Question about upgrading from 32bit windows to 64bit

[mozirry]

I've had for the longest time this setup

AMD 64 x2 5000+
ATI 4850 (upgraded from 7900GS)
2 G Ram (Woops, meant 2 x 1 GB sticks =O )
Windows XP Pro (32bit vs.)


I'm going to participate in the windows 7 release candidate, mainly because my PC has been 64bit capable FOREVER and I feel like I've been limiting myself to my hardware for a long time.

What type of benefits should I see in games that were programmed to benefit with multicore processors?

Might take me a day or two to back up and then get the ball rolling on installing this thing.

 

[M0RPH]

Upgrade your RAM to at least 4GB first, then upgrade to 64-bit. There's no reason to go to 64-bit with 1GB RAM.

 

[postmortemIA]

with 1GB RAM best OS for you is barely Windows XP.

 

[Nothinman]

What type of benefits should I see in games that were programmed to benefit with multicore processors?

None that you aren't seeing now since you're still using all of your cores in 32-bit mode.

 

[mozirry]

woops, EDIT. I meant 2 1 GB sticks

 

[Sylvanas]

You'll notice a difference in applications that make use of 64bit. File compression, audio encoding, Javascript and 3D rendering are all clearly faster on 64bit no matter the amount of ram.

Edit: Since you mentioned games, those that have a 64bit branch like Crysis/ Crysis Warhead do see a performance benefit in 64bit mode see here.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
You'll notice a difference in applications that make use of 64bit. File compression, audio encoding, Javascript and 3D rendering are all clearly faster on 64bit no matter the amount of ram.

Edit: Since you mentioned games, those that have a 64bit branch like Crysis/ Crysis Warhead do see a performance benefit in 64bit mode see here.

You just sighted 1 single game that has a 64bit thread. Sorry doesn't work like that in most cases.

For 64bit to have any effect, the application has to have a need to be rewritten to use the 64bit extensions (ie: data has to be stored into 64bit registers when applicable). If you don't have places where you have to deal with large numbers like that, then that performance benefit goes out the window.

Along with 64bit comes 48bit memory addressing support which, effectively allows a single process to access more than 2GB of memory at once. While the OS can address up to 4GB, a single application cannot occupy more than 2GB on a 32bit machine. So far, I have only heard of one game (Supreme Commander) that has touched that limit (I don't game much anymore myself so I may be behind the times).

Also, be prepared to have to use VLC Media Player or some other all in one. With 64bit, Media Center and Media Player are both 64bit - as such they will not recognize and utilize 32bit codecs. 64 bit codecs are much harder to come by.

Don't get me wrong, there is no reason not to go to a 64bit OS, but chances are the average user will see little to no improvement.

-Kevin

 

[Sylvanas]

You just sighted 1 single game that has a 64bit thread. Sorry doesn't work like that in most cases.

Well obviously. I didn't say all games have a 64bit mode I provided an example where one does and the benefits that come with it. You'll notice the first sentence in my post is:

You'll notice a difference in applications that make use of 64bit.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas

You just sighted 1 single game that has a 64bit thread. Sorry doesn't work like that in most cases.

Well obviously. I didn't say all games have a 64bit mode I provided an example where one does and the benefits that come with it. You'll notice the first sentence in my post is:

You'll notice a difference in applications that make use of 64bit.

Still - even then there isn't much there in the realm of gaming

Even ones that have a 64bit version, I can't see there being much of a difference. The Crysis benchmark that you linked to was probably one of the best case results in the gaming world.

At any rate, its inconsequential, we both said pretty much the same thing lol.

 

[JessicaD]

Mozirry,

If you are going to take Win 7 RC out for a spin you may consider upgrading your ram -- especially with a 64-bit OS. You will notice a significant difference between 64-bit and 32-bit. To learn more about Windows 7 in general as well as get some helpful tips / tricks, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the ?under the hood? features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: JessicaD
Mozirry,

If you are going to take Win 7 RC out for a spin you may consider upgrading your ram -- especially with a 64-bit OS. You will notice a significant difference between 64-bit and 32-bit. To learn more about Windows 7 in general as well as get some helpful tips / tricks, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the ?under the hood? features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

Unless he is bottle necked by the memory capacity or the 2GB Memory/process limit, then, memory wise, he should have absolutely no difference. Upgrading to 4GB will be a waste if the extra 2GB merely sits there doing nothing.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: JessicaD
Mozirry,

If you are going to take Win 7 RC out for a spin you may consider upgrading your ram -- especially with a 64-bit OS. You will notice a significant difference between 64-bit and 32-bit. To learn more about Windows 7 in general as well as get some helpful tips / tricks, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the ?under the hood? features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

Unless he is bottle necked by the memory capacity or the 2GB Memory/process limit, then, memory wise, he should have absolutely no difference. Upgrading to 4GB will be a waste if the extra 2GB merely sits there doing nothing.

Well, considering the inherent difference between XP and Vista/7 with memory management, I highly doubt his memory will go to waste. Considering the price of RAM, I say just go straight to 8GB if he can (4x2GB).

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: JessicaD
Mozirry,

If you are going to take Win 7 RC out for a spin you may consider upgrading your ram -- especially with a 64-bit OS. You will notice a significant difference between 64-bit and 32-bit. To learn more about Windows 7 in general as well as get some helpful tips / tricks, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the ?under the hood? features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

Unless he is bottle necked by the memory capacity or the 2GB Memory/process limit, then, memory wise, he should have absolutely no difference. Upgrading to 4GB will be a waste if the extra 2GB merely sits there doing nothing.

Well, considering the inherent difference between XP and Vista/7 with memory management, I highly doubt his memory will go to waste. Considering the price of RAM, I say just go straight to 8GB if he can (4x2GB).

What do you mean inherent difference? None of them are memory hogs - People seem to think Vista is, but it is merely caching frequently used programs and what not with the free memory. It is immediately deallocated when a user space program requests it.

His memory will go to waste if he gets more than 4GB with no program that needs it. There are only so many processes you can cache...

-Kevin

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: JessicaD
Mozirry,

If you are going to take Win 7 RC out for a spin you may consider upgrading your ram -- especially with a 64-bit OS. You will notice a significant difference between 64-bit and 32-bit. To learn more about Windows 7 in general as well as get some helpful tips / tricks, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the ?under the hood? features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

Unless he is bottle necked by the memory capacity or the 2GB Memory/process limit, then, memory wise, he should have absolutely no difference. Upgrading to 4GB will be a waste if the extra 2GB merely sits there doing nothing.

Well, considering the inherent difference between XP and Vista/7 with memory management, I highly doubt his memory will go to waste. Considering the price of RAM, I say just go straight to 8GB if he can (4x2GB).

What do you mean inherent difference? None of them are memory hogs - People seem to think Vista is, but it is merely caching frequently used programs and what not with the free memory. It is immediately deallocated when a user space program requests it.

His memory will go to waste if he gets more than 4GB with no program that needs it. There are only so many processes you can cache...

-Kevin

I know all about the memory caching. Vista's use of memory is much better than XP's. That's why I'm saying the 2GB+ won't be wasted.

However, I somehow totally missed your point a 2GB limit. I thought that limit was 3GB anyway.

 

[Nothinman]

However, I somehow totally missed your point a 2GB limit. I thought that limit was 3GB anyway.

By default the VM split is 2/2G in Windows, you can change it to 3/1G but then you still gotta change a bit in a binary to make Windows know that it's LargeAddressAware.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I know all about the memory caching. Vista's use of memory is much better than XP's. That's why I'm saying the 2GB+ won't be wasted.

But you can only cache so much!! I don't know what you expect the OS to find to cache to take up 2GB+ of space!!

As Nothinman said, the VM max value is 2GB in Windows. Changing it to 3GB is inadvisable as it can bottleneck other system processes.

-Kevin

 

[Nothinman]

But you can only cache so much!! I don't know what you expect the OS to find to cache to take up 2GB+ of space!!

No, you can cache as much as your memory can hold. Sure, if your workload only ever touches 500M of data you won't cache much more than that but that's pretty rare these days.

As Nothinman said, the VM max value is 2GB in Windows. Changing it to 3GB is inadvisable as it can bottleneck other system processes.

Well, it kicks the kernel's VM space down to 1G so the kernel and drivers are what get constrained by that.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

But you can only cache so much!! I don't know what you expect the OS to find to cache to take up 2GB+ of space!!

No, you can cache as much as your memory can hold. Sure, if your workload only ever touches 500M of data you won't cache much more than that but that's pretty rare these days.

As Nothinman said, the VM max value is 2GB in Windows. Changing it to 3GB is inadvisable as it can bottleneck other system processes.

Well, it kicks the kernel's VM space down to 1G so the kernel and drivers are what get constrained by that.

Sure you are physically able to cache as much as you have - but if there is not enough data, there is not enough data. I don't know that many people launch enough programs enough times to occupy 2GB+ of RAM ONLY on cached code.

Yea, and given the size of the Windows Kernel and the fact that most drivers (Save for Audio Drivers as of Vista) operate inside Kernel space (Correct me if I'm wrong - its early here on the East Coast ).

-Kevin

 

[Nothinman]

Sure you are physically able to cache as much as you have - but if there is not enough data, there is not enough data. I don't know that many people launch enough programs enough times to occupy 2GB+ of RAM ONLY on cached code.

If you're one of those people that reboots every day, probably not, but I would say that the rest do over time. But even if not, you're only spending like an extra $50 so who cares?

Yea, and given the size of the Windows Kernel and the fact that most drivers (Save for Audio Drivers as of Vista) operate inside Kernel space (Correct me if I'm wrong - its early here on the East Coast ).

I never really looked to see how much memory drivers use on Windows but Vista also moved large chunks of the video drivers out to userspace as well.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Sure you are physically able to cache as much as you have - but if there is not enough data, there is not enough data. I don't know that many people launch enough programs enough times to occupy 2GB+ of RAM ONLY on cached code.

If you're one of those people that reboots every day, probably not, but I would say that the rest do over time. But even if not, you're only spending like an extra $50 so who cares?

Yea, and given the size of the Windows Kernel and the fact that most drivers (Save for Audio Drivers as of Vista) operate inside Kernel space (Correct me if I'm wrong - its early here on the East Coast ).

I never really looked to see how much memory drivers use on Windows but Vista also moved large chunks of the video drivers out to userspace as well.

I never really reboot unless I am forced to, but with both Vista and Win7 I have never crossed 1GB in cached items, the only time I went over that is for running/background programs.

In moving those chunks into the user space, that allowed the system to continue to run if the Display or Audio driver crashed instead of simply crashing correct?

-Kevin