i look at it there are two ways to go once you decide on Vista

the *worst* you can do is a "$100 mistake" if you get WinVista32 ... that you have TWO YEARS to "fix"
[to save for]

Heck, i might be dead in two years .. i am having FUN with Vista 32 right now ... ZERO issues ... none ... not one single issue ... all my games run perfectly and all my apps too ... everything ... not one slight hangup ... OK?
i have ANCIENT applications that cost many hundreds of dollars yet work perfectly in Win32 that i need to replace to run 64bit.
... i have not a 'hint' of an issue and i sleep well - even knowing Mr. Gates "scammed me" out of an "extra" $100 by forcing me to upgrade - again - in 2009 from Vista32-bit to Vista 64.

Hehe I remember when I first got Vista x64 and said I have no issues with gaming,did people believe me ,anyway Vista is a very good gaming OS and will only get better down the road(ie DX10 games,better drivers for speed,SP1 etc..).

Sidenote:I can run my old 16 bit software on my XP PC(backup PC) but wanted an excuse to upgrade my old printmaster software for Vista x64.

 

[Ichinisan]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: CZroe

Originally posted by: postmortemIA...Let me first address that 4GB argument. it is valid when there's a game that is going to use significant amount of ram - over 3GB, but there's no a single game that uses more than a 2GB of RAM...

You are wrong. How is Supreme Commander not a game? Also, I got 4GB of memory unaware of the limitation. I was thinking about how good it will be for video encoding and extracting large DVD/HDD images. I think those are valid reasons to want more than 2GB of application workspace. Also, I don't see why applications and games could not spin off two threads with 2GB address space each unless performance is impacted significantly.

Originally posted by: postmortemIA2GB of RAM is a limit for any single 32-bit application, and all games are made to take this into account.

Wrong. As the article points out, games just crash when they hit the limit without so much as giving the reason as opposed to server apps that handle this gracefully.

Originally posted by: postmortemIAThis limit is passed to 64-bit versions of Windows in two ways because game app is still 32-bit or it was built primarily for 32-bit.

As the article shows, the limit is not in the program type, but in the header (which can be easily modified).

Originally posted by: postmortemIAThus this is like proof: There's no single game on market that takes more than a 2GB of RAM.

Once again: Supreme Commander. More to follow... I mean, do you think it's going to be the last XBOX 360 game PC port?

Originally posted by: postmortemIATherefore, you could have 3.25GB or 4GB or 44GB or 444GB of RAM, it wouldn't matter. As long as there is enough RAM to put OS and game, and 3GB are enough for that.

How about a little extra to put those quad-cores to use with some multi-tasking? Windows Media Center Edition with background encoding for Portable Media Centers and XBOX 360 will certainly eat a bit more memory. Not only that, did you forget about Vista's tendancy to use all available memory to have things paged and ready to go? Not just system memory either... anything it can use that's faster than a HDD (TurboCache). Fact: Vista can use as much memory as it can get... even in 32-bit mode.

THE ARTICLE

One application (Supreme Commander) is hardly a proof that everything is pink how you state it. The 2GB barrier exists for msot games, and they are built to not use more than 2GB.

Now, if that barrier can be moved to 3GB, it means 64-bit adoption is gonna be even slower.

Speak for yourself. I own three games that have the problem particularly in Vista 32-bit and not Windows XP or Vista 64-bit (Supreme Commander, Company of Heroes, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl). Buying Vista 32-bit would be a "mistake" for me. Why buy it and start activating my 'Games for Windows' games on that installation only to have to ditch it soon? I chose Vista Ultimate 64-bit OEM for $179.99 and for good reason: If I'm sacrificing so much compatibility that I need to dual-boot XP, I may as well make the full leap and get it over with rather than do this again in no time. Why accept a subset of a subset of game compatibility if the future is 64-bit with DirectX10?

 

[negativedecibel]

just made the switch from xp32 to xp64. (still not ready to go vista...)
Haven't had any problems with gaming. The only issue I have had is HP printer drivers.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

One application (Supreme Commander) is hardly a proof that everything is pink how you state it. The 2GB barrier exists for msot games, and they are built to not use more than 2GB.

Now, if that barrier can be moved to 3GB, it means 64-bit adoption is gonna be even slower.

That barrier will never be moved. The 2GB/2GB application/kernel split isn't going anywhere for 32-bit consumer OSes, as there are too many poorly written drivers that map into that address space, and many applications break if you force the /3GB switch. MS would have relaxed the restriction on Vista 32-bit if they wanted to do that. Instead, you'll need to move to Vista or XP 64. I would expect Vista to be the last 32-bit Windows version that most people will be on, with Vienna being the last version offered in a 32-bit flavor at all.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

One application (Supreme Commander) is hardly a proof that everything is pink how you state it. The 2GB barrier exists for msot games, and they are built to not use more than 2GB.

Now, if that barrier can be moved to 3GB, it means 64-bit adoption is gonna be even slower.

That barrier will never be moved. The 2GB/2GB application/kernel split isn't going anywhere for 32-bit consumer OSes, as there are too many poorly written drivers that map into that address space, and many applications break if you force the /3GB switch. MS would have relaxed the restriction on Vista 32-bit if they wanted to do that. Instead, you'll need to move to Vista or XP 64. I would expect Vista to be the last 32-bit Windows version that most people will be on, with Vienna being the last version offered in a 32-bit flavor at all.

Instead, they actually make it MUCH worse. Anandtech showed that, in Vista, drivers consume significantly more address space than they do in XP. Not only do they continue to consume address space within the 4GB of system RAM, but they consume significantly more in Vista x64 than they did in XP x32 with a particularly large amount being stolen in proportion to video card memory! I'd imagine that an 8800GTX SLI with 2x768MB and quad-core would have I/O address ranges start to eat into system memory on even a 2GB system!