32 bit is no longer valid

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
*all* i shut down is anti-Virus and stop d/ls and automatic updates while i am gaming - and that is for 2GB total system RAM. You are trying to make a point with the ridiculous

Right, ridiculous as say, 2 instances of IExplore being "major crap" in order to push 3.25GB which is impossible in your mind.

i am doubting you ... yes

Yes i DO understand it ... SC has an "issue" and the problem lies with the game so that it needed workarounds

No you still don't understand. SC was crashing even with 2GB user-space and /largeaddressaware flagged off. They modified both so that the game could use more RAM, and it did because it CAN and it does benefit from more RAM. Problem is that it didn't realize it didn't have a full 3GB of user-space or 3GB of physical RAM and then it crashed. Games by necessity need to compensate for this continually, which leads to common performance problems like paging, HDD thrashing, stuttering/hitching and long load times and in cases where the game engine doesn't compensate, the game crashes. But again, if you don't understand this basic concept and benefit of RAM and addressable space, you might as well be arguing that a HDD page file is faster than SDRAM which wouldn't come as a surprise at all given your high praise for ReadyBoost and Flash Drives.

But honestly I think the bigger problem is you don't even understand the underlying issues when increasing game size/complexity while trying to keep it in the same 32-bit envelope. What exactly do you think is happening when a game that fills a 9GB dual-layer DVD has to find a way into a maximum 2GB package? Of course not all of that 9GB is needed at any given time, but there certainly are games that do take advantage of a bigger envelope, most notably /largeaddressaware titles like SupCom, CoH, LOTRO etc.

Quit beating around the bush with your condescending "you don't understand" BS. The problem lies with the game and their "workarounds".

How scientific ... "longer" ... if they fixed it, it would run indefinitely

You're claiming Gothic 3 (and every other game that breaks your imagined 3.25GB limitation) has buggy memory management. My point is that buggy or not, its going to run better for longer on a 64-bit OS. But that's clearly not the case in the games I listed as they can run on 32-bit machines with 2-3.25GB memory, they just don't run as WELL as a 64-bit machine with 4GB.

You have neither "proved" nor shown anything about 4GB 32-bit machines being inferior in gaming whatsoever

you don't rely on hunches ... you rely on how it "feels"

No, I rely on what I observe, both in Task Manager/Resource Manager and the game itself. You rely on what? Nothing except for some flawed preconceived notion that its impossible for current games to benefit from 3.25GB or more. Not only is it something you can't say for any certainty (due to total ignorance and lack of any first-hand experience), you continually ignore evidence to the contrary in the form of both screenshots and published reviews. Bottom-line is this: if a game or your system is using more RAM, its performing better than a system running the same games/apps period. There's no arguing this. Arguing against this is arguing your HDD is faster than RAM, which again, given your views on ReadyBoost wouldn't be surprising in the least.

[/quote]

Strangely you can't communicate any advantage other than how *your* system runs games

 

[wordsworm]

BTW, you never told me if you got that bimmer this summer or not...???

I live in S. Korea... for another 2 months anyways, until my contract has been completed. Since I can't fit a car into the overhead compartment, I'll forgo the bimmer. Truth is, though, the 20k I'll have saved over the last year would only be a dent in buying one. Actually, I've never been fond of cars. They're money pits with little virtue. Usually I can get by with public transportation. When I was in Montreal (my home and native land) I had bicycle, taxi, bus, and subway to take me around.

My system isn't great, mostly because of my choice of CPU. I have an ASUS M2N-E SLI with an AMD BE (low voltage - 45 watts) 2.1 Ghz CPU. I made the mistake of thinking that it would be supported by the motherboard, but was mistaken. I have 2x2GB from G.Skill, and 320MB GTS from MSI. Monitor is a Zeus 5000M (1680x1050 - 22"). 500 GB hd. Sometimes I wish I'd splurged the extra $400 on an Intel motherboard and chip. At the time I figured that as long as I had a good video card and plenty of RAM, I ought to be able to run pretty much any game, with Oblivion as maybe the limit as to where I could aspire. I have Oblivion and for the most part I can't complain, even when every setting is maxed out I get pretty smooth gameplay, except when I have had something like bittorrent running simultaneously. I bought my system in cash. I had it prebuilt with the OS preinstalled. I did a 3Dmark06, everything did great except the CPU. Everything was smooth, even at a low of 20ish FPS for the most intense. When it came to testing the CPU, the test ground itself to a halt, logging 0-1 FPS. I think I got 7.6k for a score. I'm sure with a Black Edition 5000-6400 I could make up for a lot of the underperformance and hit the desired 10k.

I bought a Sempron with 1GB of memory when my PIV died as a go between system. I was really surprised at how quickly it ran Photoshop. It changed my mind about AMD products. I figured if their worst CPU could do a good job with Photoshop, then they must be OK. Of course, it couldn't play a game to save its life. When I came to Korea last February, I gave it to a friend who's a life timer on welfare. This machine I assembled myself. I never quite got the USB system to work properly, and the RAM was faulty - which was something that plagued me for quite some time.

Previously I had a PIV 1.5 Ghz, originally with 256MB of RAM, later upgraded to 768. I had a 32MB video card (ATI, but I couldn't tell you the part). I had bought a $600 sound card to do audio recording, and had Windows ME. ME was a nightmare. When I bought it, I couldn't even play an MP3 without it being buggy. This was before I hit the Internet with all its malicious garbage. I refused to go back to Windows 98, so I ended up selling the sound card and getting a pirated version of XP. I figured if MS was going to screw me with a terrible OS like ME, then I was going to screw them by getting a pirated copy of XP. I also had Creative Labs 5.1 Live on it. It took me about 5 years to figure out that it was the reason why my audio recordings were all junk past 2 tracks, and why I was getting hisses and pops. I've sworn off that company as a result. Anyways, the machine did what was most important: it got me through university. It was a great workhorse.

Before that, I had a second hand 486 DX33 clocked at 40 MHz with 4MB of RAM and 3.1 (it didn't even have a heat sink!). I killed the 170MB hard drive. I liked it until I tried feeding Windows 95 on it. I still think X-Com is the best game I've ever played. Sometimes I wish I had space to get a 486 again just so I can play that game again.

Before that, I had a coco from Radio shack with 16KB of RAM and a tape drive. I wanted to learn how to program it, but saving was so problematic that I eventually gave up.

If I had my machine to do over again, I probably would pick up an Intel Q6600 with either a Gigabyte or MSI motherboard (I've sworn off of ASUS products because of their customer service - too bad for them considering until that point I'd only ever bought ASUS motherboards. Fortunately they don't have a monopoly like MS). I am happy with the video card. When it's not enough, I'll get another one and run it in SLI. I'm considering getting an AMD black edition 5000. But I'm also considering waiting until the Phenom gets the kinks worked out. But I don't think ASUS would update the drivers for the CPU on the old board. It's a good board, it's just older. At $90, what can one expect I guess.

I guess I'm not old. I don't consider myself young either. I'm 32. I figured you for 16-18.

I think that 32 bit has hit a performance wall which makes it impossible for it to be considered high end. So, in reviews looking at high end equipment, it seems retarded to be using Vista 32. It would make more sense to use XP 32. But, I suppose since the majority of folks out there are using Vista 32 while the industry 'scrambles' to get 64 bit drivers out, it makes sense to cater to their curiosity. It just doesn't treat the hardware fairly, since the RAM of the system exceeds the ability of the OS to handle, and it has to pare it down. If they had a system with 2 GB of RAM on the motherboard, or even 3 GB makes sense on Vista 32. But not 4 GB. That is just plain wrong.

You figured I am all about out with the old, in with the new. I was never into XP 64. It was too early, really. If I was that type of person, I'm sure I'd have gotten into that. Of course, I didn't have a 64 bit CPU when it came out. I'm much bigger on sustainability. The time for 64 bit is here, ready for mainstream. Even if my system isn't quite as good as most of the enthusiasts here, my choice of OS is making the best of what I have. My target for gaming is 30FPS, and I'm getting it. I wanted an SLI ready system for when I couldn't run games I wanted. When my video card isn't sufficient, I'll have the second slot waiting for another MSI 8800 GTS w/320 MB. I've heard people say that they're going to sell their MSI 8800 GTS to get the new 8800 GT 512. That's what I'd figure fits your description.

Anyways, how's your vacation going? Mine allows me to write retardedly long replies.

 

[JustaGeek]

Well, isn't that something, my fellow Canadian.

I lived in Montreal between 1988 - 1992, working in Lachine. Had a great time, but French wasn't my "forte", so I moved to Toronto. Still kind of miss Rue St. Catherine and 1000 De La Gauchetiere, for which I had a pleasure to work on the curtain wall with granite cladding.

And as you probably know from my profile, life has put me in the US now, and that has allowed me to turn my hobby into a life passion, sort of. I have built a couple of computers, and absolutely love it. And I am older than you are, but I will keep my age a secret, if you don't mind...

Now to the subject - the 32-bit XP and Vista are far from being obsolete, let alone invalid. We might have an advantage of being able to choose between the 32 and 64 bit, but the rest of the world, and that includes my dear wife, wants to turn on the computer and just "do stuff". They don't care if the underlying structure is 16, 32, 64, or no "bit" at all. They just want to have a functioning apparatus.

And they do. With the 32-bit XP's, Vistas, OS X's etc.

They would not be able to do it with the 64-bit Vista. I just transferred a bunch of 16-bit games on my wife's computer, because she wanted to play "Tri Peaks" that I had on my Windows 3.1 486 machine, with 4MB of RAM and 120MB Hard Drive!

Again - the 32-bit OS' are still MORE than valid, and hopefully the 16-bit extensions, or the Virtual Desktops, will make everything that has been developed in the past 20 years functional.

Just like you can't say that all the gasoline only powered cars are invalid, and everyone should be driving the hybrids.

See, there was only one Lenin in the previous decade, with his revolutionary views.

And look how much damage his radical ideology inflicted on human kind...

But now I am getting ahead of myself

Bon Soir, mon ami.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i am doubting you ... yes

And what about AT's in-depth look at SC RAM use? And the 3-4 others who've posted in this thread saying they can break 3GB commit charge easy with certain games. And a SS that has my desktop, Task Manager and Resource Monitor with a game I don't even consider RAM intensive (I don't think its /largeaddressaware actually).

Another interesting tidbit in that SS for all those who think 64-bit is unstable is the "Up Time" of about a week leaving The Witcher running 24/7. Last time I rebooted was to install 169.21 drivers.

What do you have again? 32-bit Vista, ReadyBoost, FUD and a bunch of emoticons.

Quit beating around the bush with your condescending "you don't understand" BS. The problem lies with the game and their "workarounds".

Who's beating around the bush? I've already clearly stated I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about, neither from a theoretical/technical standpoint and certainly not from a practical one.

Their "workaround" is called working within the limitations of a 32-bit OS, which have become even more difficult with recent titles. But again, thanks for not answering the question. What exactly would you suggest as an alternative "workaround" with say 6GB of data/textures that you need to fit inside a 2-3GB envelope?

You have neither "proved" nor shown anything about 4GB 32-bit machines being inferior in gaming whatsoever

Actually I did when I broke down addressable memory ranges showing how much a single game could use and how much RAM that system would use. Many others have explained 32-bit memory address limitations as well. Its really simple math at that point.

You run Vista...go ahead and reboot and see how much RAM you use running just your desktop. Then add on 2GB which is the default maximum for all 32-bit user applications combined. Chances are you're already at or very close to your 3.25GB limit for 32-bit Vista. You can increase the total user-space with /PAE and /largeaddressaware but that only leaves you 250MB for the OS and drivers which simply will not happen without major problems.

The difference with Vista 64 is that 32-bit apps can EACH have 2GB by default and the addressable limit is up to 128GB or 8TB or whatever your chipset/CPU support so there is really no current limitations on your applications or your OS/drivers. You can also increase user-space to 3GB for 32-bit apps without worrying about running into kernel-space or other user-space apps because you don't have the 3.25GB 32-bit addressable limit.

Current games can and will use more than 2GB and when they do, they'll perform better with a 64-bit OS compared to a 32-bit OS, plain and simple. If they didn't or couldn't, there would be no need for devs to flag /largeaddressaware. This will only become more obvious as more Devs make their games /largeaddressaware or code for systems with 64-bit and more RAM in mind. If you can't acknowledge the benefit of a program using more RAM you simply don't understand how more/less RAM impacts performance. As I've said many times, you typically won't see this with a FPS meter. Even people who report stuttering/hitching typically won't see a drop in FPS.

Strangely you can't communicate any advantage other than how *your* system runs games

I've communicated it clearly many times. You just simply don't understand how more RAM can improve performance, probably because you've always relied on "just enough" waiting and waiting before adding more only to realize its "just enough" again.

 

[Avalon]

Just to chime in, my Vista64 system is using 1.5GB of RAM sitting at my desktop with just one instance of FF and ventrilo open.

 

[wordsworm]

Originally posted by: chizow
8GB G.Skill (4x2GB) DDR2-800

Someone mentioned that boards with 8 GB limit will have much the same problem as Vista 32 bit with 4GB. Is there some displacement going on between your motherboard RAM and your video card RAM?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: wordsworm

Originally posted by: chizow
8GB G.Skill (4x2GB) DDR2-800

Someone mentioned that boards with 8 GB limit will have much the same problem as Vista 32 bit with 4GB. Is there some displacement going on between your motherboard RAM and your video card RAM?

Not totally sure what you mean here, but all 8GB is addressable, as seen in my SS. I'm not 100% sure where the MMIO addresses are mapped in 64-bit but I am pretty sure that this was the root of a lot of the early 4GB problems between BIOS/OS/drivers that needed to get worked out. If I had to guess, 64-bit is mapped similarly to 32-bit to ensure backward compatibility so it might look something like:

0-2GB = physical or virtual addressed kernel-space
2-3.25GB = virtual addressed kernel-space
3.25GB-4GB = MMIO/ACPI/PCI/IRQ etc.
4GB+ = physical/virtual addressed user-space

Under the 32-bit model there could be potential conflicts with that 2-3.25GB range if memory ranges need to be contiguous relative to physical memory, or if the ACPI assigns those addresses as MMIO to the OS but apps/drivers are expecting contiguous addressable physical RAM.

 

[wordsworm]

You did essentially answer my question. However, if you check your board, you'll see that there's a limit of 8GB. So, even if you wanted to, and your OS supports it, you couldn't put, say, 4x4GB. I was just wondering if that limit was including or excluding the video card. Clearly it excludes it.

I don't know when I'll be ready to jump to 8GB, but I think I'll wait for the kit to drop to $100.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Ares202
64 bit vista is just crappy

Stop talking garbage.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: wordsworm
You did essentially answer my question. However, if you check your board, you'll see that there's a limit of 8GB. So, even if you wanted to, and your OS supports it, you couldn't put, say, 4x4GB. I was just wondering if that limit was including or excluding the video card. Clearly it excludes it.

I don't know when I'll be ready to jump to 8GB, but I think I'll wait for the kit to drop to $100.

Ya with 8GB and the 650i chipset it excludes video/MMIO, not sure about older "64-bit" chipsets. I think someone already commented current chipsets aren't true 64-bit. But ya I think that's a chipset/memory controller limitation more than anything and could possibly be addressed with a BIOS update. 4GB dimms are pretty new and I'm sure the price is absurd (similar to 2GB dimms up until recently). But ya that's certainly a concern for the future with 64-bit, as they'll need to either 1) increase IC density per dimm or 2) increase number of dimm slots 3) create a new scalable/external interface or 4) use a hybrid system like SDRAM + SSD.

 

[Peter]

These limits are hardware limitations of the memory controllers. Their capability of addressing large RAM chips ends somewhere, typically at one gigabit per chip, some already do 2-Gbit chips. BIOS upgrades do not solve that.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
i am doubting you ... yes

And what about AT's in-depth look at SC RAM use? And the 3-4 others who've posted in this thread saying they can break 3GB commit charge easy with certain games. And a SS that has my desktop, Task Manager and Resource Monitor with a game I don't even consider RAM intensive (I don't think its /largeaddressaware actually).

Another interesting tidbit in that SS for all those who think 64-bit is unstable is the "Up Time" of about a week leaving The Witcher running 24/7. Last time I rebooted was to install 169.21 drivers.

What do you have again? 32-bit Vista, ReadyBoost, FUD and a bunch of emoticons.

Yes, i DO have 32-bit Vista, 2GB ReadyBoost and a bunch of unanswered questions. You are the one that is certain that we should all change to 64-bit on the basis on one rather incomplete article and the "personal testimony" of 3 or 4 forum members.

i am not impressed with an "up time of a week" ... if that is an example of 64-bit "stability", find another

and your comparison of how 64-bit "feels" over 32-bit, i say they are apples-to-oranges. In comparing both Windows Vista and , you should notice that page file usage is also slightly higher in Windows Vista 64-bit over 32-bit . Wouldn't you say memory pointers are also slightly higher in a 64-bit environment, as well as the added overhead of the Windows 64-bit compatibility layer required for running 32-bit games?

Quit beating around the bush with your condescending "you don't understand" BS. The problem lies with the game and their "workarounds".

Who's beating around the bush? I've already clearly stated I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about, neither from a theoretical/technical standpoint and certainly not from a practical one.

Their "workaround" is called working within the limitations of a 32-bit OS, which have become even more difficult with recent titles. But again, thanks for not answering the question. What exactly would you suggest as an alternative "workaround" with say 6GB of data/textures that you need to fit inside a 2-3GB envelope?

We don't have 6GB of data/textures that you need to fit inside a 2-3GB envelope yet. You are talking the future.

You have neither "proved" nor shown anything about 4GB 32-bit machines being inferior in gaming whatsoever

Actually I did when I broke down addressable memory ranges showing how much a single game could use and how much RAM that system would use. Many others have explained 32-bit memory address limitations as well. Its really simple math at that point.

You run Vista...go ahead and reboot and see how much RAM you use running just your desktop. Then add on 2GB which is the default maximum for all 32-bit user applications combined. Chances are you're already at or very close to your 3.25GB limit for 32-bit Vista. You can increase the total user-space with /PAE and /largeaddressaware but that only leaves you 250MB for the OS and drivers which simply will not happen without major problems.

The difference with Vista 64 is that 32-bit apps can EACH have 2GB by default and the addressable limit is up to 128GB or 8TB or whatever your chipset/CPU support so there is really no current limitations on your applications or your OS/drivers. You can also increase user-space to 3GB for 32-bit apps without worrying about running into kernel-space or other user-space apps because you don't have the 3.25GB 32-bit addressable limit.

Current games can and will use more than 2GB and when they do, they'll perform better with a 64-bit OS compared to a 32-bit OS, plain and simple. If they didn't or couldn't, there would be no need for devs to flag /largeaddressaware. This will only become more obvious as more Devs make their games /largeaddressaware or code for systems with 64-bit and more RAM in mind. If you can't acknowledge the benefit of a program using more RAM you simply don't understand how more/less RAM impacts performance. As I've said many times, you typically won't see this with a FPS meter. Even people who report stuttering/hitching typically won't see a drop in FPS.

i run FRAPS and i DO see slowdowns in Hg:L - which still *needs* a patch to fix its memory management! *All* my '07 games run with everything *maxed* in DX9 at 16x10 with none of the horrors you describe. *Adding* another +2GB of System RAM will allow me to play with MORE overhead.

Strangely you can't communicate any advantage other than how *your* system runs games

I've communicated it clearly many times. You just simply don't understand how more RAM can improve performance, probably because you've always relied on "just enough" waiting and waiting before adding more only to realize its "just enough" again.

[/quote]
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between 64-bit and 32-bit mode and are just willing to put up with 64-bit immaturity to be on the "cutting edge" ... you even crow about it when your rig is stable for a "whole week" - big deal!


Yes i am glad to have "enough" ... enough to run all my DX9 games without compromise


When it all comes down to PRACTICALITY, Vista 32Bit is *still* just as high-end for gaming as 64-bit ... and running with 3.3GB of System RAM is no disadvantage yet.

 

[Mem]

32 bit is no longer valid

High end starts at 64

I do like my Vista x64 a lot ,however at present 32 bit version is still valid for gaming,as to high end(weird to call it high end) I would say go with Vista x64 if you want to use 4GB+ or have a SLI setup since in SLI mode you can lose anywhere from 512mb to 2GB depending on the video cards memory size.

I actually lost 512mb out of my total 4GB(3.5GB showing) for my hardware on my ex- XP 32 bit PC (had a 256mb video card),would hate to think how much I would lose with 512mb card or SLI setup.


Vista x 64 is the future which hopefully won' be far off,32 bit version still has some life left in it and is very much still valid for gaming etc. at this time.

When it all comes down to PRACTICALITY, Vista 32Bit is *still* just as high-end for gaming as 64-bit ... and running with 3.3GB of System RAM is no disadvantage yet.

I can see what apoppin is trying to say and agree with him to a point,however I' m sort of person that if I had 4GB of ram(which I do) or had SLI setup ( ie..2x512mb) would still like to be able to see and use all available ram ,then rather lose some to the restrictions of a 32 bit OS with 4GB, so would go Vista x64 for sure(you know I did ) ,being high end or low end has nothing to do with it for me,its about being able to use what I paid for (nobody likes to lose some of their memory due to 32 bit restrictions and the only way round that is 64bit OS in 4GB situation).

Vista x64 is future and very good at the moment in my experience ,wonder how long before we see video cards bigger then 1GB,throw in SLI setup and demanding games and future looks bright for Vista x64,right now Vista x68 is holding its own(I agree with apoppin here) but the time will come sooner or later when Vista x64 will be needed for serious gaming,only time will tell when.We all all know video cards are getting bigger (I still remember my 1mb video card hehe ) and games are getting more demanding as time moves on.

Side Note: no harm or anything wrong going Vista x64 right now( if you have the drivers and software compatibility) then again no harm in staying on Vista x68 until you need to move over to Vista x64,guess your call as they say and only the future will tell when the rest of us need to jump over to 64 bit OS for gaming etc...

Anyway that's my opinion for what's it worth without getting into any arguments(don't shoot the messenger ).

 

[JustaGeek]

Very rational, mature and realistic opinion, Mem. :thumbsup:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Yes, i DO have 32-bit Vista, 2GB ReadyBoost and a bunch of unanswered questions. You are the one that is certain that we should all change to 64-bit on the basis on one rather incomplete article and the "personal testimony" of 3 or 4 forum members.

Uh, no. Once again I'm not here to tell everyone to switch to 64-bit, as I've said numerous times I have issue with people who ignorantly claim games today can't use more than 2GB or there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS when that's clearly not the case.

i am not impressed with an "up time of a week" ... if that is an example of 64-bit "stability", find another

If I didn't install 169.21 it'd probably be closer to 3 weeks actually. As I said earlier Vista 64 for me for the last 2 months has been as stable as any XP install I've had in the past (moreso probably, no BSODs or restarts which I still saw in XP until the day I stopped using it) and also handles multi-tasking and games that make use of 2GB+ better as well. During that week I ran Witcher 24/7 and finished it, which is pretty good I guess considering the game is so "buggy".

and your comparison of how 64-bit "feels" over 32-bit, i say they are apples-to-oranges. In comparing both Windows Vista and , you should notice that page file usage is also slightly higher in Windows Vista 64-bit over 32-bit . Wouldn't you say memory pointers are also slightly higher in a 64-bit environment, as well as the added overhead of the Windows 64-bit compatibility layer required for running 32-bit games?

That's why I use Commit Charge and not Page File size when comparing the differences between 32 and 64-bit RAM use. AT took it a step further and analyzes both the physical and virtual memory used and found virtual memory required could exceed physical ten-fold. If you let Windows manage the page file, an increase in page file as physical memory use increases is expected and normal in order for the page file to continue to serve its intended purpose. However, with more physical RAM the actual need to swap or page is reduced which again, is one of the main benefits of having more RAM.

As for WOW64 overhead....its possible there could be a slight performance decrease relative to 32-bit but I highly doubt its greater than the performance hit seen when apps are fighting over the same 2GB or with the OS over that contested 1.25GB. Again, simple test is to run an intensive game and see how quickly you can alt-tab to desktop. To extend that, see if you can run multiple games and observe the impact on your system. For me with a 64-bit OS and 4GB+ its like swapping between IE browsers.

We don't have 6GB of data/textures that you need to fit inside a 2-3GB envelope yet. You are talking the future.

Huh? Have you even looked in your game install folders to see what they're comprised of? Unless you're playing games over a year old, you'd probably notice they're now printed on DVDs, not CDs. That's 9GB for a dual-layer DVD with most new games using close to all of that with some even requiring more than 1 DVD. And that's before you get into any new/downloaded additional content. Now if you actually look inside of those game install folders, you'll see that probably 75-80% of that data is textures/sound with 20-25% being client/misc/fmvs etc. As games become more impressive visually and more games make use of extensive voice acting, the size and complexity of these data files has increased significantly.

But a few examples to disprove your claim is LOTRO, taken straight from my game directory:

client_highres.dat 2.1GB
client_sound.dat 1.8GB
client_surface.dat 1.4GB

That's 5.3GB just for the main texture/sound files without any additional content. Coincidentally LOTRO is one of the titles myself and many others (just browse the LOTRO forums) have observed significant increases in performance from more RAM and a 64-bit OS, especially after the patch that enabled /largeaddressaware for 64-bit systems.

Other examples would be CoH where you can have textures/models/sounds from BOTH games on a single map basically doubling the amount of data that needs to be loaded/cached before you even concern yourself with typical performance issues like frame rates. Hell even FFXI, a 6 year old PS2 port has ~7GB of data/textures over the course of 4 expansions and downloaded updates.

i run FRAPS and i DO see slowdowns in Hg:L - which still *needs* a patch to fix its memory management!

Even with FRAPs open you wouldn't know for certain if the slowdowns were GPU-related or RAM-related. I also run 2 Raptors, which get quite loud when they're "chopping wood" and help me recognize when a slowdown is potentially a RAM/swap issue. I'm sure many others do as well since I'm certainly not the one who coined the phrase "HDD thrashing" years ago.

A memory management fix wouldn't even necessarily solve your problems since again, HG:L is a relative new and graphically impressive game. I haven't played it myself but I'm sure its "zoned" in the sense that areas are broken up and require loading between transitions. If the size of the data/textures in your particular zone exceed the amount of physical RAM available, chances are you will see slowdowns/stuttering/thrashing as you move around as the engine attempts to compensate and load/flush data. A memory management fix might increase performance by more efficiently flushing/loading data but this "workaround" may still result in a performance hit (you'll have less cached in order to free up room for "swapped" data), and is unnecessary or less necessary with more physical RAM as there is less need to flush and load new textures to physical memory.

*All* my '07 games run with everything *maxed* in DX9 at 16x10 with none of the horrors you describe. *Adding* another +2GB of System RAM will allow me to play with MORE overhead.

That's nice, but that doesn't mean other systems running higher resolutions or other games can't benefit from additional RAM (as proven many times over). But again, that's the crux of the issue. 16:10 is far from high-end today, especially when running Tri-SLI on the fastest hardware that 99.99% of users won't run at 2560x1600 with AA and max everything.

Also, if you paid closer attention to what I posted in my previous reply about 32-bit addressing limitations and some of the comments from other people, you'd realize that you may not see the full benefit of that additional 1.25GB. But again, that's only something you'd know AFTER you made the leap and only fully realize after you went to 64-bit.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between 64-bit and 32-bit mode and are just willing to put up with 64-bit immaturity to be on the "cutting edge"

I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the differences. So much in fact that I was willing to put up with the associated problems and cost of 64-bit as I saw the potential for increased performance and system functionality. Needless to say I haven't been disappointed and addressed my 2nd biggest concern when it comes to performance :thumbsup: (1.FPS/CPU/GPU, 2.RAM/Paging/loading/stuttering/thrashing, 3.HDD/Storage transfer/access times).

... you even crow about it when your rig is stable for a "whole week" - big deal!

Again, its been stable far longer than that and especially relevant considering I've been running a game you consider "buggy" flawlessly in that time period.

Yes i am glad to have "enough" ... enough to run all my DX9 games without compromise

Except in games that have buggy memory management (and can use more RAM than you have available).

When it all comes down to PRACTICALITY, Vista 32Bit is *still* just as high-end for gaming as 64-bit ... and running with 3.3GB of System RAM is no disadvantage yet.
[/b]

According to you, which means absolutely nothing as you've proven over the last 3 pages.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
Yes, i DO have 32-bit Vista, 2GB ReadyBoost and a bunch of unanswered questions. You are the one that is certain that we should all change to 64-bit on the basis on one rather incomplete article and the "personal testimony" of 3 or 4 forum members.

Uh, no. Once again I'm not here to tell everyone to switch to 64-bit, as I've said numerous times I have issue with people who ignorantly claim games today can't use more than 2GB or there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS when that's clearly not the case.

i haven't seen *any* "people" claim that "today's games can't use more than 2GB" or who say "there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS". So you are taking issues with your own imagination.

i am not impressed with an "up time of a week" ... if that is an example of 64-bit "stability", find another

If I didn't install 169.21 it'd probably be closer to 3 weeks actually. As I said earlier Vista 64 for me for the last 2 months has been as stable as any XP install I've had in the past (moreso probably, no BSODs or restarts which I still saw in XP until the day I stopped using it) and also handles multi-tasking and games that make use of 2GB+ better as well. During that week I ran Witcher 24/7 and finished it, which is pretty good I guess considering the game is so "buggy". [/quote]

Sure ... "probably" ... whatever
... some people have no problem with the Witcher and others are reporting serious issues. Doesn't seem to matter if the OS is 64- or 32- bit.

and your comparison of how 64-bit "feels" over 32-bit, i say they are apples-to-oranges. In comparing both Windows Vista and , you should notice that page file usage is also slightly higher in Windows Vista 64-bit over 32-bit . Wouldn't you say memory pointers are also slightly higher in a 64-bit environment, as well as the added overhead of the Windows 64-bit compatibility layer required for running 32-bit games?

That's why I use Commit Charge and not Page File size when comparing the differences between 32 and 64-bit RAM use. AT took it a step further and analyzes both the physical and virtual memory used and found virtual memory required could exceed physical ten-fold. If you let Windows manage the page file, an increase in page file as physical memory use increases is expected and normal in order for the page file to continue to serve its intended purpose. However, with more physical RAM the actual need to swap or page is reduced which again, is one of the main benefits of having more RAM.

As for WOW64 overhead....its possible there could be a slight performance decrease relative to 32-bit but I highly doubt its greater than the performance hit seen when apps are fighting over the same 2GB or with the OS over that contested 1.25GB. Again, simple test is to run an intensive game and see how quickly you can alt-tab to desktop. To extend that, see if you can run multiple games and observe the impact on your system. For me with a 64-bit OS and 4GB+ its like swapping between IE browsers. [/quote]

Utterly ridiculous ... WtF would i ever *want* to run multiple games? There are NO games written for 64-bit ... when THAT happens we *will* see solid performance increases. Until then you can "feel better" with your imagined advantages. As to Alt+Tab'bing to desktop, even in Hg:L it is instantaneous - so i am not sure about your point.

We don't have 6GB of data/textures that you need to fit inside a 2-3GB envelope yet. You are talking the future.

Huh? Have you even looked in your game install folders to see what they're comprised of? Unless you're playing games over a year old, you'd probably notice they're now printed on DVDs, not CDs. That's 9GB for a dual-layer DVD with most new games using close to all of that with some even requiring more than 1 DVD. And that's before you get into any new/downloaded additional content. Now if you actually look inside of those game install folders, you'll see that probably 75-80% of that data is textures/sound with 20-25% being client/misc/fmvs etc. As games become more impressive visually and more games make use of extensive voice acting, the size and complexity of these data files has increased significantly.

But a few examples to disprove your claim is LOTRO, taken straight from my game directory:

client_highres.dat 2.1GB
client_sound.dat 1.8GB
client_surface.dat 1.4GB

That's 5.3GB just for the main texture/sound files without any additional content. Coincidentally LOTRO is one of the titles myself and many others (just browse the LOTRO forums) have observed significant increases in performance from more RAM and a 64-bit OS, especially after the patch that enabled /largeaddressaware for 64-bit systems.

Other examples would be CoH where you can have textures/models/sounds from BOTH games on a single map basically doubling the amount of data that needs to be loaded/cached before you even concern yourself with typical performance issues like frame rates. Hell even FFXI, a 6 year old PS2 port has ~7GB of data/textures over the course of 4 expansions and downloaded updates.

More ridiculous FUD about textures and games. IF that WERE true, then your 8GB wouldn't be enough. Let's see those "significant increases in performance from more RAM and a 64-bit OS" in LoTRO.

i run FRAPS and i DO see slowdowns in Hg:L - which still *needs* a patch to fix its memory management!

Even with FRAPs open you wouldn't know for certain if the slowdowns were GPU-related or RAM-related. I also run 2 Raptors, which get quite loud when they're "chopping wood" and help me recognize when a slowdown is potentially a RAM/swap issue. I'm sure many others do as well since I'm certainly not the one who coined the phrase "HDD thrashing" years ago.

A memory management fix wouldn't even necessarily solve your problems since again, HG:L is a relative new and graphically impressive game. I haven't played it myself but I'm sure its "zoned" in the sense that areas are broken up and require loading between transitions. If the size of the data/textures in your particular zone exceed the amount of physical RAM available, chances are you will see slowdowns/stuttering/thrashing as you move around as the engine attempts to compensate and load/flush data. A memory management fix might increase performance by more efficiently flushing/loading data but this "workaround" may still result in a performance hit (you'll have less cached in order to free up room for "swapped" data), and is unnecessary or less necessary with more physical RAM as there is less need to flush and load new textures to physical memory.

What are you taking about?


NO slowdowns ... and Hg:L is now fine with my antiVirus and background programs running after the new patch.

*All* my '07 games run with everything *maxed* in DX9 at 16x10 with none of the horrors you describe. *Adding* another +2GB of System RAM will allow me to play with MORE overhead.

That's nice, but that doesn't mean other systems running higher resolutions or other games can't benefit from additional RAM (as proven many times over). But again, that's the crux of the issue. 16:10 is far from high-end today, especially when running Tri-SLI on the fastest hardware that 99.99% of users won't run at 2560x1600 with AA and max everything.

Also, if you paid closer attention to what I posted in my previous reply about 32-bit addressing limitations and some of the comments from other people, you'd realize that you may not see the full benefit of that additional 1.25GB. But again, that's only something you'd know AFTER you made the leap and only fully realize after you went to 64-bit.

no i *don't* play at 25x16 so i can't comment. But at 16x10 a 4GB 64-bit OS system will have no practical advantage in games over a 4GB 32-bit OS ... that is the real crux of my argument.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between 64-bit and 32-bit mode and are just willing to put up with 64-bit immaturity to be on the "cutting edge"

I'm quite comfortable with my understanding of the differences. So much in fact that I was willing to put up with the associated problems and cost of 64-bit as I saw the potential for increased performance and system functionality. Needless to say I haven't been disappointed and addressed my 2nd biggest concern when it comes to performance :thumbsup: (1.FPS/CPU/GPU, 2.RAM/Paging/loading/stuttering/thrashing, 3.HDD/Storage transfer/access times).

... you even crow about it when your rig is stable for a "whole week" - big deal!

Again, its been stable far longer than that and especially relevant considering I've been running a game you consider "buggy" flawlessly in that time period.

Again ... perhaps you are just *lucky* with the Witcher. i also see the potential for 64-bit OSes when they fully mature, when drivers are universal and when games *need* it ... for me, that will likely be '09. You just are just an earlier adopter. Goodie for you.

Yes i am glad to have "enough" ... enough to run all my DX9 games without compromise

Except in games that have buggy memory management (and can use more RAM than you have available).

When it all comes down to PRACTICALITY, Vista 32Bit is *still* just as high-end for gaming as 64-bit ... and running with 3.3GB of System RAM is no disadvantage yet.
[/b]

According to you, which means absolutely nothing as you've proven over the last 3 pages.

[/quote]

As if you have proven anything- except in your own mind

EDIT: You DO realize that the MS "hotfix" for Vista DID solve - for NOW - the "2 GB Barrier" with no performance penalty. Let's look at their *conclusions*

http://www.anandtech.com/syste...howdoc.aspx?i=3060&p=3

... it is a solution to Vista's extreme virtual address space usage. For gamers who are or may be experiencing crashes related to the 2GB barrier, and who are weary of the fixes we outlined in part 1, this is the best solution to resolving the problem for now.

We'd like to pause on "for now" though, as in spite of our enthusiasm for this hotfix we can't ignore the fact that this is a fix to take care of what we feel was a stupid problem in Vista long-overdue for a solution, but that's it. This hotfix won't resolve the 2GB barrier; at best it buys some more time for the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista, and at worse it's no better for applications that don't make heavy use of video memory. The 2GB barrier is still the imposing problem this series is all about, and dealing with it won't be any easier, but with this hotfix at least status quo is (nearly) maintained a bit longer. ...

it buys me a couple more years ... for me ... and then i will move to 64-bit when games are routinely ported to 64-bit applications.

. . . and it looks like i have plenty of time ... from AT's first article:

http://www.anandtech.com/gadge...howdoc.aspx?i=3034&p=7

As we wrap things up, we'll reserve a few words for game & application developers who are working on projects that will hit the barrier. Supreme Commander is extremely disappointing in how it handles running out of addressing space. Ideally we'd like for it not to crash, but realistically we'd settle for just an error message pointing out that it hit the 2GB barrier so that we could quickly reach a solution. Otherwise seemingly-random crashes tend to be one of the hardest problems to resolve as a user. Developers need to take care here to offer some kind of warning when the 2GB barrier is the problem; not everyone is or will be well read on the subject or have the time to diagnose it, when it's actually an easily solvable problem.

Getting back to the point at hand however, we feel that this is only going to be the tip of the iceberg. As games and applications continue to come out that push the boundaries of computer hardware and run afoul of the 2GB barrier, these problems will only pick up in pace. For many power users this experience will be a common occurrence, and for most it will be a frustrating experience.

We're at the front end of a messy transition, one that may not end for several years. Today, 32bit games will hit the 2GB barrier, and tomorrow games with support for large addressing will hit the 3GB/4GB barrier. Not until 64bit versions of games are ubiquitous will we be completely through this transition, and that will still be a few years away.

So i have just *now* hit the 2GB barrier and *eventually* i will hit the 3-4GB barrier ... just what i have been saying - over-and-over.
:roll:

Without any doubt whatsoever - outside the extreme examples and bad coding of some game devs - *for today's gamers* ... 32 bit is still totally valid and the "High end" starts at 32bit.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
<i haven't seen *any* "people" claim that "today's games can't use more than 2GB" or who say "there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS". So you are taking issues with your own imagination.

Huh? Are you serious? I could cut and paste a dozen instances where you say exactly that or imply it or directly refute evidence to the contrary. Based on what? Absolutely nothing. But to refresh your memory (how appropriate, really):

You said -games do not need 4GB of System RAM and 64 bit to make any practical difference over 3.3GB and 32bit

and

- and absolutely positively ZERO advantage in any current games of the "extra" addressable 0.7GB system RAM - no practical difference between 3.3 GB of Vista 32 vs. 4.0 GB available to 64bit.

and

and you have not pointed out a *single benefit* - for gaming - of addressing 4.0GB over 3.3GB of system RAM. All you talk about are "potential for tangible benefits"

etc.

Again, the problem is that you don't even understand that more RAM-use equates to better performance and that if a game can use more RAM you're less likely to see some of the problems associated with current 32-bit limits.

Sure ... "probably" ... whatever
... some people have no problem with the Witcher and others are reporting serious issues. Doesn't seem to matter if the OS is 64- or 32- bit.

Nope, but again, just emphasizes the point I've managed to run this "buggy" game from start to finish without issue.

Utterly ridiculous ... WtF would i ever *want* to run multiple games?

Of course you wouldn't run multiple games, you still think its natural to practice antiquated and backward techniques like shutting down apps/programs and "major crap" like 2 instances of IE to run a single game. But try and use your imagination. There's many practical advantages to being able to run multiple games at once, particularly in MMOs. "Dual-boxing" is quite common and you don't even need a 2nd box if your system and the game is capable of running multiple game instances. Another nice advantage is being able to run off for a few rounds of say, COD4, while waiting around without having half your guild log out.

There are NO games written for 64-bit ... when THAT happens we *will* see solid performance increases. Until then you can "feel better" with your imagined advantages.

There are actually a few 64-bit games but you don't need a 64-bit native game to start seeing the advantages of 64-bit and 4GB+ as you'll see a benefit with current 32-bit games, especially ones that enable /largeaddressaware.

As to Alt+Tab'bing to desktop, even in Hg:L it is instantaneous - so i am not sure about your point.

Considering you need to shut down half your system in order to get the game to run smooth I find that hard to believe. Not to mention alt-tabbing with 2GB in Vista is painful, to say the least.

More ridiculous FUD about textures and games. IF that WERE true, then your 8GB wouldn't be enough.

Right, more FUD LOL. I just broke down the exact size of the main client texture/sound files and you call that FUD since once again, you've been proven wrong. Open up any of your recent games and look at the size of the game directories. What exactly do you think is happening when you're staring at a loading screen or your HDD starts thrashing as you move around or zone?

And 8GB is enough to fully load and cache 5.3GB of data (simple math really), but again, that's not going to be the case with a 32-bit game. The game is still going to flush/load data, its just going to do it much less intrusively if you have more RAM (again, because its doing it less often or the data it needs was never fully flushed from physical RAM). But that doesn't mean there's no advantage to the extra RAM since up to 3GB will be fully addressable by the game engine and the extra RAM will be managed by Vista to cache recently used data, thereby by-passing the need to hit the page file.

As I've said throughout, 32-bit is holding gaming back in this sense since games are still programmed for 32-bit systems with minimum rec'd specs; right now 64-bit and more RAM allows a game to flush/load data less frequently which ultimately leads to smoother gameplay, shorter load times, and even fewer/less frequent crashes etc. in games that actually take advantage of and use additional RAM.

Let's see those "significant increases in performance from more RAM and a 64-bit OS" in LoTRO

Here's one example, feel free to follow the link he provided to the video forums for hundreds more similar testimonies. Key date to look for is June 10th since that's was the release of a patch and 64-bit /largeaddressaware for LOTRO.

Leypar
I also am running two OC XFX Geforce 8600 GTS's in SLI. I usually run around 40 fps in high mode as very high and ultra high need to be worked on. If You can't achieve around 40 fps then you might want to read through the first page of this http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?t=67651 . I'm not sure if your 2 gigs is enough. I run 4 gigs of Ram and use 80 percent of that in game play.

Hope this helps.

Or better yet, download the trial for yourself and simply go to Bree (#1 cited complaint for HDD thrashing/crashing and referenced as such by the Devs). Don't worry, I know it says 6.6GB for the high-res client, but its really 3.25GB "Just enough for 32-bit" with another 3.3GB of "other stuff".

LOTRO Free Trial Link

What are you taking about?


NO slowdowns ... and Hg:L is now fine with my antiVirus and background programs running after the new patch.

I highly doubt you'd be able to recognize problems given your inability to see how more RAM actually benefits performance.

no i *don't* play at 25x16 so i can't comment. But at 16x10 a 4GB 64-bit OS system will have no practical advantage in games over a 4GB 32-bit OS ... that is the real crux of my argument.

For someone who can't comment you sure do have a lot to say and are awfully sure of your position. Which again only emphasizes the fact you're arguing from a position of complete ignorance since:

• 1) The OP was referring to a 2560x1600 rig running in 32-bit being invalid.
  2) You don't have 4GB in your 32-bit rig so you wouldn't know of any differences anyways.
  3) Even if you did have 4GB you might still see very little benefit (other than Windows having more physical RAM) due to the limitations of 32-bit OSes.

Again ... perhaps you are just *lucky* with the Witcher.

Ya....its all LUCK! LMAO. So now we have emoticons, FUD, ReadyBoost, Highlights and LUCK! That must be it.....

Witcher RAM usage after actually playing for a few hours.....

I don't think its "luck", just as its not luck in Supreme Commander, CoH, LOTRO and any other game that uses more than 2GB and pushes System RAM use above 3.25GB.

i also see the potential for 64-bit OSes when they fully mature, when drivers are universal and when games *need* it ... for me, that will likely be '09. You just are just an earlier adopter. Goodie for you.[/COLOR]

I doubt it since you can't see that games TODAY are making use of 64-bit and 3.25GB+. But I'm sure you're just spewing all this garbage so you can come back in '09 with one of your triumphant "I TOLD YOU SO" posts. :roll:

As if you have proven anything- except in your own mind

EDIT: You DO realize that the MS "hotfix" for Vista DID solve - for NOW - the "2 GB Barrier" with no performance penalty. Let's look at their *conclusions*

http://www.anandtech.com/syste...howdoc.aspx?i=3060&p=3

I think I've made a pretty convincing argument that you have no clue what you're talking about. If there was any doubt I think my last SS erased it. Saddest part is that Witcher isn't even the most RAM intensive game that I run although it clearly benefits from more RAM given how much you zone and run around. It just happens to be the one I've playing lately, and with some "luck" I'm now up to 10 days Up Time!

As for the AT article...you may want to read it again, start to finish, carefully and better educate yourself since their conclusion is completely different from your interpretation......

• AT's conclusion: It's not a solution to the 2GB barrier, but it is a solution to Vista's extreme virtual address space usage.....
  
  The long-term solution to this virtual address space problem is 64-bit hardware, which has significantly more address space. Windows Vista X64 provides 8 TB (8,096 GB) of user-mode virtual address space to native 64-bit applications. This is large enough to allow growth on both video memory configurations and application memory usage for many years.

LMAO I love how you conveniently left out the bolded portion when you quoted the link.

it buys me a couple more years ... for me ... and then i will move to 64-bit when games are routinely ported to 64-bit applications.

And once again....games don't need to be 64-bit when they already benefit from more RAM now.....

. . . and it looks like i have plenty of time ... from AT's first article:

http://www.anandtech.com/gadge...howdoc.aspx?i=3034&p=7

That was 6 months ago. As stated and proven, even games/systems then could use more than 2GB/3.25GB and even more can today. You might think you have plenty of time but that doesn't change the fact that games today CAN and WILL exceed the limits of a 32-bit OS, which again, is the only thing I took issue with in the debate between 32-bit and 64-bit.

So i have just *now* hit the 2GB barrier and *eventually* i will hit the 3-4GB barrier ... just what i have been saying - over-and-over.
:roll:

Without any doubt whatsoever - outside the extreme examples and bad coding of some game devs - *for today's gamers* ... 32 bit is still totally valid and the "High end" starts at 32bit.

LMAO, again back to the bug argument. Yep, I'm sure game devs will wait until you're ready to declare a need for a 64-bit OS and more RAM. Too bad that's just not how it works as proven by the number of titles today that can and will make use of a 64-bit OS and more RAM.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
<<i haven't seen *any* "people" claim that "today's games can't use more than 2GB" or who say "there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS". So you are taking issues with your own imagination.

Huh? Are you serious? I could cut and paste a dozen instances where you say exactly that or imply it or directly refute evidence to the contrary. Based on what? Absolutely nothing. But to refresh your memory (how appropriate, really):

You said -games do not need 4GB of System RAM and 64 bit to make any practical difference over 3.3GB and 32bit

and

- and absolutely positively ZERO advantage in any current games of the "extra" addressable 0.7GB system RAM - no practical difference between 3.3 GB of Vista 32 vs. 4.0 GB available to 64bit.

and

and you have not pointed out a *single benefit* - for gaming - of addressing 4.0GB over 3.3GB of system RAM. All you talk about are "potential for tangible benefits"

etc.

Ooh the misquotes out of context. Yet, *NOwhere* - not even in your "examples" - do i say that "today's games can't use more than 2GB" or "there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS". READ what i write before you spout more nonsense about what you think i said.

Again, the problem is that you don't even understand that more RAM-use equates to better performance and that if a game can use more RAM you're less likely to see some of the problems associated with current 32-bit limits.

Sure ... "probably" ... whatever
... some people have no problem with the Witcher and others are reporting serious issues. Doesn't seem to matter if the OS is 64- or 32- bit.

Nope, but again, just emphasizes the point I've managed to run this "buggy" game from start to finish without issue.

Utterly ridiculous ... WtF would i ever *want* to run multiple games?

Of course you wouldn't run multiple games, you still think its natural to practice antiquated and backward techniques like shutting down apps/programs and "major crap" like 2 instances of IE to run a single game. But try and use your imagination. There's many practical advantages to being able to run multiple games at once, particularly in MMOs. "Dual-boxing" is quite common and you don't even need a 2nd box if your system and the game is capable of running multiple game instances. Another nice advantage is being able to run off for a few rounds of say, COD4, while waiting around without having half your guild log out.

it appears that you are only using your *imagination* in attempting to deride my "antiquated practices". It appears that 2 instances of IE *clog* your rig - perhaps something is wrong. i suppose you run Crysis on "very high" with no compromise. Your set-up of 'multiple games' is perfect for the ADD.
:roll:

There are NO games written for 64-bit ... when THAT happens we *will* see solid performance increases. Until then you can "feel better" with your imagined advantages.

There are actually a few 64-bit games but you don't need a 64-bit native game to start seeing the advantages of 64-bit and 4GB+ as you'll see a benefit with current 32-bit games, especially ones that enable /largeaddressaware.

Which games are 64-bit? Don't forget that 32-bit games workaround the "2GB limitation" also with the hotfix.

As to Alt+Tab'bing to desktop, even in Hg:L it is instantaneous - so i am not sure about your point.

Considering you need to shut down half your system in order to get the game to run smooth I find that hard to believe. Not to mention alt-tabbing with 2GB in Vista is painful, to say the least.

No 'pain' for me in alt+tab'bing - maybe something was wrong with your old 32-bit system. ... and the *only* program i ever shut down for Hg:L was my ANtiVirus [and automatic updates] - quit with the "half your system" BS

More ridiculous FUD about textures and games. IF that WERE true, then your 8GB wouldn't be enough.

Right, more FUD LOL. I just broke down the exact size of the main client texture/sound files and you call that FUD since once again, you've been proven wrong. Open up any of your recent games and look at the size of the game directories. What exactly do you think is happening when you're staring at a loading screen or your HDD starts thrashing as you move around or zone?

And 8GB is enough to fully load and cache 5.3GB of data (simple math really), but again, that's not going to be the case with a 32-bit game. The game is still going to flush/load data, its just going to do it much less intrusively if you have more RAM (again, because its doing it less often or the data it needs was never fully flushed from physical RAM). But that doesn't mean there's no advantage to the extra RAM since up to 3GB will be fully addressable by the game engine and the extra RAM will be managed by Vista to cache recently used data, thereby by-passing the need to hit the page file.

As I've said throughout, 32-bit is holding gaming back in this sense since games are still programmed for 32-bit systems with minimum rec'd specs; right now 64-bit and more RAM allows a game to flush/load data less frequently which ultimately leads to smoother gameplay, shorter load times, and even fewer/less frequent crashes etc. in games that actually take advantage of and use additional RAM.

You don't have the slightest *clue* about how game textures are loaded nor the amount of system RAM that is needed to make them work. Nor can you speak about "advantages" of a 64-bit OS when games are still 32-bit. The games that "eat RAM" are badly programmed [period]

Let's see those "significant increases in performance from more RAM and a 64-bit OS" in LoTRO

Here's one example, feel free to follow the link he provided to the video forums for hundreds more similar testimonies. Key date to look for is June 10th since that's was the release of a patch and 64-bit /largeaddressaware for LOTRO.

Leypar
I also am running two OC XFX Geforce 8600 GTS's in SLI. I usually run around 40 fps in high mode as very high and ultra high need to be worked on. If You can't achieve around 40 fps then you might want to read through the first page of this http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.php?t=67651 . I'm not sure if your 2 gigs is enough. I run 4 gigs of Ram and use 80 percent of that in game play.

Hope this helps.

Sure bring on More testimonials ... send me to a revival meeting, lord ... i believe!
... now lets see something *credible*

Or better yet, download the trial for yourself and simply go to Bree (#1 cited complaint for HDD thrashing/crashing and referenced as such by the Devs). Don't worry, I know it says 6.6GB for the high-res client, but its really 3.25GB "Just enough for 32-bit" with another 3.3GB of "other stuff".

LOTRO Free Trial Link

i DID play the LotRO trial for a week with the high res client with no memory problems with 2GB System RAM ... and i think you still don't have the slightest clue about "game textures" and how windows manages RAM. Do you actually think the ENTIRE game and ALL the textures are loaded all-at-once into memory?

What are you taking about?


NO slowdowns ... and Hg:L is now fine with my antiVirus and background programs running after the new patch.

I highly doubt you'd be able to recognize problems given your inability to see how more RAM actually benefits performance.

At least i don't make up supposed benefits of my OS and deride those with "lesser" systems

no i *don't* play at 25x16 so i can't comment. But at 16x10 a 4GB 64-bit OS system will have no practical advantage in games over a 4GB 32-bit OS ... that is the real crux of my argument.

For someone who can't comment you sure do have a lot to say and are awfully sure of your position. Which again only emphasizes the fact you're arguing from a position of complete ignorance since:

• 1) The OP was referring to a 2560x1600 rig running in 32-bit being invalid.
  2) You don't have 4GB in your 32-bit rig so you wouldn't know of any differences anyways.
  3) Even if you did have 4GB you might still see very little benefit (other than Windows having more physical RAM) due to the limitations of 32-bit OSes.

Your own ignorance is painfully obvious. And you have no clue what an additional +2GB of system will allow. Clearly you missed the part about the MS "hotfix" for 32-bit Vista

Again ... perhaps you are just *lucky* with the Witcher.

Ya....its all LUCK! LMAO. So now we have emoticons, FUD, ReadyBoost, Highlights and LUCK! That must be it.....

Better than derision, FUD and ignorance

Witcher RAM usage after actually playing for a few hours.....

I don't think its "luck", just as its not luck in Supreme Commander, CoH, LOTRO and any other game that uses more than 2GB and pushes System RAM use above 3.25GB.

The AT article already pointed out the way SC MISmanages memory

i also see the potential for 64-bit OSes when they fully mature, when drivers are universal and when games *need* it ... for me, that will likely be '09. You just are just an earlier adopter. Goodie for you.[/COLOR]

I doubt it since you can't see that games TODAY are making use of 64-bit and 3.25GB+. But I'm sure you're just spewing all this garbage so you can come back in '09 with one of your triumphant "I TOLD YOU SO" posts. :roll:

As if you have proven anything- except in your own mind

EDIT: You DO realize that the MS "hotfix" for Vista DID solve - for NOW - the "2 GB Barrier" with no performance penalty. Let's look at their *conclusions*

http://www.anandtech.com/syste...howdoc.aspx?i=3060&p=3

I think I've made a pretty convincing argument that you have no clue what you're talking about. If there was any doubt I think my last SS erased it. Saddest part is that Witcher isn't even the most RAM intensive game that I run although it clearly benefits from more RAM given how much you zone and run around. It just happens to be the one I've playing lately, and with some "luck" I'm now up to 10 days Up Time!

As for the AT article...you may want to read it again, start to finish, carefully and better educate yourself since their conclusion is completely different from your interpretation......

• AT's conclusion: It's not a solution to the 2GB barrier, but it is a solution to Vista's extreme virtual address space usage.....
  
  The long-term solution to this virtual address space problem is 64-bit hardware, which has significantly more address space. Windows Vista X64 provides 8 TB (8,096 GB) of user-mode virtual address space to native 64-bit applications. This is large enough to allow growth on both video memory configurations and application memory usage for many years.

LMAO I love how you conveniently left out the bolded portion when you quoted the link.

i read it yesterday again just to see if there was anything i missed. Evidently not. otoh you might need someone to explain it to you: "it is a solution to [32-bit] Vista's extreme virtual address space usage"

it buys me a couple more years ... for me ... and then i will move to 64-bit when games are routinely ported to 64-bit applications.

And once again....games don't need to be 64-bit when they already benefit from more RAM now.....

They need to be 64-bit to take advantage of the OS and for any performance increase. You are the one *claiming* that they benefit from more than 3,3GB of system RAM

. . . and it looks like i have plenty of time ... from AT's first article:

http://www.anandtech.com/gadge...howdoc.aspx?i=3034&p=7

That was 6 months ago. As stated and proven, even games/systems then could use more than 2GB/3.25GB and even more can today. You might think you have plenty of time but that doesn't change the fact that games today CAN and WILL exceed the limits of a 32-bit OS, which again, is the only thing I took issue with in the debate between 32-bit and 64-bit.

from the article - AGAIN : <<This hotfix won't resolve the 2GB barrier; at best it buys some more time for the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista, and at worse it's no better for applications that don't make heavy use of video memory. The 2GB barrier is still the imposing problem this series is all about, and dealing with it won't be any easier, but with this hotfix at least status quo is (nearly) maintained a bit longer.>>

argue with them about the status quo.

So i have just *now* hit the 2GB barrier and *eventually* i will hit the 3-4GB barrier ... just what i have been saying - over-and-over.
:roll:

Without any doubt whatsoever - outside the extreme examples and bad coding of some game devs - *for today's gamers* ... 32 bit is still totally valid and the "High end" starts at 32bit.

LMAO, again back to the bug argument. Yep, I'm sure game devs will wait until you're ready to declare a need for a 64-bit OS and more RAM. Too bad that's just not how it works as proven by the number of titles today that can and will make use of a 64-bit OS and more RAM.

Then you will be glad to name for us the 64-bit games available right now

and *don't forget* what AT's article said at the very end:

<<Today, 32bit games will hit the 2GB barrier, and tomorrow games with support for large addressing will hit the 3GB/4GB barrier.>>
That "today" is here and "tomorrow" is not as Vista 32-bit gamers have the MS hotfix that has moved the 2GB "barrier" to tomorrow as game fixes are implemented for large addressing in 32-bit.
... when most of us migrate to 64-bit in a *year or two*
--but thanks for pioneering 64-bit for us ... yes it is the future

 

[JustaGeek]

This thread just won't die, will it...?

With all due respect to my senior colleagues, I have stopped reading their exchanges of opinions a long time ago...

They're just soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Mem

32 bit is no longer valid

High end starts at 64

I do like my Vista x64 a lot ,however at present 32 bit version is still valid for gaming,as to high end(weird to call it high end) I would say go with Vista x64 if you want to use 4GB+ or have a SLI setup since in SLI mode you can lose anywhere from 512mb to 2GB depending on the video cards memory size.

I actually lost 512mb out of my total 4GB(3.5GB showing) for my hardware on my ex- XP 32 bit PC (had a 256mb video card),would hate to think how much I would lose with 512mb card or SLI setup.


Vista x 64 is the future which hopefully won' be far off,32 bit version still has some life left in it and is very much still valid for gaming etc. at this time.

When it all comes down to PRACTICALITY, Vista 32Bit is *still* just as high-end for gaming as 64-bit ... and running with 3.3GB of System RAM is no disadvantage yet.

I can see what apoppin is trying to say and agree with him to a point,however I' m sort of person that if I had 4GB of ram(which I do) or had SLI setup ( ie..2x512mb) would still like to be able to see and use all available ram ,then rather lose some to the restrictions of a 32 bit OS with 4GB, so would go Vista x64 for sure(you know I did ) ,being high end or low end has nothing to do with it for me,its about being able to use what I paid for (nobody likes to lose some of their memory due to 32 bit restrictions and the only way round that is 64bit OS in 4GB situation).

Vista x64 is future and very good at the moment in my experience ,wonder how long before we see video cards bigger then 1GB,throw in SLI setup and demanding games and future looks bright for Vista x64,right now Vista x68 is holding its own(I agree with apoppin here) but the time will come sooner or later when Vista x64 will be needed for serious gaming,only time will tell when.We all all know video cards are getting bigger (I still remember my 1mb video card hehe ) and games are getting more demanding as time moves on.

Side Note: no harm or anything wrong going Vista x64 right now( if you have the drivers and software compatibility) then again no harm in staying on Vista x68 until you need to move over to Vista x64,guess your call as they say and only the future will tell when the rest of us need to jump over to 64 bit OS for gaming etc...

Anyway that's my opinion for what's it worth without getting into any arguments(don't shoot the messenger ).

You have your *own* thread in the OS forum
-the one about Vista being "crap"


SLI/Crossfire only see the total vRAM of a single card ... they do not add ... if you have 2x2900xt in Xfire it will still only use 512MB vRAM ... not each card's 512MB ... so 64-bit is not needed over 32-bit for multiGPU configurations [yet?]
... as to "when" Video cards will be offered with more than 1GB of vRAM ... who knows? 1GB doesn't offer much [if any] advantage over 512MB with the current cards

i am not so sure you actually "lose anything" with 32-bit ... but i guess if 0.7 GB of RAM out of 4.0 is too much for you to "lose", go for 64-bit.

i am 100% agreed ... the FUTURE does belong to 64-bit ... especially gaming ... but the future is still the future
:clock:

The *only harm* from going with 64-bit is IF your applications or HW is not the latest ... for me, personally - that extra two years gives me *time* to upgrade at my leisure ... during which time i am not a disadvantaged gamer [whatsoever at 16x10]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
This thread just won't die, will it...?

That depends on how much patience Keys [or a visiting mod] has
:Q

... and it is L...ong because two the principal antagonists can't agree on ... anything

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Ooh the misquotes out of context. Yet, *NOwhere* - not even in your "examples" - do i say that "today's games can't use more than 2GB" or "there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS". READ what i write before you spout more nonsense about what you think i said.

LMAO ok....so then you're willing to admit that games today can and will use more than 2GB and push total system RAM use beyond 3.25GB and current 32-bit limitations? Because I've said this numerous times only for some ignorant reply like:

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
nonsense. all you are giving is "if ... if ... if ..." ... you are talking the future and i am speaking of the "right now". Right now, 32 bit XP is the choice of the vast majority of gamers. The "average" video card is LESS than a 1900 series card. The move to 64 bit will happen when it's 'time' ... not because you wish it

Just as games today can and will use more than than 2GB and total system RAM usage can and will exceed 3.25GB provided you have more RAM and a 64-bit OS. They'll use more than 3.25GB today ... not because you think 32-bit and 4GB is "just enough".

You are again speaking of the *future* ...

So once again, its not the future, as games today can and will take full advantage of 64-bit and 4GB+ RAM.

it appears that you are only using your *imagination* in attempting to deride my "antiquated practices". It appears that 2 instances of IE *clog* your rig - perhaps something is wrong.

Uh, no, remember you "doubted" and unsuccessfully attempted to discredit my SS due to all the "major crap" I had running (2 instances of IE, LMAO). I closed it down to just 1 instance of IE and the game/system was still using more RAM than you could possibly address in a 32-bit OS. In case you missed it:

Witcher RAM use....a 32-bit game "TODAY"

i suppose you run Crysis on "very high" with no compromise. Your set-up of 'multiple games' is perfect for the ADD.:roll:

Running Crysis on "very high" without compromise is a limitation of current GPUs, but if that wasn't the case then more RAM would certainly benefit if the increased detail settings increased the game's memory footprint beyond 2/3.25GB. Crysis performance is clearly a GPU performance issue though, suggesting otherwise is just more nonsense and a parallel I never made, anywhere.

And my set-up for multiple games is actually one that's been useful and practiced for a very long time, it just typically required more than 1 PC to accomplish due to harsh performance penalties on a single machine. Even as long ago as Diablo 2 there was an incredible benefit from being able to run multiple game instances simultaneously as you could mule and create new games (and fill them) without relying on anyone else. Now you can power-level yourself, farm, and generally accompish things you simply could not do with just a single instance of the game. But hey, it only requires some imagination and capable hardware to realize this.

Which games are 64-bit? Don't forget that 32-bit games workaround the "2GB limitation" also with the hotfix.

FarCry, UT2003 and a few others have 64-bit clients. I believe Crysis does as well. The hot fix doesn't workaround the 2GB limit, it just frees addressable space within the 32-bit limit. /Largeaddressaware increases the 2GB limit but the impact is negligible since it still runs into 32-bit limitations with both the kernel and MMIO already occupying addressable memory above 2GB. We've already been over this, obviously you haven't been paying attention. But again, none of this refutes the fact that a game doesn't need to be 64-bit to benefit from a 64-bit OS and 4GB+ RAM, it only further emphasizes the benefits.

No 'pain' for me in alt+tab'bing - maybe something was wrong with your old 32-bit system. ... and the *only* program i ever shut down for Hg:L was my ANtiVirus [and automatic updates] - quit with the "half your system" BS

Alt-tabbing was fine in XP, still much faster in Vista with 4GB though. Alt-tabbing in Vista with 2GB otoh was sluggish, which is the same experience multiple published reviews and user accounts describe. So, either you have the fastest Vista 32 install on the planet (its gotta be the ReadyBoost) or our expectations are very different.

And about the shutting down half your system comments....I just find it funny that you insist you don't need more RAM, yet you have to shut down apps and try to discredit my screenshots because I have 2 instances of IE open.

You don't have the slightest *clue* about how game textures are loaded nor the amount of system RAM that is needed to make them work. Nor can you speak about "advantages" of a 64-bit OS when games are still 32-bit. The games that "eat RAM" are badly programmed [period]

ROFLMAO. I think this paragraph sums it up nicely. I don't know all the specifics no, but clearly I have a MUCH better grasp of how games manage memory than you do. At the heart of it is this. What is RAM? What purpose does it serve? What is a HDD? What purpose does it serve? Is there a difference in performance between RAM and a HDD? Would it be more desirable to run a game off your HDD or from RAM?

No...the games that "eat RAM" are not always "badly programmed", they need more RAM but they're forced to work within the confines of a 32-bit OS with less RAM than they can potentially use because people like you think 32-bit and 3.25GB is "just enough". Simply put, if you could load an entire game directory to RAM in a 64-bit OS with a 64-bit game client, would the game be programmed badly? That's why I provided detail of the size of client data files....because they exceed current 32-bit limitations and need to be constantly shuffled between the HDD and RAM as a result.

More testimonials ... send me to a revival meeting, lord ... i believe! ... now lets see something *credible*

I'd simply provide a SS of LOTRO RAM use, but that'd be assuming you actually understood the correlation between complaints about stuttering/thrashing in LOTRO and RAM. And that's also assuming you'd get past the fact I'm running "major crap" in the background like svchost, explorer, video and sound drivers...etc. LOL.

i played the trial for a week with the high res client ... and i think you still don't have th slightest clue about "game textures" and how windows manages RAM
What are you taking about?

So, how'd it run, manage to make it to Bree? See any hitching/stuttering when moving around? How were your load times? Better yet, go ahead and FRAPs a travel route run from say, Thorin's Gate to Duillond. Oh ya, I forgot, you're running the fastest 32-bit Vista/2GB install on the planet since you're the only person that can say they experienced no slowdowns/hitching/stuttering in LOTRO.

At least i don't make up supposed benefits of my OS and deride those with "lesser" systems

LOL making stuff up? I've provided SS and other proof to back up my points, you just can't make the connection that more RAM = better performance. It has nothing to do with "lesser" systems, its your insistence that a 64-bit system that exceeds 32-bit RAM-use limitations yields no benefit.

Your own ignorance is painfully obvious. And you have no clue what an additional +2GB of system will allow. Clearly you missed the part about the MS "hotfix" for 32-bit Vista

Uh...what did I miss? It gave you back 500MB or so addressable space that was crippling you relative to XP and Vista 64, which still leaves you around 500MB short of XP in terms of addressable space (hence the common suggestion to use +1GB of what you used in XP). The hot fix does nothing to address the 2GB Wall or the overall limitations of 32-bit addressable space.

Better than derision, FUD and ignorance

Derision maybe, but that's clearly deserved. There's no FUD or ignorance on my part though as I've gone to great lengths researching and experiencing the differences personally. Needless to say any FUD that existed prior to my switch to 64-bit has been addressed through first-hand experience.

The AT article already pointed out the way SC MISmanages memory

How is it mismanaging memory by simply calling data it needs in order to run? Again, if anything it shows the potential problems of increasing user-space and telling an application it has 3GB addressable space in a 32-bit OS when in reality it only has 3.25GB minus whatever the OS/driver need in order to continue functioning. Again, when there's a conflict of this nature it typically results in a BSOD page fault.

i read it yesterday again just to see if there was anything i missed. Evidently not. otoh you might need someone to explain it to you: "it is a solution to Vista's extreme virtual address space usage"

Ya, I think you need to read it again. It fixed some of Vista's memory issues but still does nothing for the greater problem of the 2GB wall and 32-bit address limits. If there was no 2GB/32-bit limit then the Vista address space usage wouldn't be an issue.

They need to be 64-bit to take advantage of the OS and for any performance increase. You are the one *claiming* that they benefit from more than 3,3GB of system RAM

No....they don't. I've already outlined the differences of a 32-bit OS and 64-bit OS even with 32-bit apps and the benefits. But if you can't understand this fundamental concept its no surprise you feel the way you do.

from the article - AGAIN : <<This hotfix won't resolve the 2GB barrier; at best it buys some more time for the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista, and at worse it's no better for applications that don't make heavy use of video memory. The 2GB barrier is still the imposing problem this series is all about, and dealing with it won't be any easier, but with this hotfix at least status quo is (nearly) maintained a bit longer.>>

argue with them

Argue with them about what? It bought you some time 6 months ago and that time is up with the slew of titles released since. Once again, games and systems today can and will use more than 2GB/3.25GB, plain and simple.

The you will be glad to name for us the 64-bit games available right nowi stand by *all* of my statements ... there is no contradiction.

And therein lies the problem I guess.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
Ooh the misquotes out of context. Yet, *NOwhere* - not even in your "examples" - do i say that "today's games can't use more than 2GB" or "there's no benefit to more than 3.25GB and a 32-bit OS". READ what i write before you spout more nonsense about what you think i said.

LMAO ok....so then you're willing to admit that games today can and will use more than 2GB and push total system RAM use beyond 3.25GB and current 32-bit limitations? Because I've said this numerous times only for some ignorant reply like:

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
nonsense. all you are giving is "if ... if ... if ..." ... you are talking the future and i am speaking of the "right now". Right now, 32 bit XP is the choice of the vast majority of gamers. The "average" video card is LESS than a 1900 series card. The move to 64 bit will happen when it's 'time' ... not because you wish it

Just as games today can and will use more than than 2GB and total system RAM usage can and will exceed 3.25GB provided you have more RAM and a 64-bit OS. They'll use more than 3.25GB today ... not because you think 32-bit and 4GB is "just enough".

You are again speaking of the *future* ...

So once again, its not the future, as games today can and will take full advantage of 64-bit and 4GB+ RAM.

<Your saying it over-and-over does not make it right. *SHOW* us where games benefit from using more than 3.3GB system RAM.

it appears that you are only using your *imagination* in attempting to deride my "antiquated practices". It appears that 2 instances of IE *clog* your rig - perhaps something is wrong.

Uh, no, remember you "doubted" and unsuccessfully attempted to discredit my SS due to all the "major crap" I had running (2 instances of IE, LMAO). I closed it down to just 1 instance of IE and the game/system was still using more RAM than you could possibly address in a 32-bit OS. In case you missed it:

Witcher RAM use....a 32-bit game "TODAY"

<Once again ... since you can't seem to comprehend it ... that is how The Witcher runs on *YOUR* system. Vista32 does not have to have a compatibility layer for 32-bit games nor are it's registers as swollen as your 64-bit system nor is 32 bits' memory management *identical* to yours

i suppose you run Crysis on "very high" with no compromise. Your set-up of 'multiple games' is perfect for the ADD.:roll:

Running Crysis on "very high" without compromise is a limitation of current GPUs, but if that wasn't the case then more RAM would certainly benefit if the increased detail settings increased the game's memory footprint beyond 2/3.25GB. Crysis performance is clearly a GPU performance issue though, suggesting otherwise is just more nonsense and a parallel I never made, anywhere.

And my set-up for multiple games is actually one that's been useful and practiced for a very long time, it just typically required more than 1 PC to accomplish due to harsh performance penalties on a single machine. Even as long ago as Diablo 2 there was an incredible benefit from being able to run multiple game instances simultaneously as you could mule and create new games (and fill them) without relying on anyone else. Now you can power-level yourself, farm, and generally accompish things you simply could not do with just a single instance of the game. But hey, it only requires some imagination and capable hardware to realize this.

Goodie for you ... i don't see it as an advantage nor do i see shutting down antiVir as a big disadvantage.

Which games are 64-bit? Don't forget that 32-bit games workaround the "2GB limitation" also with the hotfix.

FarCry, UT2003 and a few others have 64-bit clients. I believe Crysis does as well. The hot fix doesn't workaround the 2GB limit, it just frees addressable space within the 32-bit limit. /Largeaddressaware increases the 2GB limit but the impact is negligible since it still runs into 32-bit limitations with both the kernel and MMIO already occupying addressable memory above 2GB. We've already been over this, obviously you haven't been paying attention. But again, none of this refutes the fact that a game doesn't need to be 64-bit to benefit from a 64-bit OS and 4GB+ RAM, it only further emphasizes the benefits.

Strangely, Anandtech's review is of the opposite opinion form yours. They say it maintains the status quo. Again - argue with *them*.

No 'pain' for me in alt+tab'bing - maybe something was wrong with your old 32-bit system. ... and the *only* program i ever shut down for Hg:L was my ANtiVirus [and automatic updates] - quit with the "half your system" BS

Alt-tabbing was fine in XP, still much faster in Vista with 4GB though. Alt-tabbing in Vista with 2GB otoh was sluggish, which is the same experience multiple published reviews and user accounts describe. So, either you have the fastest Vista 32 install on the planet (its gotta be the ReadyBoost) or our expectations are very different.

And about the shutting down half your system comments....I just find it funny that you insist you don't need more RAM, yet you have to shut down apps and try to discredit my screenshots because I have 2 instances of IE open.

*one ap* ... antiVir ... and how is it with IE Closed?

You don't have the slightest *clue* about how game textures are loaded nor the amount of system RAM that is needed to make them work. Nor can you speak about "advantages" of a 64-bit OS when games are still 32-bit. The games that "eat RAM" are badly programmed [period]

ROFLMAO. I think this paragraph sums it up nicely. I don't know all the specifics no, but clearly I have a MUCH better grasp of how games manage memory than you do. At the heart of it is this. What is RAM? What purpose does it serve? What is a HDD? What purpose does it serve? Is there a difference in performance between RAM and a HDD? Would it be more desirable to run a game off your HDD or from RAM?

Excuse me, but you are ducking the issue .. you *don't have a CLUE*

No...the games that "eat RAM" are not always "badly programmed", they need more RAM but they're forced to work within the confines of a 32-bit OS with less RAM than they can potentially use because people like you think 32-bit and 3.25GB is "just enough". Simply put, if you could load an entire game directory to RAM in a 64-bit OS with a 64-bit game client, would the game be programmed badly? That's why I provided detail of the size of client data files....because they exceed current 32-bit limitations and need to be constantly shuffled between the HDD and RAM as a result.

<Sure they are badly programmed ... more demanding games manage to work very well within 32-bit as they appear to have better developed game engines

More testimonials ... send me to a revival meeting, lord ... i believe! ... now lets see something *credible*

I'd simply provide a SS of LOTRO RAM use, but that'd be assuming you actually understood the correlation between complaints about stuttering/thrashing in LOTRO and RAM. And that's also assuming you'd get past the fact I'm running "major crap" in the background like svchost, explorer, video and sound drivers...etc. LOL.

<i run the *same crap* in the background with Vista 32 and 2GB RAM - and none of the horrors you describe[a]

i played the trial for a week with the high res client ... and i think you still don't have th slightest clue about "game textures" and how windows manages RAM
What are you taking about?

So, how'd it run, manage to make it to Bree? See any hitching/stuttering when moving around? How were your load times? Better yet, go ahead and FRAPs a travel route run from say, Thorin's Gate to Duillond. Oh ya, I forgot, you're running the fastest 32-bit Vista/2GB install on the planet since you're the only person that can say they experienced no slowdowns/hitching/stuttering in LOTRO. [/quote]

<Sorry man ... none of the thrashing or slowdowns you describe ,,, except the game bored the hell out of me

At least i don't make up supposed benefits of my OS and deride those with "lesser" systems

LOL making stuff up? I've provided SS and other proof to back up my points, you just can't make the connection that more RAM = better performance. It has nothing to do with "lesser" systems, its your insistence that a 64-bit system that exceeds 32-bit RAM-use limitations yields no benefit.

<Proof in your mind - perhaps for 64-bit users that are already pre-convinced of its supposed superiority

Your own ignorance is painfully obvious. And you have no clue what an additional +2GB of system will allow. Clearly you missed the part about the MS "hotfix" for 32-bit Vista

Uh...what did I miss? It gave you back 500MB or so addressable space that was crippling you relative to XP and Vista 64, which still leaves you around 500MB short of XP in terms of addressable space (hence the common suggestion to use +1GB of what you used in XP). The hot fix does nothing to address the 2GB Wall or the overall limitations of 32-bit addressable space.

<Clearly you don't understand what the hot fix does ...
-- and IF you were correct then XP would be superior to Vista32 in gaming ... it is NOT[/quote]

Better than derision, FUD and ignorance

Derision maybe, but that's clearly deserved. There's no FUD or ignorance on my part though as I've gone to great lengths researching and experiencing the differences personally. Needless to say any FUD that existed prior to my switch to 64-bit has been addressed through first-hand experience.

<Yet with all your research there is no understanding[/quote]

The AT article already pointed out the way SC MISmanages memory

How is it mismanaging memory by simply calling data it needs in order to run? Again, if anything it shows the potential problems of increasing user-space and telling an application it has 3GB addressable space in a 32-bit OS when in reality it only has 3.25GB minus whatever the OS/driver need in order to continue functioning. Again, when there's a conflict of this nature it typically results in a BSOD page fault.[/quote]

<Other - just as demanding games don't have this problem; The AT article criticized SC - argue with them [again]

i read it yesterday again just to see if there was anything i missed. Evidently not. otoh you might need someone to explain it to you: "it is a solution to Vista's extreme virtual address space usage"

Ya, I think you need to read it again. It fixed some of Vista's memory issues but still does nothing for the greater problem of the 2GB wall and 32-bit address limits. If there was no 2GB/32-bit limit then the Vista address space usage wouldn't be an issue.

<*You* read it again ... or perhaps someone can read it to you and explain the hard parts you don't understand.

They need to be 64-bit to take advantage of the OS and for any performance increase. You are the one *claiming* that they benefit from more than 3,3GB of system RAM

No....they don't. I've already outlined the differences of a 32-bit OS and 64-bit OS even with 32-bit apps and the benefits. But if you can't understand this fundamental concept its no surprise you feel the way you do.

<Clearly you don't get it. 64bit differs from 32-bit in the way it handles memory management and gaming

from the article - AGAIN : <<This hotfix won't resolve the 2GB barrier; at best it buys some more time for the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista, and at worse it's no better for applications that don't make heavy use of video memory. The 2GB barrier is still the imposing problem this series is all about, and dealing with it won't be any easier, but with this hotfix at least status quo is (nearly) maintained a bit longer.>>

argue with them

Argue with them about what? It bought you some time 6 months ago and that time is up with the slew of titles released since. Once again, games and systems today can and will use more than 2GB/3.25GB, plain and simple.

Which you cannot show

The you will be glad to name for us the 64-bit games available right nowi stand by *all* of my statements ... there is no contradiction.

And therein lies the problem I guess.

Good ... two or three titles out of *thousands*
you are right about one thing: Mostly with you

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
<<Your saying it over-and-over does not make it right. *SHOW* us where games benefit from using more than 3.3GB system RAM.

So you do agree now that games/systems can and will use more than 3.3GB system RAM? And of course, that's not even getting into virtual RAM. As for showing you....there's no need. The mere fact it is using more RAM is demonstration enough. Its really as elementary as saying show me the difference between 640KB and 2GB.

<<Once again ... since you can't seem to comprehend it ... that is how The Witcher runs on *YOUR* system. Vista32 does not have to have a compatibility layer for 32-bit games nor are it's registers as swollen as your 64-bit system nor is 32 bits' memory management *identical* to yours

Yep, it runs that way on my system because its not constrained by 32-bit OS addressing limitations, only 32-bit application limitations. It can't run that way on a 32-bit OS because its simply not possible. But as I've said many times, reboot and look at how much RAM your system uses with nothing running by your desktop. There is no significant difference between Vista 32/64 as you'll be seeing anywhere from 1-1.2GB depending on what apps you have on startup, same as everyone else.

32-bit emulation is something any 64-bit processor handles seamlessly, as multiple reviews and comparisons have confirmed since Vista was released. The only discrepancies were between XP and Vista 32/64 and that gap has closed to the point its no longer significant. When running in WOW64 a single 32-bit application is treated identically as it would be in x86, however the OS can handle multiple 32-bit applications without the associated limitations of a 32-bit OS.

Goodie for you ... i don't see it as an advantage nor do i see shutting down antiVir as a big disadvantage.

Yep goodie for me. So once again, there is a practical advantage that you simply wouldn't realize until you were in a position to make use of that advantage.

Strangely, Anandtech's review is of the opposite opinion form yours. They say it maintains the status quo. Again - argue with *them*.

Yep, status quo = games are pushing 32-bit to the limit and showing its simply no longer enough. That was six months ago.

*one ap* ... antiVir ... and how is it with IE Closed?

Its there in the SS, 298MB difference which isn't a concern when you don't have to worry about available RAM and 32-bit limitations.

Excuse me, but you are ducking the issue .. you *don't have a CLUE*

LOL, no your quote "The games that "eat RAM" are badly programmed [period]" sufficiently drives the point home. I mean of course swapping 6GB+ worth of data into a 2-3GB envelope continuously is a much better solution than moving that 6GB once......lmao....go ReadyBoost!!!!

<<Sure they are badly programmed ... more demanding games manage to work very well within 32-bit as they appear to have better developed game engines

Except when they force you to close down your anti-virus and automatic updates and IExplorer and crash after playing too long etc. etc.

<<i run the *same crap* in the background with Vista 32 and 2GB RAM - and none of the horrors you describe[a]

Again I highly doubt you'd notice anyways, just maintaining the status quo and thinking your HDD and ReadyBoost will save you from such horrors.

<<Sorry man ... none of the thrashing or slowdowns you describe ,,, except the game bored the hell out of me

So you didn't make it out of the newbie instance and certainly didn't make it to Bree, gotcha.

<<Proof in your mind - perhaps for 64-bit users that are already pre-convinced of its supposed superiority

Nah, proof to any reasonable minded individual. Even the few who agreed with you at first are willing to acknowledge potential benefits and at the very least, test for themselves.

<<Clearly you don't understand what the hot fix does ...
-- and IF you were correct then XP would be superior to Vista32 in gaming ... it is NOT

I just explained exactly what the hot fix does, but again it does NOTHING to remedy the 32-bit address limitations of a 32-bit OS, it just frees up more for apps/games within that 3.25GB limit. And no there isn't much difference between XP and Vista 32 after the hot fix, although XP would still have a small advantage in available RAM due to lower system overhead.

<<Yet with all your research there is no understanding

When you can understand simple concepts like RAM being faster than your HDD or your Flash Drive come talk.

<<Other - just as demanding games don't have this problem; The AT article criticized SC - argue with them [again]

Where did they criticize SC? Oh right, they should've said use less units and factions, dumb down textures and graphics and basically create a game similar to what was available 3 years ago so that you wouldn't run into 32-bit addressable memory limitations.

<<*You* read it again ... or perhaps someone can read it to you and explain the hard parts you don't understand.

Again, I'm fully comfortable with my understanding of it, you can't even get past the simple arithmetic involved. But here's a tip: 1.2 + 2.0 = 3.2.
1.2 + 3.0 + 3.0 + 3.0 etc. = ? Its really that simple.....

<<Clearly you don't get it. 64bit differs from 32-bit in the way it handles memory management and gaming

Yes it handles memory management better on the OS level, but not on the application level. A 32-bit application is handled identically to how it would be handled by an x86 OS and any associated emulation overhead would be handled seamlessly by a 64-bit CPU.

<Which you cannot show

Show? They showed the difference in their article with SC using 2.6GB. The difference was the hot fix freed up enough addressable space so that the game didn't CRASH after it ran out of RAM. That doesn't do anything to resolve 32-bit OS limitations.

As for my example its simple, if I have 2.8GB(game) + 0.3GB(IE) + 1.2GB(OS/drivers) and I need to squeeze that into a 3.2GB space, its obvious which applications get the squeeze. As a result, the game will have to shrink its footprint down to 1.7-1.8GB in order to make room for other apps and the OS/drivers, meaning it will need to constantly pag/swap instead of simply remaining in memory. There's nothing you can really do about this other than closing apps or increasing that 2GB envelope closer to 3.25GB while squeezing that 1.2GB of OS/drivers to the point they cease to function properly (page_fault etc...)

Good ... two or three titles out of *thousands*
you are right about one thing: Mostly with you

Thanks for finally acknowledging there are current games that can and will use more than 2GB/3.25GB and exceed current 32-bit limitations. Now was that so hard? LMAO. You could've simply said you had no clue what you were talking about instead of showing how ignorant you were on the topic over the last 4 pages.

Anyways off to dinner, I'm sure I'll come back to more nonsense.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Thanks for finally acknowledging there are current games that can and will use more than 2GB/3.25GB and exceed current 32-bit limitations. Now was that so hard? LMAO. You could've simply said you had no clue what you were talking about instead of showing how ignorant you were on the topic over the last 4 pages.

Anyways off to dinner, I'm sure I'll come back to more nonsense.

i don't see *anything different* in your replies to me ... so the nonsense is all yours.

The point you still miss is that 32-bit IS currently just as valid and as high end - for gaming - as 64-bit.

You also seem to be "stuck" on the hot fix and only claim Vista32 is now on a par with XP when it was performing identically before it.
i am also saying that IF you were right, we would get a lot of slowdowns and hitching in the benchmarks in 32-bit which we do not see and have not seen.

In the hot fix, Microsoft changed the video memory manager to use less virtual memory. It is a "workaround" to be sure ... but sufficient for *today's gamers* on 32-bit.

from the MS web site:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

To address this problem, Microsoft is changing the way that the video memory manager maintains the content of video memory resources. This change is being made so that a permanent virtual address range does not have to be used for each virtualized allocation. With the new approach, only allocations that are created as "lockable" consume space in the virtual address space of the application. Allocations that are not created as "lockable" do not consume space. This approach significantly reduces the virtual address space that is used. Therefore, the application can run on large video memory configurations without reaching the limits.

Clever, really. Although it does not eliminate the 2-GB barrier, it allows a workaround for games. And yes, we will see games that are written for large address OSes only ... right now, the devs are keeping the 2GB limit well in mind. They write games with that limit in mind with the exceptions you mention including SC. You have been touting Supreme Commander as your "supreme example" of memory management, yet we read:

http://www.anandtech.com/gadge...howdoc.aspx?i=3034&p=7

Supreme Commander is extremely disappointing in how it handles running out of addressing space.

Games usually allocate virtual memory for a copy of the video memory resources that they create. According to MS, how much virtual memory it uses is proportional to the amount of video memory resources that the game allocates. SC should have been properly coded to handle memory allocation failures - it simply does not recover properly from its failures and crashes. Also, after the "hotfix" the AT article had this to say about CoH and to a lesser extent about SC and Stalker:

Whereas Company of Heroes would surpass the 2GB barrier under Vista just loading this mission without the hotfix, the game is safely under the 2GB barrier with the hotfix applied. Under Vista the game is still using an additional 160MB of virtual address space compared to XP, but this is far better than the gap being the entire size of the video memory on our 8800GTX prior to the hotfix.

You can ramble on and on and try to nitpick what i have written. But you still cannot show us to the contrary the *need* for a 64-bit OS in gaming. However, if we debate long enough i will agree with you -
--by the end of next year, most likely

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
The point you still miss is that 32-bit IS currently just as valid and as high end - for gaming - as 64-bit.

It isn't high-end though, its status quo and starting to show its limitations. When paired with the best possible hardware available, as was done in the Tri-SLI review its clearly unbalanced to use a 32-bit OS with such a high-end rig when such a rig should be tested at the highest resolutions and settings without compromise. Compromises made due to OS limitations are unacceptable when you're running $5,000 worth of hardware and trying to draw conclusions about the hardware itself.

You also seem to be "stuck" on the hot fix and only claim Vista32 is now on a par with XP when it was performing identically before it.
i am also saying that IF you were right, we would get a lot of slowdowns and hitching in the benchmarks in 32-bit which we do not see and have not seen.

The virtual memory problems with Vista pre-patch wouldn't necessarily exhibit themselves through slowdowns or hitching, and I think the differences between XP and Vista were quite evident in AT's article. It showed quite clearly that a lack of virtual memory resulted in a crash, which would predicate any slowdowns or performance issues. A slowdown or hitching would only come about if you lacked physical RAM but still had enough virtual memory to carry out the normal/required process of paging between physical and virtual memory, for example comparing a 1GB machine to 2GB machine. Both machines would continue to run without a crash, however the 1GB machine would be more likely to exhibit stuttering and thrashing than the 2GB machine.

In the hot fix, Microsoft changed the video memory manager to use less virtual memory. It is a "workaround" to be sure ... but sufficient for *today's gamers* on 32-bit

from the MS web site:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

To address this problem, Microsoft is changing the way that the video memory manager maintains the content of video memory resources. This change is being made so that a permanent virtual address range does not have to be used for each virtualized allocation. With the new approach, only allocations that are created as "lockable" consume space in the virtual address space of the application. Allocations that are not created as "lockable" do not consume space. This approach significantly reduces the virtual address space that is used. Therefore, the application can run on large video memory configurations without reaching the limits.

Clever, really. Although it does not eliminate the 2-GB barrier, it allows a workaround for games. And yes, we will see games that are written for large address OSes only ... right now, the devs are keeping the 2GB limit well in mind. They write games with that limit in mind with the exceptions you mention including SC. You have been touting Supreme Commander as your "supreme example" of memory management, yet we read:

http://www.anandtech.com/gadge...howdoc.aspx?i=3034&p=7

Supreme Commander is extremely disappointing in how it handles running out of addressing space.

Games usually allocate virtual memory for a copy of the video memory resources that they create. According to MS, how much virtual memory it uses is proportional to the amount of video memory resources that the game allocates. SC should have been properly coded to handle memory allocation failures - it simply does not recover properly from its failures and crashes. Also, after the "hotfix" the AT article had this to say about CoH and to a lesser extent about SC and Stalker:

Whereas Company of Heroes would surpass the 2GB barrier under Vista just loading this mission without the hotfix, the game is safely under the 2GB barrier with the hotfix applied. Under Vista the game is still using an additional 160MB of virtual address space compared to XP, but this is far better than the gap being the entire size of the video memory on our 8800GTX prior to the hotfix.

And I don't really have a problem with anything here, as it seems you're finally starting to get it....

But to be clear, I think its pretty obvious its not fully SC's fault running out of address space once you consider the hot fix and how it resolved crashing issues (not just with SC btw, they crashed in all tested games pre-hotfix as Ryan Smith wrote in an article comment). Its pretty clear Devs code memory management based off of 32-bit, most likely with XP in mind and they optimized accordingly so that they wouldn't run out of virtual address space. However, with Vista pre-hotfix, you're crippled by less virtual address space along with higher system overhead, meaning unless the game specifically altered its memory management for Vista 32, you would run into the exact problems the AT article covers....crashes before the client has a chance to properly manage memory. Given Vista 32/64 aimed for full backwards compatibility in mind, I don't think any such flags were planned or coded for, so the obvious fix was to bring Vista's memory profile closer to XP's.

After the hotfix Vista 32 can essentially manage memory the same as XP would, although it still has less to work with due to system overhead which leads us to the next problem, 32-bit addressable limits. As you've finally realized, games are coded with 32-bit in mind, which IS holding back PC gaming as the latest /largeaddressaware games have shown. Once again, its simply not possible for a 32-bit system to fully address the full 3GB of a /largeaddressaware game due to the OS/system overhead. A 64-bit system can and will fully realize this advantage, whether you think its tangible or not a 50% increase in physical RAM from 2GB to 3GB is significant, just as an increase from 1GB to 2GB is significant. And that's before you even consider the exponential 2^64 minus 4GB increase in virtual address space.

You can ramble on and on and try to nitpick what i have written. But you still cannot show us to the contrary the *need* for a 64-bit OS in gaming. However, if we debate long enough i will agree with you -
--by the end of next year, most likely

Nah no need to nitpick, as you're finally starting to get it. Honestly I don't care if you think 64-bit is worth it or not or if there's any tangible benefit, that's something you'll figure out eventually once you experience the differences first-hand. Just as long as you're not making uninformed statements like "games can't use that much RAM today" or "you're talking about the future" etc. when they clearly can and will TODAY.