Second opinion on physx

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
"wasting a lot of memory"

letsee .. i just paid $39 after MiR for OCZ PC8500 and if i only use 80% ... how much am i really "wasting" ? 😛
😕

Well, in Keysplayr's case he's put 4 GB into the system, but only 2 GB shows up. That's 50% wasted. Sure, money isn't that big a deal these days, but when you go out and buy 4 GB, isn't that because you actually want to be able to use it? It's like I'd buy two videocards for SLI, except my motherboard doesn't support SLI, so I'd always be able to use only one in games.

Originally posted by: apoppin
the ONLY reason one would want 64 bit Vista is for 64-bit applications or where more then 4GB of RAM is desirable. Vista64 has to run 32-bit applications in an emulation layer of sorts and it is ram-hungry. Most 32-bit games - 99.999% of all PC games - actually run a tiny bit faster in Vista32 over Vista64.

That 'emulation layer of sorts' is that nice v86 mode that your processor is equipped with. In fact, because various parts of the kernel and drivers continue to run in 64-bit mode, there's 32-bit software which actually runs FASTER on a 64-bit OS.
Besides, the argument of "ram-hungry" doesn't really go, when the 32-bit OS can't address the memory in the first place. If you'd put 4 GB in a 32-bit system, at best you'd be able to use 3.2 GB, but with high-end/multiple videocards, that generally ends up much lower. So you're wasting nearly 1 GB to start with. The 64-bit can be memory-hungry all it wants, the difference is nowhere near that 1 GB, so you still have more efficient memory usage in a 64-bit OS.
Heck, my system has 6 GB. 3 of which never shows up in a 32-bit OS in the first place. What do I care about memory usage in 64-bit? Of memory there is plenty, I just need the OS to actually USE it. A 64-bit OS can. With a 32-bit OS I'm stuck at a measly 3 GB, no matter how much memory I actually put in my machine. 3 GB just doesn't cut it for me.

Originally posted by: apoppin
The people who argue like you also "feel" there is a difference in gaming - but NO ONE has been able to demonstrate any advantage of 64-bit over 32-bit [for 32-bit games] in a 4GB system RAM-equipped PC; not even with loading times.

Well, you can come over, then we'll go time load times of Half-Life 2, Far Cry 2, Crysis and Crysis:Warhead. The differences in some cases are actually VERY large.
For some reason my laptop also really likes 64-bit, even though it only has 2 GB. If I run the HL2:Lost Coast stress test on it in 32-bit, it swaps constantly, because it runs out of memory. I end up with a score of about 4 fps.
When I run the same test in 64-bit, the swapping is gone, and it can reach a whopping 11 fps.

Trust me, I'm not the "feel" type of guy. I'm a hardcore mathematician, scientist and academic.

really, Keysplayr is only seeing 2GB of 4GB system RAM?
:Q
Something is wrong. Most of my Vista 32 PCs had 3.3-3.5GB showing up as "used" .. actually the 'extra' 0.7 GB is not really "wasted" - as it is not needed in PC gaming 😛

Again, 6GB RAM is *never* needed for playing a 32-bit game; there are *other* applications where it is quite useful; i differentiated between playing games and my own migration to 64-bit Vista was for other reasons

where do you live? Maybe i can help you with your Lost Coast Swapping issues - my own 32-bit Vista Notebook {athlon X2/GeForce 8200 M/2GB RAM} does not have these issues although it is not "fast" by any means. FarCry runs as you describe on 64-bit over 32-bit; but it was given a 64-bit pathway.

i am sorry but i do not really "trust" anyone that says "trust me"

Apoppin, let me clarify.

System:
Q6600
eVGA790i Ultra
2GB DDR3 (2x1GB)
GTX295
8800GTS640
Vista32
winver reveals: Physical memory available to Windows: 2,095,040 KB

The Phenom II system is the 4GB system which is now sitting on the counter. I had some stability issues with it. AND I couldn't get RAID to function properly. I'll have to mess with BIOS as it is the latest for the board.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
"wasting a lot of memory"

letsee .. i just paid $39 after MiR for OCZ PC8500 and if i only use 80% ... how much am i really "wasting" ? 😛
😕

Well, in Keysplayr's case he's put 4 GB into the system, but only 2 GB shows up. That's 50% wasted. Sure, money isn't that big a deal these days, but when you go out and buy 4 GB, isn't that because you actually want to be able to use it? It's like I'd buy two videocards for SLI, except my motherboard doesn't support SLI, so I'd always be able to use only one in games.

Originally posted by: apoppin
the ONLY reason one would want 64 bit Vista is for 64-bit applications or where more then 4GB of RAM is desirable. Vista64 has to run 32-bit applications in an emulation layer of sorts and it is ram-hungry. Most 32-bit games - 99.999% of all PC games - actually run a tiny bit faster in Vista32 over Vista64.

That 'emulation layer of sorts' is that nice v86 mode that your processor is equipped with. In fact, because various parts of the kernel and drivers continue to run in 64-bit mode, there's 32-bit software which actually runs FASTER on a 64-bit OS.
Besides, the argument of "ram-hungry" doesn't really go, when the 32-bit OS can't address the memory in the first place. If you'd put 4 GB in a 32-bit system, at best you'd be able to use 3.2 GB, but with high-end/multiple videocards, that generally ends up much lower. So you're wasting nearly 1 GB to start with. The 64-bit can be memory-hungry all it wants, the difference is nowhere near that 1 GB, so you still have more efficient memory usage in a 64-bit OS.
Heck, my system has 6 GB. 3 of which never shows up in a 32-bit OS in the first place. What do I care about memory usage in 64-bit? Of memory there is plenty, I just need the OS to actually USE it. A 64-bit OS can. With a 32-bit OS I'm stuck at a measly 3 GB, no matter how much memory I actually put in my machine. 3 GB just doesn't cut it for me.

Originally posted by: apoppin
The people who argue like you also "feel" there is a difference in gaming - but NO ONE has been able to demonstrate any advantage of 64-bit over 32-bit [for 32-bit games] in a 4GB system RAM-equipped PC; not even with loading times.

Well, you can come over, then we'll go time load times of Half-Life 2, Far Cry 2, Crysis and Crysis:Warhead. The differences in some cases are actually VERY large.
For some reason my laptop also really likes 64-bit, even though it only has 2 GB. If I run the HL2:Lost Coast stress test on it in 32-bit, it swaps constantly, because it runs out of memory. I end up with a score of about 4 fps.
When I run the same test in 64-bit, the swapping is gone, and it can reach a whopping 11 fps.

Trust me, I'm not the "feel" type of guy. I'm a hardcore mathematician, scientist and academic.

really, Keysplayr is only seeing 2GB of 4GB system RAM?
:Q
Something is wrong. Most of my Vista 32 PCs had 3.3-3.5GB showing up as "used" .. actually the 'extra' 0.7 GB is not really "wasted" - as it is not needed in PC gaming 😛

Again, 6GB RAM is *never* needed for playing a 32-bit game; there are *other* applications where it is quite useful; i differentiated between playing games and my own migration to 64-bit Vista was for other reasons

where do you live? Maybe i can help you with your Lost Coast Swapping issues - my own 32-bit Vista Notebook {athlon X2/GeForce 8200 M/2GB RAM} does not have these issues although it is not "fast" by any means. FarCry runs as you describe on 64-bit over 32-bit; but it was given a 64-bit pathway.

i am sorry but i do not really "trust" anyone that says "trust me"

Apoppin, let me clarify.

System:
Q6600
eVGA790i Ultra
2GB DDR3 (2x1GB)
GTX295
8800GTS640
Vista32
winver reveals: Physical memory available to Windows: 2,095,040 KB

The Phenom II system is the 4GB system which is now sitting on the counter. I had some stability issues with it. AND I couldn't get RAID to function properly. I'll have to mess with BIOS as it is the latest for the board.

that is what i thought; what he wrote did not make any sense 😛

i got my own Phenom II 550 X2 today from NewEgg! [$82.99 shipped after Promo].. i got the gigabyte MoBo coming tomorrow and i hope to unlock the other 2 cores to see if i can beat my current Q9550s PC, performance-wise
- i will be using a 4870-X2 [alternately] with a GTX 280 [and ultimately with 8800 GTX as the PhysX card] to benchmark it


it's my first AMD build for myself

 

[SickBeast]

You can indeed have your memory eaten up by 32 bit Windows or else an obsolete chipset that can't handle 4gb of ram.

An example is my motherboard, an NF4 S939 board. I actually have 4 1gb sticks of DDR1, but if I put them all in, all that I'm able to use is 3.2gb, plus I lose dual channel, plus it runs at a slower speed. Instead I have settled upon 3gb where it all runs at full speed. This was happening regardless of whether Windows was 32 bit or 64 bit.

32 bit Windows is still better for most users, particularly if you have only 2-3gb of memory. It is more memory-efficient and has better compatibility and drivers.

64 bit will be great in 2 years or maybe even more than that.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Something is wrong. Most of my Vista 32 PCs had 3.3-3.5GB showing up as "used" .. actually the 'extra' 0.7 GB is not really "wasted" - as it is not needed in PC gaming 😛

You can't use it, even though it's there. That's wasted to me.
If you had a 64-bit OS, you could use that extra memory, so arguing that a 64-bit OS is less efficient with memory is a bit of a fallacy.

Originally posted by: apoppin
Again, 6GB RAM is *never* needed for playing a 32-bit game; there are *other* applications where it is quite useful; i differentiated between playing games and my own migration to 64-bit Vista was for other reasons

I'm just saying that it doesn't hurt to have 64-bit either. That was my point. An enthusiast goes for the latest technology. Not because it's necessarily better, but rather because it isn't worse either.

Originally posted by: apoppin
where do you live? Maybe i can help you with your Lost Coast Swapping issues - my own 32-bit Vista Notebook {athlon X2/GeForce 8200 M/2GB RAM} does not have these issues although it is not "fast" by any means.

It's just a problem with the onboard graphics. It eats away my 2 GB. For some reason the memory management is just handled way better in a 64-bit OS.

Originally posted by: apoppin
FarCry runs as you describe on 64-bit over 32-bit; but it was given a 64-bit pathway.

Well, that was my point. Games with 64-bit versions generally have reduced loading times and less in-game swapping.
I never said that 32-bit games necessarily run better in a 64-bit OS. They just don't run worse either, and there's less of a chance of running into memory issues. So there's no reason to stick to 32-bit, when 64-bit can give you the same gaming experience, or better. Along with various other advantages.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
32 bit Windows is still better for most users, particularly if you have only 2-3gb of memory. It is more memory-efficient and has better compatibility and drivers.

64 bit will be great in 2 years or maybe even more than that.

Rubbish. 64-bit drivers haven't been an issue for years. 64-bit is already better. Besides, 2-3 GB is very much on the low side these days. Many people already have 4 GB, they just can't use it because their OS is holding them back. At today's prices I wouldn't put anything less than 8 GB into a new PC. Not because I need it, but because I can't afford to pass it up at these prices.
I bought DDR2 when it was cheap. If I need to buy it in a year or so, when I actually need it, its price may have gone up like crazy because there is no more demand for DDR2 becasue DDR3 is the new standard.
Likewise, I'd buy 8 GB of DDR3 now, so that I don't get caught out in a few years when I need it, and it's become expensive because of DDR4 or something like that.

 

[WildW]

So, anyway. . . PhysX.

I have never seen this hardware physics stuff in action, so I don't know what I'm missing, but as far as I can tell it's used entirely for prettiness of random things like explosions, water effects, whatever. Until it becomes universal, or some total must-have game comes along that requires it, I guess it will remain that way. If PhysX was doing something game-critical, like whether you managed to shoot somebody in a multiplayer FPS game, everyone would have to have it.

Until AMD come out and support it it's going to be stuck as a niche thing. I'm happy with my ATI video card for now, and I'm not going to buy an nVidia one and run both in the same system, if I even had the slots to do that.

I don't know, maybe it would work if you could just buy a "PhysX" PCI card instead of it being tied to a particular graphics manufacturer. Oh, the irony. Do those still work by the way? Or are they obsolete now?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: WildW
So, anyway. . . PhysX.

I have never seen this hardware physics stuff in action, so I don't know what I'm missing, but as far as I can tell it's used entirely for prettiness of random things like explosions, water effects, whatever. Until it becomes universal, or some total must-have game comes along that requires it, I guess it will remain that way. If PhysX was doing something game-critical, like whether you managed to shoot somebody in a multiplayer FPS game, everyone would have to have it.

Until AMD come out and support it it's going to be stuck as a niche thing. I'm happy with my ATI video card for now, and I'm not going to buy an nVidia one and run both in the same system, if I even had the slots to do that.

I don't know, maybe it would work if you could just buy a "PhysX" PCI card instead of it being tied to a particular graphics manufacturer. Oh, the irony. Do those still work by the way? Or are they obsolete now?

In Cryostasis, everything is initially frozen. Ice crystalization on all surfaces. One cool thing I've noticed, is when you turn on a heat source and watch the walls, you can see the ice slowly melt and start to slowly slide down the walls, continuing to melt. Slowly becomes transparent from a solid "white" state. I thought that was quite excellent. The attention to detail like that was appreciated.

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: WildW
I have never seen this hardware physics stuff in action, so I don't know what I'm missing, but as far as I can tell it's used entirely for prettiness of random things like explosions, water effects, whatever.

Well, here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrBAPqMXH_U

Look at the water running down everywhere, forming puddles etc, all moving in a realistic way.
It may not be game-critical, but since when is that ever an excuse?
The water is what adds the realism, the atmosphere of the game. Much like how shadows built the atmosphere in Doom3. Sure, they weren't required for gameplay, but Doom3 wasn't half as dark, gloomy and scary with shadows turned off. I never heard anyone complain about that either.

I have to admit though, I didn't like Cryostasis as a game in and of itself. But I do think it's significant in bringing more realism to games.

Originally posted by: WildW
Until AMD come out and support it it's going to be stuck as a niche thing.

Blame AMD for holding us back then. It's their fault that it's still a niche thing. I wouldn't be happy with an AMD card right now, missing out on PhysX effects. I don't want to miss out, I want it all (and before anyone mentions DX10.1, it has nowhere near the same dramatic effect as PhysX has here on the overall look and feel of the game. It may just run some games a bit faster, who cares? I can get a faster videocard or overclock it if I want faster. I'm bored with faster, I want better quality and more realism).

Originally posted by: WildW
I don't know, maybe it would work if you could just buy a "PhysX" PCI card instead of it being tied to a particular graphics manufacturer. Oh, the irony. Do those still work by the way? Or are they obsolete now?

In most cases they still work yes. Besides, you can use a GeForce card as PhysX only, even alongside an AMD card. The only problem is that Windows Vista doesn't allow you to install display drivers of two different manufacturers at a time. XP and Windows 7 don't have this limitation, so you can use a GeForce card for PhysX there, regardless of what your main videocard brand is.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Scali

Originally posted by: apoppin
Something is wrong. Most of my Vista 32 PCs had 3.3-3.5GB showing up as "used" .. actually the 'extra' 0.7 GB is not really "wasted" - as it is not needed in PC gaming 😛

You can't use it, even though it's there. That's wasted to me.
If you had a 64-bit OS, you could use that extra memory, so arguing that a 64-bit OS is less efficient with memory is a bit of a fallacy.

You forget that 64-bit has a higher overhead with slightly more swollen memory requirements - we are talking PC gaming's 32-bit application in a 64-bit environment

Originally posted by: apoppin
Again, 6GB RAM is *never* needed for playing a 32-bit game; there are *other* applications where it is quite useful; i differentiated between playing games and my own migration to 64-bit Vista was for other reasons

I'm just saying that it doesn't hurt to have 64-bit either. That was my point. An enthusiast goes for the latest technology. Not because it's necessarily better, but rather because it isn't worse either.

[/quote]
it "doesn't hurt" is a strange reason to have something. XP-64bit used to be the "latest" and it was inferior to XP 32-bit when it showed up; not to mention the 64-bit driver issues with vista when it was out for the first few months were a big pain

Originally posted by: apoppin
where do you live? Maybe i can help you with your Lost Coast Swapping issues - my own 32-bit Vista Notebook {athlon X2/GeForce 8200 M/2GB RAM} does not have these issues although it is not "fast" by any means.

It's just a problem with the onboard graphics. It eats away my 2 GB. For some reason the memory management is just handled way better in a 64-bit OS.

i thought there was something *wrong*. You might consider adding a ReadyBoost

Originally posted by: apoppin
FarCry runs as you describe on 64-bit over 32-bit; but it was given a 64-bit pathway.

Well, that was my point. Games with 64-bit versions generally have reduced loading times and less in-game swapping.
I never said that 32-bit games necessarily run better in a 64-bit OS. They just don't run worse either, and there's less of a chance of running into memory issues. So there's no reason to stick to 32-bit, when 64-bit can give you the same gaming experience, or better. Along with various other advantages.

[/quote]

But one does not "upgrade" to Vista64 bit for the *few* PC games that are optimized for 64-bit. As i pointed out, you get slightly higher FPS with Vista32 - you upgrade for the OTHER advantages - as i did; not for PC gaming [yet]

anyway, with my AMD Phenom II build i will be devoting a lot of time to PhysX. Is the Cryostasis demo as impressive as the retail game?

 

[Scali]

Originally posted by: apoppin
You forget that 64-bit has a higher overhead with slightly more swollen memory requirements - we are talking PC gaming's 32-bit application in a 64-bit environment

READ WHAT I SAID!!!
32-bit Windows chucks about 0.8 GB overboard before you've even begun.
Now you can argue until you're blue in the face about "more swollen memory requirements", but even you know that this is complete nonsense because these requirements don't add up to 0.8 GB. Conclusion: 32-bit Windows has "more swollen memory requirements" in practice. Memory past 3 GB just disappears into thin air. And as I already said, with the prices of memory today, you can't afford NOT to have 4 GB or more in your box.
Arguing that 2 GB is enough is fine at frugal.com, but this is an enthusiast forum. We've past the 2 GB barrier a few years ago, because we're enthusiasts.

Originally posted by: apoppin
it "doesn't hurt" is a strange reason to have something. XP-64bit used to be the "latest" and it was inferior to XP 32-bit when it showed up; not to mention the 64-bit driver issues with vista when it was out for the first few months were a big pain[/b]

Yea well, that's why we're enthusiasts and early adopters. No pain, no gain. We thrive on new technology and tinkering with our cutting-edge toys.
Besides even those "first few months" that you consider "a big pain" (which it really wasn't, most Vista 64-bit issues were not related to it being 64-bit, but rather to some problems that the 32-bit version suffered from just as badly), those were already YEARS ago. It's not a valid excuse TODAY.

You sound like the kind of person that would argue that it's useless to own a Ferrari, because a Smart gets you from A to B aswell, and speed limits mean you won't be using the speed advantage of the Ferrari anyway.
Yet many people would prefer the Ferrari over the Smart. They're car enthusiasts.

Originally posted by: apoppin
i thought there was something *wrong*. You might consider adding a ReadyBoost

Yea, there is something wrong. 32-bit memory management is sub-par.

Originally posted by: apoppin
But one does not "upgrade" to Vista64 bit for the *few* PC games that are optimized for 64-bit. As i pointed out, you get slightly higher FPS with Vista32 - you upgrade for the OTHER advantages - as i did; not for PC gaming [yet]

Firstly, I wasn't talking about upgrading. I was talking about a new box that Keysplayr was putting together. So I assume it's starting from scratch. You might aswell start with 64-bit right away, especially if you put 4 GB in it.
Secondly, I still can't get over the fact that in 2009 people on an enthusiast forum actually need to 'upgrade' because they're still stuck in 32-bit land, and are actually arguing AGAINST upgrading to 2005 technology. Really, let's just end it here. You and I will never agree on this, and I can't take you seriously because you actually enjoy being stuck in the past and artificially limiting your system. You're exactly the opposite of me: an enthusiast who wants the latest technology and wants to tweak his system and his software to get the most from it.

Oh and I will never agree with you that 64-bit doesn't have advantages for 32-bit gaming either. Heck, if only it is the fact that I can always alt-tab in and out of a game instantly, because I don't have 'just enough' memory for the game to run, but also plenty of memory to keep my desktop and any open applications running in memory. I don't have to close down Visual Studio to play a game. Heck, I can easily have multiple instances of Visual Studio open (which I often have), and STILL not worry about it when playing a game. Ofcourse all that doesn't count, right? Whatever.

 

[apoppin]

'"we"? 😛
😕

please speak for yourself. i can't take you seriously when you over-generalize 😛

No, it doesn't count in PC gaming .. you are giving the SAME reasons i give for running Vista-64 and why *i* am running it
- and it does not include PC gaming -
-Vista-64-bit is for *everything else*

 

[WildW]

Since we're wandering off down the 32vs64-bit rabbit-hole, can someone tell me if its true that a Vista64 install uses significantly more disk space than Vista32? I've seen figures on these forums of 20 to 30GB for 64, where a 32bit clean install is around 11GB.

I'm using Vista32 with 4GB memory at the moment. Why? Well, the above is relevant to me because I have a 30GB OCZ Vertex as my boot drive in a very quiet setup. I have an OEM Vista licence that I keep reading doesn't entitle me to 64bit, again I don't know if this is true.

I have never gotten around to ordering the 64bit media from MS is probably the main reason I've got 32. I've looked for a Vista64 download from MS but it doesn't seem they do one. Don't really trust a random torrent for an OS ISO.

Oh, and finally. . .

The water is what adds the realism, the atmosphere of the game. Much like how shadows built the atmosphere in Doom3. Sure, they weren't required for gameplay, but Doom3 wasn't half as dark, gloomy and scary with shadows turned off. I never heard anyone complain about that either.

I hereby complain about Doom 3. I never ever liked it. I sat waiting for 45 minutes wandering around dark coridors at the beginning of that game before I was allowed to shoot anything. That is not "Doom". I am also the one idiot who never liked the original Half Life. Same criticism as Doom 3 - I got bored riding around on pointless little trains for half an hour before the game would start.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: WildW
Since we're wandering off down the 32vs64-bit rabbit-hole, can someone tell me if its true that a Vista64 install uses significantly more disk space than Vista32? I've seen figures on these forums of 20 to 30GB for 64, where a 32bit clean install is around 11GB.

It does use more HD space. 64 bit requires two program files directories as well as other directories inside the windows folder. All of these take more space.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: WildW
Since we're wandering off down the 32vs64-bit rabbit-hole, can someone tell me if its true that a Vista64 install uses significantly more disk space than Vista32? I've seen figures on these forums of 20 to 30GB for 64, where a 32bit clean install is around 11GB.

It does use more HD space. 64 bit requires two program files directories as well as other directories inside the windows folder. All of these take more space.

It needs both 32 bit and 64 bit dlls (and perhaps binaries) so the install size does go up. If you're that concerned though, you can use vlite and strip down 64bit vista to below what even 32 bit vista uses. I believe it can be stripped down to its core to about 700MB.