64 vrs 32 bit

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Continuity28

Originally posted by: apoppin
the downside for you is lack of DX10 ..

You're right, but I failed to mention that my video card isn't DX10 capable anyways. I own Vista and have used it for a while, the problem is it did everything with extra overhead that hurt my performance in games. While Crysis is playable at my settings on XP x64, it is not on Vista x64. After I update my hardware, I'll move back to Vista, but that's a bit besides the point here - which is 64-bit VS 32-bit. I'll get back to performance in XP x64 later...

No prob .. but you should know that Vista 32 = XP in games ... i tested this back in May for the Video forum

In House HD2900XT vs. 8800GTS 640
The fifth post is mine and it details Vista vs XP

IF you are talking about 3 badly written games that MS had to rescue with their hotfix ... please add CoH to the list ... take Hellgate off -

Badly written? Before Vista, every game had a copy of video memory in it's own user space in order to manage it. The hotfix was necessary, seeing as how games written before Vista came out or to be compatible with Windows XP would have two copies of video memory in user space no matter what... If anything was badly written, it was Vista's WDDM that always made a copy of video memory regardless of what the application was doing - hence that's why Microsoft themselves made a hotfix.

Great Anandtech article about the situation (read all three if you have time).[/quote]

i *studied* it and debated much in Video; Yes BADLY written ... stupidly, as no other games have this problem - your examples are all 32 bit games - not 64 bit. MS had to rescue the with the 'hotfix'... again when you speak of Vista 64 being faster, you are talking THE FUTURE when games are written for or ported to 64-bit; i am talking THE NOW. Vista 32 is faster


Study this "showdown" still being benched - i have finished and my benchmarks and conclusions speak for themselves. BtW, Derek Wilson will have a similiar and more indepth analysis forthcoming.

Vista32- vs. Vista64-bit OS Showdown - 4GB Gaming rig's performance

and Don't forget Gothic3 with the PoS "genome" engine that will eventually crash no matter how much RAM it is fed

it doesn't matter if you are playing 64-bit or 32-bit as they will ALL eventually crash ... your 64bit OS will play play games slower but last a bit longer before crashing.
:roll:

Wrong about the three games I mentioned. They don't endlessly consume memory, they level off and stop growing. They happen to level off AFTER the 2GB mark, but before the 2.5GB mark.

Wrong! ... G3 will crash out of memory in 64bit Vista also

And in the future? Games will need even more, unless someone plans to force developers to stay 32-bit forever. The fact that there are even games TODAY that will run into the limits should tell us the limits are beginning to become a problem. Whether by memory mismanagement or not, once games start pushing the limits, there's really no argument. If The Witcher can do it, so can another new game, and we'll see more and more as new games are released.

You are STILL missing the fact that AFTER the PATCH, the Witcher runs just as good in Vista 32 as 64 ... identical load/save times - and my 32 doesn't crash 😛[

Some people can look at it and say: "Well, these games are just clearly either ahead of their time, mismanage their memory, or both.". [/quote]
No they are just f'dup

Others can say: "Pushing the limits is inevitable, but there exists a solution to alleviate the problem.". The difference between the viewpoints is one involves people not playing fun games or crashing in them, the other involves making the best of the situation. 32-bit OS = crash, 64-bit OS = No crash for these games...

Wrong!

and if you love the games, the answer is simple. Ignoring any game that passes the limits, especially when we're at the point of transition, just seems silly.

You have no experience with it and it clearly shows

As for performance, I haven't tested 32-bit Vista in my life, so I can't say what the performance difference between Vista versions are.

i *can* and i already did

However, I will tell you that 64-bit XP performs the same as 32-bit XP for me. The same. Not slower. In fact, I'm using all the same driver revisions (same dates too), just 64-bit versions. When is the last time you actually used the operating system? I already explained why I'm not using Vista right now earlier in the post, so you can be assured I'm very game-performance oriented, I need to make the most of my hardware since it's aging. Why would I gimp myself and love it if XP x64 was truly slower than 32-bit XP? I wouldn't. When I update my hardware, I'll try Vista x64 again, but for right now, XP x64 is the best operating system for me.

[/quote]Who cares about your experience with XP? ... it is on the way OUT

and *i* have done the testing .. you are right ... you haven't ... look over my linked results and i will be glad to continue discussing Vista versions with you

edit ... i just saw this 😱

Ive been using a ATI X850XT and have a XFX 8800gs
Ive had zero problems with the ATI was just wondering if the geforce would be better .

Yes .. much

and

critique

Why AMD if you want *performance*?
😕

C2D is faster and will OC better

 

[Continuity28]

I don't mind when people disagree with me. However, there are some points that I feel were misunderstood, and I'd like to clear them up first.

Originally posted by: apoppin
i *studied* it and debated much in Video; Yes BADLY written ... stupidly, as no other games have this problem - your examples are all 32 bit games - not 64 bit. MS had to rescue the with the 'hotfix'... again when you speak of Vista 64 being faster, you are talking THE FUTURE when games are written for or ported to 64-bit; i am talking THE NOW. Vista 32 is faster

When did I ever say a 64-bit operating system would run 32-bit applications faster? I never made mention of performance besides to say that 64-bit XP runs the same as 32-bit XP for me. All I mentioned was stability, and only for games that use a lot of virtual address space.

Wrong! ... G3 will crash out of memory in 64bit Vista also

I never denied that, because I was never talking about Gothic 3. I never played that game, and it apparently has it's problems. Having memory leaks is a completely different problem, and that is definately bad programming. My quote read:

"Wrong about the three games I mentioned.", those being The Witcher, STALKER, and Supreme Commander. These three games don't endlessly eat memory, because they don't have memory leaks.

You are STILL missing the fact that AFTER the PATCH, the Witcher runs just as good in Vista 32 as 64 ... identical load/save times - and my 32 doesn't crash 😛

When did I mention performance differences between 32-bit Vista and 64-bit Vista in The Witcher?

Also, all it takes is a trip to The Witcher forums to see all the people that crash using 32-bit Vista over time, the game can definately exhaust the 2GB virtual address space limit. If you had already boosted this limit, then I can see you not crashing over time. It will exhaust 32-bit XP's virtual address space as well, which is harder to do because XP has less overhead.

 

[apoppin]

The 3 games you mention have definite memory mismanagement problems ... they were developed when Vista was pre-release and some of the projects were also overambitious with DX10. The devs did not write the game properly and even the hotfix large-addressware patch does not fix all of their problems. The games SINCE then don't have these memory issues [period] .. only a few that came out right after Vista was released.

AND i have been not only PLAYING the Witcher, but i benchmarked it ... it does NOT crash on my system ANY longer ... it used to; you are repeating old news or there are other issues not related solely to Vista 32 on the forums. Pre-patch i ALSO had the problems with Vista 32 and it was not "smooth" - it IS now. 😛

When did I mention performance differences between 32-bit Vista and64-bit Vista in The Witcher?

*i* am the one that mentioned performance differences in response to this - or did you forget you posted it?:

you can be assured I'm very game-performance oriented

obviously NOT, if you insist on Vista 64

When The Witcher was 1st released, it exhausted Vista32, then XP and finally 64 .. but it went longer and was smoother too on 64-bit ... but who gives a crap about pre-patch? ... it is *fixed* for the most part now and also the expansion - due in May - will shorten load times by up to 80%. Why should i run Vista 64 for a few buggy games? Especially now that Vista 32 = Vista 64 in the Witcher? i already finished Hellgate: London in 64-bit; i don't care anymore about the only new DX10 title. Crysis is worse in 64bit, so far.

You admit you have ZERO experience with Vista 32 vs. Vista 64, yet i have not only benchmarked them i also booted back-and-forth between them for a direct comparison for 30 days. i can give MY reasons for recommending Vista 32 and yet you still continue to parrot old 2nd-hand news. There is NOTHING wrong with Vista 64 whatsoever is is as "good" and as "stable" as Vista 32 and i had ZERO issues with it - but there is no advantage in playing 32-bit games on Vista 64 over 32-bit Vista [that is 99.99% of PC games]; in fact, they often run a bit slower in 64-bit than in 32-bit because of the emulation layer and slightly swollen registers [in comparison to 32-bit Vista].

TRY it for yourself; i spent a month with 64-bit Vista right alongside 32-bit Vista ... Loved them both ... Best OSes to ever come from MS! 😛

:roll:

 

[Mem]

but there is no advantage in playing 32-bit games on Vista 64 over 32-bit Vista [that is 99.99% of PC games]; in fact, they often run a bit slower in 64-bit than in 32-bit because of the emulation layer and slightly swollen registers [in comparison to 32-bit Vista].

Only advantage you could say is some 32 bit games ie Hellgate London actually give you the choice to install the 64 bit version from the same DVD,performance wise I think we can say in general that its so small not worth worrying about,plenty of benchmarks around the net to prove my point.

Remember Vista x64 has no legacy 16 bit crap installed in the OS so in that department you could say its a lot cleaner.

It'll be interesting to see how long before 4GB+ games become the norm or are needed ,personally I feel that there's no reason not to game on Vista x64 providing you don't run any 16 bit games and have signed drivers available.
End of the day I think its more of a personal choice rather then who's right or wrong,horses for courses as they say,64 bit is the future but for now 32 bit is still very much holding its own.

I'm sure apoppin is happy with his Vista x86 just like I'm happy with both my Vista x64,x86.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Mem

but there is no advantage in playing 32-bit games on Vista 64 over 32-bit Vista [that is 99.99% of PC games]; in fact, they often run a bit slower in 64-bit than in 32-bit because of the emulation layer and slightly swollen registers [in comparison to 32-bit Vista].

Only advantage you could say is some 32 bit games ie Hellgate London actually give you the choice to install the 64 bit version from the same DVD,performance wise I think we can say in general that its so small not worth worrying about,plenty of benchmarks around the net to prove my point.

Remember Vista x64 has no legacy 16 bit crap installed in the OS so in that department you could say its a lot cleaner.

It'll be interesting to see how long before 4GB+ games become the norm or are needed ,personally I feel that there's no reason not to game on Vista x64 providing you don't run any 16 bit games and have signed drivers available.
End of the day I think its more of a personal choice rather then who's right or wrong,horses for courses as they say,64 bit is the future but for now 32 bit is still very much holding its own.

I'm sure apoppin is happy with his Vista x86 just like I'm happy with both my Vista x64,x86.

i know him pretty well and i can *assure* you that he IS happy with Vista 32. He is just as happy as if he had kept Vista64 and uninstalled Vista32 instead. Except he is a genuine "performance whore" that wants to squeeze every last drop out of performance in PC gaming and feels that it is an advantage - for him - to play games "slightly faster" in Vista 32.

He also realizes that he has no "commitment" or marriage to Vista32 - he can dump her at any moment for Vista 64 if he thinks there is an advantage.

Hellgate: London gave apoppin no 'choice' - it installed to 2 directories; and it played MUCH faster on Vista 64 than it did with Vista 32; apoppin finished playing Hellgate for at least 50 hours on the DX10 pathway and appreciates the extra "boost" that Vista 64 gives to 64-bit games. Unfortunately apoppin realizes that it is only ONE game out of THOUSANDS and it is not worth it FOR him to keep Vista 64 for that one game that he *finished*
:Q

You are asking "how long" ... by apoppin's research, about 3 years - when the NEXT MS OS is out ... by then using Vista 32 will be looking kinda silly for gaming - just like the "excuses" to use XP now.... until then, apoppin feels the choice is *equal*

So there you go ... you can feel free to TOSS a COIN and you will get 'heads' every time. But definitely wait for Derek Wilson's forthcoming article if you want more details. He may give you more reasons to go 64 as apoppin thinks he probably likes it better ... after all, Vista64 is "the future" 😛