Vista32- vs. Vista64-bit OS Showdown *Done!*

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: happy medium
Appopin do not try to crossfire with a 4x slot. It will dramaticly decrease performance.
Theres no 2900 pro in this article but there is a 3850 and 2900xt. I think you should cancel that order.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/...fire,review-29948.html

You should google more stuff on this. Theres plenty out there.

i am NOT going to buy a new MB just to get a +25% increase on the 2nd card
--are you saying that i am not going to get a decent performance increase by adding an OC'd 2900p?


looking at tom's charts ... there is no difference in Crysis - i guess 2900xt failed xfire
HL2 ... no difference in Crossfire ... and i am stuck on dial up [in Vista] as i wait for that crap site to load

Look at Doom - 16x12 ... a single 2900xt gets 96.5fps in the x16 PCIe slot - they don't show what happens when you add a 2nd card ... only that the first card get screwed

here's how i look at it ... i got the first half of my GPU back in May for $330 including OB ... i am getting the 2nd half for another $170 just when things are starting to slow .. a little ... i believe that i am going to get GTX performance - at least [when the drivers scale]
-we'll see
===================

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
i'm just saying, raid and multiple cards will add a lot of variables.
for video alone:
[(driver issues + OS issues) *2 for multi-card issues] *2 different OS's
or
(driver issues + OS issues) *2

i for one am only interested in single card tests, because i think multi-card setups are just wasteful. if i had a second pc, i'd have some nvidia scores for comparison.

First of all, Raid is *OUT* of the equation ... i UNraided 'em

secondly, i am doing this test to see *single* GPU results ... but then ... i thought -- what the heck, i might as well *also* test it with a crossfire configuration

more work for me ... but then i will know for sure
about Crossfire AND Vista

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: lopri
Even x8 slot is a hindrance to G92 and RV670. Tested on 975X which auto-negotiates PCI-E bandwidth. My lowly HD 3850 loses approx. 5~10% of performance just by going from x16 to x8. BTW I'm loving this card with Vista. Wish AMD had this card with 512MB and single-slot..

again ... we are ADDING a 2nd Card ... my 2900xt will default to the core/RAM clockspeeds of my new [oc'd] 2900p ... so there may be little to no loss IF it OCs well; it is also only 256bit, so i can expect about 10% less performance - from IT - then if i got another 2900xt instead. i am thinking that 'extra 10%' is largely negated by the 4x slot which DOES hold back some bandwidth - so it might be a good [cheap] "fit"
[at least that is my 'hope']

adding that 2nd card ... will have some definite performance increase over a *single* 2900xt - again depending on CF drivers [which i think AMD has to support - or die].

how much performance ? well, that remains to be *seen* ... since i am already testing Vista32 vs. 64-bit on freshly installed and 'perfect' OSes, i might as well see IF Crossfire has an additional effect on the testing
... and IF i want to *keep* the card ... at the very worst i will lose $30 in a restocking fee ... and then WE [all] will know


opps, steam is done updating Lost Coast [on this 64 bit partition] ... i have some benchmarking to do ... and then i will update Steam overnight on the 32bit partition and compare ...

C-ya!

UPDATE:
i'm back to let you know i updated the Vista 64 HL2/LC benches in post #2 and added Crysis32 benches for Vista 32

 

[UTFan81]

I had been using Vista 64 happily for a while for general applications but lately while gaming my hard drive seems to be working an awful lot which has in some cases slowed my system down drastically. I am fairly sure it is swapping with the page file. I do have only 2 GB of Ram but I've read multiple reports of people using Vista 64 with 2 GB Ram for gaming fine. Why use the 64 bit version with only 2 GB? Well eventually I was going to purchase more Ram so it would save me redoing my OS if I was using the 32 bit version. I think I am going to install the 32 bit version of Vista to compare for myself, only part that sucks is I can't remember all the things I've messed with on this 64 bit install so guess I will have to redo that as well for a true comparison. I wish this was as simple as upgrading to 4 GB of Ram but thing is when this swapping is going on all my Ram isn't even in use. Any ideas?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: UTFan81
I had been using Vista 64 happily for a while for general applications but lately while gaming my hard drive seems to be working an awful lot which has in some cases slowed my system down drastically. I am fairly sure it is swapping with the page file. I do have only 2 GB of Ram but I've read multiple reports of people using Vista 64 with 2 GB Ram for gaming fine. Why use the 64 bit version with only 2 GB? Well eventually I was going to purchase more Ram so it would save me redoing my OS if I was using the 32 bit version. I think I am going to install the 32 bit version of Vista to compare for myself, only part that sucks is I can't remember all the things I've messed with on this 64 bit install so guess I will have to redo that as well for a true comparison. I wish this was as simple as upgrading to 4 GB of Ram but thing is when this swapping is going on all my Ram isn't even in use. Any ideas?

what are you asking? ... what stops you from just adding +2GB more ?

=======================


Here is the "latest" ... so far Vista32 looks *good*



*3DMark06*

Vista 32 wins - 10442 to
Vista 64 - 10094

+++++++++++


*Final* HL2/Lost Coast - Vista 32 wins ... everything Maxed at 16x10 - 4xMSAA/16XAF ... 3 Runs with Fraps


Vista64 ["detected" in the test] .. it stutters in the beginning sometimes
Min, Max, Avg
39, 190, 90.420
28, 191, 89.146
15, 185, 87.749

Vista32
Min, Max, Avg
62, 226, 106.322
62, 220, 105.280
60, 224, 106.179


++++++


*Partial*
Crysis Vista 32 ... everything "very high" at 10x16 - DX10
CPU - [4 runs all very similar; detailed analysis with 64-bit comparison]
Min 6.58 @ Frame 139
Max 14.48 @ frame 858
Average FPS 11.71

GPU
Min 4.46 @ frame 1094
Max 17.30 @ frame 108
Average FPS 11.09

 

[UTFan81]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: UTFan81
I had been using Vista 64 happily for a while for general applications but lately while gaming my hard drive seems to be working an awful lot which has in some cases slowed my system down drastically. I am fairly sure it is swapping with the page file. I do have only 2 GB of Ram but I've read multiple reports of people using Vista 64 with 2 GB Ram for gaming fine. Why use the 64 bit version with only 2 GB? Well eventually I was going to purchase more Ram so it would save me redoing my OS if I was using the 32 bit version. I think I am going to install the 32 bit version of Vista to compare for myself, only part that sucks is I can't remember all the things I've messed with on this 64 bit install so guess I will have to redo that as well for a true comparison. I wish this was as simple as upgrading to 4 GB of Ram but thing is when this swapping is going on all my Ram isn't even in use. Any ideas?

what are you asking? ... what stops you from just adding +2GB more ?

I am going to add more Ram in the future but don't really have the money to right now as I hear it's better to have 2 X 2GB sticks rather than 4 X 1 GB which would be the most cost effective for me. My question was basically does the 64 bit version of Vista require more Ram to run games smoothly than the 32 bit version?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: UTFan81

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: UTFan81
I had been using Vista 64 happily for a while for general applications but lately while gaming my hard drive seems to be working an awful lot which has in some cases slowed my system down drastically. I am fairly sure it is swapping with the page file. I do have only 2 GB of Ram but I've read multiple reports of people using Vista 64 with 2 GB Ram for gaming fine. Why use the 64 bit version with only 2 GB? Well eventually I was going to purchase more Ram so it would save me redoing my OS if I was using the 32 bit version. I think I am going to install the 32 bit version of Vista to compare for myself, only part that sucks is I can't remember all the things I've messed with on this 64 bit install so guess I will have to redo that as well for a true comparison. I wish this was as simple as upgrading to 4 GB of Ram but thing is when this swapping is going on all my Ram isn't even in use. Any ideas?

what are you asking? ... what stops you from just adding +2GB more ?

I am going to add more Ram in the future but don't really have the money to right now as I hear it's better to have 2 X 2GB sticks rather than 4 X 1 GB which would be the most cost effective for me. My question was basically does the 64 bit version of Vista require more Ram to run games smoothly than the 32 bit version?

i have no idea ... atm Vista 32 is running away from Vista 64 and this shouldn't be happening. If it is true, then Vista64 would require more RAM to run games smoothly than the 32 bit version.

here are my results so far with Crysis/3DMark06 [i am disregarding HL2's LC for now as it didn't finish updating on the 64-bit platform - but still ran the benches]:


*3DMark06*

Vista 32 wins - 10442 to
Vista 64 - 10094

+++++++++++



*Final* HL2/Lost Coast - Vista 32 wins ... everything Maxed at 16x10 - 4xMSAA/16XAF ... 3 Runs with Fraps


Vista64 ["detected" in the test] .. it stutters in the beginning sometimes
Min, Max, Avg
39, 190, 90.420
28, 191, 89.146
15, 185, 87.749

Vista32
Min, Max, Avg
62, 226, 106.322
62, 220, 105.280
60, 224, 106.179


++++++

Crysis Demo Benchmark

Vista64
[details]

Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
{these 2 runs were *identical* and were the 'best' of 4 - the other two varied by little}
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 172.59s, Average FPS: 11.59
Min FPS: 4.95 at frame 1058, Max FPS: 14.62 at frame 859
Average Tri/Sec: -5027718, Tri/Frame: -433863
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.11

Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_cpu
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 137.62s, Average FPS: 10.90
Min FPS: 0.74 at frame 196, Max FPS: 13.55 at frame 352
Average Tri/Sec: -13255481, Tri/Frame: -1216117
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.59
====

VISTA-32
details

Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 172.06s, Average FPS: 11.62
Min FPS: 6.96 at frame 1950, Max FPS: 15.52 at frame 862
Average Tri/Sec: -5042131, Tri/Frame: -433771
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.11

Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_cpu
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 141.54s, Average FPS: 10.60
Min FPS: 4.62 at frame 1090, Max FPS: 17.16 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: -12851979, Tri/Frame: -1212754
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.59

*summary* GPU Crysis 64bit Vista - Average FPS: 11.59/Min FPS: 4.95/Max FPS: 14.62
*summary* GPU Crysis 32bit Vista - Average FPS: 11.62Min FPS: 6.96Max FPS: 15.52

*summary* CPU Crysis demo 64bit Vista - Average FPS: 10.90Min FPS: 0.74Max FPS: 13.55
*summary* CPU Crysis demo 32bit Vista - Average FPS: 10.60Min FPS: 4.62Max FPS: 17.16


all the runs that finished - most did - were very close and Vista 32 wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!


at this moment Vista32 looks like the High-end for 4GB gaming

 

[redpriest_]

Of course there is going to be a difference between using 32-bit and 64-bit on a Core 2 Duo. In 64-bit mode, branch fusing is disabled in Conroe, along with some other performance optimizations. Probably not 10% worth, but it's still a difference.

Also, you assume that driver support is optimized equally in both. That's probably not the case.

 

[apoppin]

More ... i think i had a productive night

F.E.A.R. built-in Demo

16x10 everything maxed 4xAA/16xAF - no SS

Vista 64 - 25 Min/63 Avg/113 Max
Vista 32 - 30 Min/64 Avg/119 Max

...

16x10 everything maxed 0xAA/16xAF - SS on

Vista 64 - 30 Min/59 Avg/112 Max
Vista 32 - 31 Min/58 Avg/114 Max

========================

Call of Juarez DX10 benchmark

-16x10- High Shadows/Shader Map - 2048x2048

Vista 64 - 15.9 Min/20.7 Avg/49.3 Max
Vista 32 - 14.7 Min/24.9 Avg/52.3 Max

So far there is *nothing* i found that recommends Vista64 over Vista 32
- except it is no big disadvantage either.

and after switching back-and-forth playing the Witcher, i can find ZERO difference
- where is Mr. "Vista 32-is-no-longer-high-end"? or Mr "it feels snappier" ?

--except for the "cool" factor ... unless you can find me a real reason for a gamer to "upgrade" - forget it!

halfway thru the testing i remain skeptical ... Letsee, we've run HL2 [i think it is right; let you know for sure when it is fully updated probably tomorrow], FEAR, Crysis DX10 Demo, 3DMark06 and CoJ DX10 benchmark and it is really close with Vista32 taking the 'edge'

that leaves ... forget 3DMark05 ... PREY, STALKER, FarCry and Painkiller ... with some loading/saving timing left to do in the Witcher and Hellgate: London ... and i should set up CrossFire as soon as i am finished - it arrives today - and run a few more benches again to see if it makes any difference. Do you think it will?

so ... since i am nearly done, that leaves ... you ...
... how are you guys doing with your tests?

ooh ... waaaay past my bedtime .... i got to be up in less than 6 hours
:moon:

it's been fun

g'nite

 

[chizow]

Heh as expected, you did nothing you said you would but instead did exactly what I thought you would and spit out numbers from cookie-cutter FPS benchmarks. What happened to testing load times? Did you bother to see if the game was actually using additional RAM? Look for any way to cache more of a level before running a 60s time demo?

You want people to take these results seriously, yet you conduct your testing with little competence and poor attention to detail. Try running the Crysis demo in 32-bit on Vista 64 for starters. Also toss in e_precache_level 1 into the autoexec to see if 1) you can even get 2GB+ for that tiny jungle demo 2) if there's any difference in RAM use where 64-bit would actually provide an advantage. And lastly, a reference run with less RAM would prove useful, say 2GB. If they show there's no advantage/difference with 2GB then obviously the tests you're performing 1) aren't the right ones or 2) are being performed in games that yield no benefit from more RAM.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow
Heh as expected, you did nothing you said you would but instead did exactly what I thought you would and spit out numbers from cookie-cutter FPS benchmarks. What happened to testing load times? Did you bother to see if the game was actually using additional RAM? Look for any way to cache more of a level before running a 60s time demo?

You want people to take these results seriously, yet you conduct your testing with little competence and poor attention to detail. Try running the Crysis demo in 32-bit on Vista 64 for starters. Also toss in e_precache_level 1 into the autoexec to see if 1) you can even get 2GB+ for that tiny jungle demo 2) if there's any difference in RAM use where 64-bit would actually provide an advantage. And lastly, a reference run with less RAM would prove useful, say 2GB. If they show there's no advantage/difference with 2GB then obviously the tests you're performing 1) aren't the right ones or 2) are being performed in games that yield no benefit from more RAM.

this is a 4GB test .. and i am NOT "done"

you're the one that "feels" 64 bit is faster - at THIS point, i "feel" they are the same ... playing games ... and i am now speaking from personal experience which i formerly lacked. i like 64bit Vista ... there is *nothing* wrong with using it nor it is any "buggier" than Vista32

i am willing to bet if someone set you on a 32-bit system identical to yours, you couldn't tell the difference actually playing a game

but you are willing to criticize with absolute *nothing* to back your PoV up ... WtF don't you do some testing and show us how it's supposed to be done instead of spouting silly "advice" from the sidelines
:roll:

and i am HALFWAY into the testing . ... i am *hoping* others who *said* they were interested in joining in would do so ... you are getting results as they happen in my rig.

But one thing is sure ... Vista 32 IS still "valid" for "high end" gaming.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow
Heh as expected, you did nothing you said you would but instead did exactly what I thought you would and spit out numbers from cookie-cutter FPS benchmarks. What happened to testing load times? Did you bother to see if the game was actually using additional RAM? Look for any way to cache more of a level before running a 60s time demo?

You want people to take these results seriously, yet you conduct your testing with little competence and poor attention to detail. Try running the Crysis demo in 32-bit on Vista 64 for starters. Also toss in e_precache_level 1 into the autoexec to see if 1) you can even get 2GB+ for that tiny jungle demo 2) if there's any difference in RAM use where 64-bit would actually provide an advantage. And lastly, a reference run with less RAM would prove useful, say 2GB. If they show there's no advantage/difference with 2GB then obviously the tests you're performing 1) aren't the right ones or 2) are being performed in games that yield no benefit from more RAM.

you're the one that "feels" 64 bit is faster - at THIS point, i "feel" they are the same ... playing games ... and i am now speaking from personal experience which i formerly lacked. i like 64bit Vista ... there is *nothing* wrong with using it nor it is any "buggier" than Vista32

i am willing to bet if someone set you on a 32-bit system identical to yours, you couldn't tell the difference actually playing a game

but you are willing to criticize with absolute *nothing* to back your PoV up ... WtF don't you do some testing and show us how it's supposed to be done instead of spouting silly "advice"
:rioll;

and i am HALFWAY into the testing . ... i am *hoping* others who *said* they were interested in joining in would do so ... you are getting results as they happen

Yep, I do think 64-bit is faster and smoother resulting in a more enjoyable gameplay experience, just not in any of the ways your limited testing show. I've provided my proof showing games and total system RAM use could exceed what's possible with a 32-bit OS (latest is a Crysis SS hitting 5.5GB total system use) conducted during the course of normal gameplay.

Someone running a 32-bit system identical to mine would experience the same thing I did 6 months ago which prompted me to upgrade in the first place. Here's a hint, it wasn't low FPS.

I've already told you why I'm not helping out in these tests. Its not fun, its not productive, I'm not getting paid to do it and most importantly, AT already promised a comparison. Instead, I've used the last few weeks to finish up a few projects and upgrades I started and now I'm getting back to enjoying the result of my efforts. Got around to making some case mods for wiring after replacing my PSU, added an HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive, moved my STR-DG1000 from my aging main system to my new PC system, replaced my C2D with a C2Q and lapped my Tuniq. You get the point.

In any case, good luck with the rest of your testing, just don't expect me (or anyone) to take your conclusions seriously if you're not even going to conduct tests that would actually show the relevant differences between 32/64-bit and more RAM.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: chizow
Heh as expected, you did nothing you said you would but instead did exactly what I thought you would and spit out numbers from cookie-cutter FPS benchmarks. What happened to testing load times? Did you bother to see if the game was actually using additional RAM? Look for any way to cache more of a level before running a 60s time demo?

You want people to take these results seriously, yet you conduct your testing with little competence and poor attention to detail. Try running the Crysis demo in 32-bit on Vista 64 for starters. Also toss in e_precache_level 1 into the autoexec to see if 1) you can even get 2GB+ for that tiny jungle demo 2) if there's any difference in RAM use where 64-bit would actually provide an advantage. And lastly, a reference run with less RAM would prove useful, say 2GB. If they show there's no advantage/difference with 2GB then obviously the tests you're performing 1) aren't the right ones or 2) are being performed in games that yield no benefit from more RAM.

you're the one that "feels" 64 bit is faster - at THIS point, i "feel" they are the same ... playing games ... and i am now speaking from personal experience which i formerly lacked. i like 64bit Vista ... there is *nothing* wrong with using it nor it is any "buggier" than Vista32

i am willing to bet if someone set you on a 32-bit system identical to yours, you couldn't tell the difference actually playing a game

but you are willing to criticize with absolute *nothing* to back your PoV up ... WtF don't you do some testing and show us how it's supposed to be done instead of spouting silly "advice"
:rioll;

and i am HALFWAY into the testing . ... i am *hoping* others who *said* they were interested in joining in would do so ... you are getting results as they happen

Yep, I do think 64-bit is faster and smoother resulting in a more enjoyable gameplay experience, just not in any of the ways your limited testing show. I've provided my proof showing games and total system RAM use could exceed what's possible with a 32-bit OS (latest is a Crysis SS hitting 5.5GB total system use) conducted during the course of normal gameplay.

Someone running a 32-bit system identical to mine would experience the same thing I did 6 months ago which prompted me to upgrade in the first place. Here's a hint, it wasn't low FPS.

I've already told you why I'm not helping out in these tests. Its not fun, its not productive, I'm not getting paid to do it and most importantly, AT already promised a comparison. Instead, I've used the last few weeks to finish up a few projects and upgrades I started and now I'm getting back to enjoying the result of my efforts. Got around to making some case mods for wiring after replacing my PSU, added an HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive, moved my STR-DG1000 from my aging main system to my new PC system, replaced my C2D with a C2Q and lapped my Tuniq. You get the point.

In any case, good luck with the rest of your testing, just don't expect me (or anyone) to take your conclusions seriously if you're not even going to conduct tests that would actually show the relevant differences between 32/64-bit and more RAM.

yeah, i am moving HW all around - i took my rig completely apart and set it up specially for the testing - and this week i will be adding CrossFire to the mix and testing it with both OSes [2900xt + OC'd 2900p i am getting today]

my "limited testing" is halfway ... and i got off my lazy ass to do something productive for our forum - and you're right - it's NOT fun. i also am a very busy person and do work that is not tech-related nor am i "paid" to do this. i would much rather be playing the games instead of running benches and timing with a stopwatch.
:roll:

i could care less if you believe what want to believe ... but don't expect me to take you seriously anymore - based on your "feelings" - with ZERO useful to back it [except a SS or two on a possibly clogged system]

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: apoppin
yeah, i am moving HW all around - i took my rig completely apart and set it up specially for the testing - and this week i will be adding CrossFire to the mix and testing it with both OSes [2900xt + OC'd 2900p i am getting today]

my "limited testing" is halfway ... and i got off my lazy ass to do something productive for our forum - and you're right - it's NOT fun. i also am a very busy person and do work that is not tech-related nor am i "paid" to do this. i would much rather be playing the games instead of running benches and timing with a stopwatch.
:roll:

i could care less if you believe what want to believe ... but don't expect me to take you seriously anymore - based on your "feelings" - with ZERO useful to back it [except a SS or two on a possibly clogged system]

Its not a matter of being lazy, its a matter of practicality. I know how critical people are when looking at reviews (I know I'm guilty), even when they're coming from respected publications. I also thought through what was involved to clearly show differences in testing and quickly decided it simply wasn't worth it. I'd much rather spend time enjoying my rig gaming and watching movies.

I've offered my opinions and identified areas/tests/games I've noticed a difference for those willing to see for themselves. I'm confident in my results and I'm confident in my understanding of how more RAM benefits performance. For those who see the benefit of more RAM, its really as simple as linking a SS showing a system/game using more RAM than possible on a 32-bit system with less RAM. But in the end, it really doesn't matter to me whether people think 64-bit is worth it or not, I don't care that much lol.

If people find a benefit from some tidbit or advice I throw out there, great, if not, no biggy, they're just my experiences. If I were published or paid for my opinions things might be a bit different, but I'm not. But here's a small example of what I'm referring to:

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: Adius_Omega

Also if you add this in your autoexec.cfg file:
e_precache_level 1
(I think, not sure if that's the exact command, I'm on a school computer)
It precaches all the level resources to improve framerate, but at the loss of a longer load time for the levels (Well worth it)

Sweet thank you!

This one line got rid of the bad hitching in this game, and I am able to go back to using HPs Ultra High Quality config settings with 2x AA and it runs like a dream (1680x1050)! Texture quality and contrast/shadows are much better with HP config over LS config.

I found that tidbit on the 2nd page of a linked thread addressing something completely different (IQ setting profiles). It seems to have helped someone out in exactly one of the ways I said more RAM would help. But I guess I must be crazy. Whether or not you use it in your own testing is up to you, its just my opinion and experiences.

Getting that 2nd 2900XT for CF should provide some fun beyond the mundane though.

 

[imported_wired247]

The testing is appreciated... however I think for many people the lack of >4GB ram support is a severely limiting factor when considerinv vista32/64

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: apoppin
yeah, i am moving HW all around - i took my rig completely apart and set it up specially for the testing - and this week i will be adding CrossFire to the mix and testing it with both OSes [2900xt + OC'd 2900p i am getting today]

my "limited testing" is halfway ... and i got off my lazy ass to do something productive for our forum - and you're right - it's NOT fun. i also am a very busy person and do work that is not tech-related nor am i "paid" to do this. i would much rather be playing the games instead of running benches and timing with a stopwatch.
:roll:

i could care less if you believe what want to believe ... but don't expect me to take you seriously anymore - based on your "feelings" - with ZERO useful to back it [except a SS or two on a possibly clogged system]

Its not a matter of being lazy, its a matter of practicality. I know how critical people are when looking at reviews (I know I'm guilty), even when they're coming from respected publications. I also thought through what was involved to clearly show differences in testing and quickly decided it simply wasn't worth it. I'd much rather spend time enjoying my rig gaming and watching movies.

I've offered my opinions and identified areas/tests/games I've noticed a difference for those willing to see for themselves. I'm confident in my results and I'm confident in my understanding of how more RAM benefits performance. For those who see the benefit of more RAM, its really as simple as linking a SS showing a system/game using more RAM than possible on a 32-bit system with less RAM. But in the end, it really doesn't matter to me whether people think 64-bit is worth it or not, I don't care that much lol.

If people find a benefit from some tidbit or advice I throw out there, great, if not, no biggy, they're just my experiences. If I were published or paid for my opinions things might be a bit different, but I'm not. But here's a small example of what I'm referring to:

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: Adius_Omega

Also if you add this in your autoexec.cfg file:
e_precache_level 1
(I think, not sure if that's the exact command, I'm on a school computer)
It precaches all the level resources to improve framerate, but at the loss of a longer load time for the levels (Well worth it)

Sweet thank you!

This one line got rid of the bad hitching in this game, and I am able to go back to using HPs Ultra High Quality config settings with 2x AA and it runs like a dream (1680x1050)! Texture quality and contrast/shadows are much better with HP config over LS config.

I found that tidbit on the 2nd page of a linked thread addressing something completely different (IQ setting profiles). It seems to have helped someone out in exactly one of the ways I said more RAM would help. But I guess I must be crazy. Whether or not you use it in your own testing is up to you, its just my opinion and experiences.

Getting that 2nd 2900XT for CF should provide some fun beyond the mundane though.

i AM looking forward to gaming on a faster rig ... and turning on 4xAA
-btw, i am *curious*, did you go from XP 32 or from Vista 32 to Vista 64?

And no one is disputing your helpfulness or even your sharing your knowledge and experience in what you know ... it IS appreciated ... and i DO read your posts to learn more than just to argue with you.

i also spend time helping and have done so since i joined here. The forum is fun, but it is also a great place to really learn about Video and i am still aiming to learn as much as possible as long as i am able. Part of that - for me - involves testing claims - for my own curiosity ... and then sharing my own results and experiences with others here.

i installed Vista 64 with a misconception that i might have many problems with unsupported drivers and applications; generally i was WRONG - i even installed MS Word '97 without a hitch ... however, i DO have a single problem with an unsupported Bluetooth driver that allows me to connect to AT&T wireless Inter thru DUN - that means - on this OS [and in the 32-bit one also, since they are *identical*] i am stuck D/L'ing big MS and Steam updates over 56K dialup instead of 220K ... so unless Vista 64 offers me a performance gain, or belkin comes through, i am back to Vista32 at the end of the trial - i won't dual- [tri-]boot Vista/Vista/XP.

and i AM looking for a reason to upgrade ... IF it is an upgrade for a "gamer" ... you don't think i want to *limit* my OWN system in any way, do you? IF i see/measure a practical difference, you bet i will go with something faster. That IS my nature. And i will also join you in recommending Vista 64 over 32-bit - now ... giving benchmarks to back us up. Otoh, if i see little difference, i will say so

and so far - PLAYING games ... running multiple applications ... doing the things i do *normally* i sense ZERO difference. In fact, i sometimes have to look at "my computer" to see if i am running Vista32 or 64bit

[when i am really tired - the background IS different ]

and the graphs tend to support what i am saying - so far. That *everyone* writes 32-bit applications and they have the 2GB "barrier" well in mind. The devs and few games you gave examples of were caught by surprise by Vista ... they didn't program their games right and MS had to "rescue" them with their HotFix.

And i am running CRYSIS ... two official benchmark - and also some i haven't posted that deal also with AI interaction - the MOST DEMANDING GAME on the planet ... and 32-bit is right up there with 64-bit ... it plays just as crappy or just as well in either OS depending on your settings. i am playing the damn demo ... i can't tell any difference with either OS.

That tends to tell me i am "safe" with Vista for a couple more years ... that games as demanding as Crysis will run just as well on a 32-bit OS. Now i ALSO *realize* then when the devs port Crysis to 64-bit it WILL run substantially faster.

One thing that was brought up is that Intel's CPU's don't take as full advantage of 64-bit as AMD's. So i would also have to go the Phenom route if i *really* wanted to utilize 64-bit to the max.

Of course there is going to be a difference between using 32-bit and 64-bit on a Core 2 Duo. In 64-bit mode, branch fusing is disabled in Conroe, along with some other performance optimizations. Probably not 10% worth, but it's still a difference.

true 'dat

so what is "high end" .. still a series of compromises

anyway, i am still hoping *some* of you guys join me in the testing ... 2 heads are better than one ... [but not in the same hat :roll:]



UPDATE: i got my 2900p today ... looks like a toy next to my XT ... but one less power connection ... now i got to *hurry* thru Round1 of testing so i can see what CrossFire brings.

The testing is appreciated... however I think for many people the lack of >4GB ram support is a severely limiting factor when considerinv vista32/64

you're welcome ... and i will agree with you ... soon ... a couple of years ... but not now
[at least based on what i am currently observing]

 

[UTFan81]

Originally posted by: chizow
Heh as expected, you did nothing you said you would but instead did exactly what I thought you would and spit out numbers from cookie-cutter FPS benchmarks. What happened to testing load times? Did you bother to see if the game was actually using additional RAM? Look for any way to cache more of a level before running a 60s time demo?

You want people to take these results seriously, yet you conduct your testing with little competence and poor attention to detail. Try running the Crysis demo in 32-bit on Vista 64 for starters. Also toss in e_precache_level 1 into the autoexec to see if 1) you can even get 2GB+ for that tiny jungle demo 2) if there's any difference in RAM use where 64-bit would actually provide an advantage. And lastly, a reference run with less RAM would prove useful, say 2GB. If they show there's no advantage/difference with 2GB then obviously the tests you're performing 1) aren't the right ones or 2) are being performed in games that yield no benefit from more RAM.

I have to agree with what you are saying. I could do more advanced testing than this myself. The results are still interesting to see but should be taken with a grain of salt. I was expecting this thread to be a little more in depth and technical but I suppose that's what anandtech's official comparison will hold.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: UTFan81

Originally posted by: chizow
Heh as expected, you did nothing you said you would but instead did exactly what I thought you would and spit out numbers from cookie-cutter FPS benchmarks. What happened to testing load times? Did you bother to see if the game was actually using additional RAM? Look for any way to cache more of a level before running a 60s time demo?

You want people to take these results seriously, yet you conduct your testing with little competence and poor attention to detail. Try running the Crysis demo in 32-bit on Vista 64 for starters. Also toss in e_precache_level 1 into the autoexec to see if 1) you can even get 2GB+ for that tiny jungle demo 2) if there's any difference in RAM use where 64-bit would actually provide an advantage. And lastly, a reference run with less RAM would prove useful, say 2GB. If they show there's no advantage/difference with 2GB then obviously the tests you're performing 1) aren't the right ones or 2) are being performed in games that yield no benefit from more RAM.

I have to agree with what you are saying. I could do more advanced testing than this myself. The results are still interesting to see but should be taken with a grain of salt. I was expecting this thread to be a little more in depth and technical but I suppose that's what anandtech's official comparison will hold.

i'd *love* to see your "advanced testing"
.. but ... Where are you missing that this is a work in progress?


Did we not state that Part One - we are almost halfway thru part 1 - would be the traditional "performance" FPS testing ... and that graphs would be introduced if needed

and that Part Deux - to come, hopefully this weekend - was to be a more in-depth analysis of RAM usage of each respective OS?
- something closer to what chizow apparently has in mind .... checking 'load/save' using a 'stop watch' and/or monitoring or logging with the [excellent, if i may say so] built-in Vista performance monitoring tools.

Part 3 is "impressions" - happening now ... what each tester "feels" and it is an ongoing dialog with you guys; the testing can certainly be *modified*
-my experience is changing so my impressions and conclusions may well change by the time i am done [next ... next weekend ..]

get it? it takes a LONG time ... we are unpaid testers doing this when we have spare time - right now a game is installing and i am D/Ling updates while i type this. THEN i shut down, reboot and repeat this on the 32-bit OS - if i am LUCKY, i will get to Prey or Stalker tonight ... and if i am even LUCKIER, i will finish the other one early tomorrow am. [doubtful as i am running on 5-6 hours of sleep a night]

The only game i am "playing" is The Witcher [and i will load up Hg:L again even though i finished it - three times] and that is to note similarities/differences with it on the other OS.


what did i not make clear?
-heck, i haven't even installed CrossFire although i am ITCHING to set it up and run with it
--and it will eventually be part of the test [conveniently]


i AM disappointed that no one else is following through ... unfortunately, nullpointerus is still having serious stability problems with his rig

i am not apologizing ... if you are not interested, ignore it ... or flame it ... it all brings more attention to it and hopefully this *start* will turn into something useful
-or not

 

[lavaheadache]

I wish I could help out but I only have Identical installs of xp and vista 64 on my rig and three gigs of ram. I tend to use Xp for games and Vista for everyday pc things. Vista seems much more "fun " than xp, but hands down Vista 64 performance is a little off in games.

 

[UTFan81]

Originally posted by: apoppin


i'd *love* to see your "advanced testing"
.. but ... Where are you missing that this is a work in progress?

I don't have time to perform tons of benchmarks myself. If I was spending the amount of time you are on it though I wouldn't bother with the "cookie cutter" tests because they are pretty worthless anyway and focus more on on things like what chizow already mentioned. they are the true measure of it Vista 64 is worth it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: UTFan81

Originally posted by: apoppin


i'd *love* to see your "advanced testing"
.. but ... Where are you missing that this is a work in progress?

I don't have time to perform tons of benchmarks myself. If I was spending the amount of time you are on it though I wouldn't bother with the "cookie cutter" tests because they are pretty worthless anyway and focus more on on things like what chizow already mentioned. they are the true measure of it Vista 64 is worth it.

i hear a lot of that excuse ... we are all too busy

at any rate, what you seem to be missing, is that i am following the traditional method of reviewing ... starting with FPS and then moving on to analysis ... what IS breaking with tradition is the step-by-step "doing it" s-l-o-w-l-y ... *live* on a forum.
i am 100% certain we will see Derek's article done [much (much) much] better ... so what ! ... he is a paid tester with free HW and obviously has years more experience than i do with it. i think he will also probably do a much more ambitious project than i am proposing.
-But that does not make this one useless, does it? i am finding it very useful for myself and i figure i am just sharing my experiences with you guys in a semi-formal way

Would you rather i just shut it down and wait for the Pros?










forget it

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: UTFan81

Originally posted by: apoppin


i'd *love* to see your "advanced testing"
.. but ... Where are you missing that this is a work in progress?

I don't have time to perform tons of benchmarks myself. If I was spending the amount of time you are on it though I wouldn't bother with the "cookie cutter" tests because they are pretty worthless anyway and focus more on on things like what chizow already mentioned. they are the true measure of it Vista 64 is worth it.

i see you just got here ...

*no one* complained about "cookie cutter"tests" the LAST time we compared XP-32 vs Vista-32 ...

In House HD2900XT vs. 8800GTS 640

i guess it was because our results met their preconceived ideas about what it should be like. We did no "in depth" analysis ... nothing close to what we are attempting now.
:roll:

 

[UTFan81]

Actually I've been here a while I just made a new account for privacy reasons.

No can do. This account is locked. It's against the rules.

esquared
Anandtech Senior Moderator

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: UTFan81
Actually I've been here a while I just made a new account for privacy reasons.

oops ... bad for you

that is a banable offense at ATF ... a perm-ban
-i'd suggest you contact the mods before you hear from them
:Q

 

[apoppin]

i just updated my rig with a Vista "hotfix" for CrossFire

and i want to consult you guys ... i am *dying* to install my 2nd card
--think how you would feel with brand new HW and a chance at 30% or so more performance ... would you just let it 'sit' because you had some "homework" ?


if you think it won't interfere with the testing, i would like to just run STALKER and PREY benches ... then install my 2nd GPU and re-run the "Part 1" FPS tests .... and maybe add a couple of others without going back to a single GPU configuration. It shouldn't make *any* difference to the 2nd part but may change part3 [impressions].

i think it might "add" something to this comparison
-[no idea what ... other than my personal satisfaction with a nearly-complete rig (Quadcore is next ... but not this month)]

 

[lopri]

I read the updated results in the first page, but I do have to question the selection of games. The merit of 64-bit OS is undoubtedly the ability to handle more memory. In that sense, the selected games are not very memory-hogging, IMO. When 64-bit OS show its benefit, if it does, will be when a game attempts to access huge amount of memory. (Company of Heroes coming to my mind) Half-Life 2 or F.E.A.R. aren't the best title to show the benefit of 64-bit OS.

It's kinda different issue but the most memory hogging games tend to be RTS and RPG games, not FPS games. And it's kinda natural if you think about it. The size of world and number of units/items grow as the game progresses, and that's when the extra memory comes in handy. I have played Company of Heroes both on 32-bit Vista and 64-bit Vista, and on a large map where a hundreds of units are duking out, the advantage of 64-bit and extra RAM (I had 8GB at that time) was apparent. Unless a game ends in its early stage, 32-bit Vista invariably crashed later when there are hundreds of units duking out on a gigantic map. Did not occur on 64-bit Vista.