Should I swap to 64 bit?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obm55IEM=?=, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. I loaded Vista Home Premium last night, 32 bit from the box.

    I hadn't bothered about the 64 bit as I read in a mag that for most people
    it's more hassle than it's worth. My main use for the PC is playing games,
    such as half-life 2 and far-cry.

    Is it worth me swapping to the 64 bit?

    My PC is fairly new. It has:
    Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo (NForce4)
    AMD 4200+ 64bit dual core CPU
    2 x XpertVision nVidia 7600GT connected via SLI bridge
    1Gb Corsair 800Mhz memory (2x512, one for each processor)
    1 DVD writer and 1 CD writer - these are going to be replaced in the next
    week or two anyway
    2 Sata disks

    The graphics driver is a detonator 86.63 or something, the one from the box
    didn't work on XP with the SLI bridge
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obm55IEM=?=, Feb 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obm55IEM=?=

    McG. Guest

    "Johnny C" <Johnny > wrote in message
    news:...
    >I loaded Vista Home Premium last night, 32 bit from the box.
    >
    > I hadn't bothered about the 64 bit as I read in a mag that for most
    > people
    > it's more hassle than it's worth. My main use for the PC is playing
    > games,
    > such as half-life 2 and far-cry.
    >
    > Is it worth me swapping to the 64 bit?
    >
    > My PC is fairly new. It has:
    > Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo (NForce4)
    > AMD 4200+ 64bit dual core CPU
    > 2 x XpertVision nVidia 7600GT connected via SLI bridge
    > 1Gb Corsair 800Mhz memory (2x512, one for each processor)
    > 1 DVD writer and 1 CD writer - these are going to be replaced in the
    > next
    > week or two anyway
    > 2 Sata disks
    >
    > The graphics driver is a detonator 86.63 or something, the one from
    > the box
    > didn't work on XP with the SLI bridge


    Source now recognizes and runs 64 bit code when it detects a 64 bit OS
    being run. Far Cry has 64 bit version also. As does FEAR. I have a
    pair of 7800GTX's in SLI, X2 4800+, 2 gigs ram, XP Pro x64 (and soon
    Vista Ultimate x64). There are a lot of games now with 64 bit code.
    The games are not only faster, but one like Far Cry x64 have improved
    textures and run even more models and higher geometry with 64 bits.
    It's faster and it looks better.
    HTH,
    McG.
    McG., Feb 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I cannot get half life 2 to run due to issues with 64bit as of last night. I
    will be trying running it with the "-32bit" tag when I get home. It seems
    64bit games are still unreliable. Of course, it is very likely that it is a
    issue with my 8800GTX. Drivers are still very immature, and as far as I can
    tell, 64bit Vista being a specialty market doesnt help as far as support
    goes. Hopefully I will be able to get it to work tonight.

    "Johnny C" wrote:

    > I loaded Vista Home Premium last night, 32 bit from the box.
    >
    > I hadn't bothered about the 64 bit as I read in a mag that for most people
    > it's more hassle than it's worth. My main use for the PC is playing games,
    > such as half-life 2 and far-cry.
    >
    > Is it worth me swapping to the 64 bit?
    >
    > My PC is fairly new. It has:
    > Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo (NForce4)
    > AMD 4200+ 64bit dual core CPU
    > 2 x XpertVision nVidia 7600GT connected via SLI bridge
    > 1Gb Corsair 800Mhz memory (2x512, one for each processor)
    > 1 DVD writer and 1 CD writer - these are going to be replaced in the next
    > week or two anyway
    > 2 Sata disks
    >
    > The graphics driver is a detonator 86.63 or something, the one from the box
    > didn't work on XP with the SLI bridge
    =?Utf-8?B?TWlrZSBSb3NzaQ==?=, Feb 2, 2007
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obm55IEM=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    You should make sure to install the drivers that Carlos advised were
    available here a couple of days ago

    http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_100.54.html

    These work well on my system and are supposedly updated for the 8800 series

    "Mike Rossi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I cannot get half life 2 to run due to issues with 64bit as of last night.
    >I
    > will be trying running it with the "-32bit" tag when I get home. It seems
    > 64bit games are still unreliable. Of course, it is very likely that it is
    > a
    > issue with my 8800GTX. Drivers are still very immature, and as far as I
    > can
    > tell, 64bit Vista being a specialty market doesnt help as far as support
    > goes. Hopefully I will be able to get it to work tonight.
    >
    > "Johnny C" wrote:
    >
    >> I loaded Vista Home Premium last night, 32 bit from the box.
    >>
    >> I hadn't bothered about the 64 bit as I read in a mag that for most
    >> people
    >> it's more hassle than it's worth. My main use for the PC is playing
    >> games,
    >> such as half-life 2 and far-cry.
    >>
    >> Is it worth me swapping to the 64 bit?
    >>
    >> My PC is fairly new. It has:
    >> Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo (NForce4)
    >> AMD 4200+ 64bit dual core CPU
    >> 2 x XpertVision nVidia 7600GT connected via SLI bridge
    >> 1Gb Corsair 800Mhz memory (2x512, one for each processor)
    >> 1 DVD writer and 1 CD writer - these are going to be replaced in the next
    >> week or two anyway
    >> 2 Sata disks
    >>
    >> The graphics driver is a detonator 86.63 or something, the one from the
    >> box
    >> didn't work on XP with the SLI bridge
    John Barnes, Feb 2, 2007
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obm55IEM=?=

    RMZ Guest

    FarCry is the only game I know of where the vendor has actually
    supplied a 64-bit (x64) executable in addition to the 32-bit .exe. I
    haven't seen anyone compare the 32-bit version to the 64-bit (except
    AMD's website) so if you do go through with the 64-bit install, please
    write back and tell how it is.


    On Feb 1, 6:36 am, Johnny C <Johnny >
    wrote:
    > I loaded Vista Home Premium last night, 32 bit from the box.
    >
    > I hadn't bothered about the 64 bit as I read in a mag that for most people
    > it's more hassle than it's worth. My main use for the PC is playing games,
    > such as half-life 2 and far-cry.



    >
    > Is it worth me swapping to the 64 bit?
    >
    > My PC is fairly new. It has:
    > Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo (NForce4)
    > AMD 4200+ 64bit dual core CPU
    > 2 x XpertVision nVidia 7600GT connected via SLI bridge
    > 1Gb Corsair 800Mhz memory (2x512, one for each processor)
    > 1 DVD writer and 1 CD writer - these are going to be replaced in the next
    > week or two anyway
    > 2 Sata disks
    >
    > The graphics driver is a detonator 86.63 or something, the one from the box
    > didn't work on XP with the SLI bridge
    RMZ, Feb 2, 2007
    #5
  6. "John Barnes" wrote:

    > You should make sure to install the drivers that Carlos advised were
    > available here a couple of days ago
    >
    > http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_100.54.html
    >
    > These work well on my system and are supposedly updated for the 8800 series
    >
    > "Mike Rossi" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I cannot get half life 2 to run due to issues with 64bit as of last night.
    > >I
    > > will be trying running it with the "-32bit" tag when I get home. It seems
    > > 64bit games are still unreliable. Of course, it is very likely that it is
    > > a
    > > issue with my 8800GTX. Drivers are still very immature, and as far as I
    > > can
    > > tell, 64bit Vista being a specialty market doesnt help as far as support
    > > goes. Hopefully I will be able to get it to work tonight.
    > >
    > > "Johnny C" wrote:
    > >
    > >> I loaded Vista Home Premium last night, 32 bit from the box.
    > >>
    > >> I hadn't bothered about the 64 bit as I read in a mag that for most
    > >> people
    > >> it's more hassle than it's worth. My main use for the PC is playing
    > >> games,
    > >> such as half-life 2 and far-cry.
    > >>
    > >> Is it worth me swapping to the 64 bit?
    > >>
    > >> My PC is fairly new. It has:
    > >> Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo (NForce4)
    > >> AMD 4200+ 64bit dual core CPU
    > >> 2 x XpertVision nVidia 7600GT connected via SLI bridge
    > >> 1Gb Corsair 800Mhz memory (2x512, one for each processor)
    > >> 1 DVD writer and 1 CD writer - these are going to be replaced in the next
    > >> week or two anyway
    > >> 2 Sata disks
    > >>
    > >> The graphics driver is a detonator 86.63 or something, the one from the
    > >> box
    > >> didn't work on XP with the SLI bridge

    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obm55IEM=?=, Feb 2, 2007
    #6
  7. * McG.:

    > Source now recognizes and runs 64 bit code when it detects a 64 bit OS
    > being run. Far Cry has 64 bit version also. As does FEAR. I have a
    > pair of 7800GTX's in SLI, X2 4800+, 2 gigs ram, XP Pro x64 (and soon
    > Vista Ultimate x64). There are a lot of games now with 64 bit code.


    Which are? Most games are still 32bit only, and this is for some reason...

    > The games are not only faster, but one like Far Cry x64 have improved
    > textures and run even more models and higher geometry with 64 bits.
    > It's faster and it looks better.


    FarCry looks better with the 64bit client not because it's 64bit but
    simply because the client contains lots of improvements that have zero
    to do with 64bit (that's btw the reason btw that there are instructions
    around how to get the same result with the 32bit client). Same is valid
    for HL² and other Source based 64bit games.

    64bit does not make games faster or look better. The main reason why the
    handfull 64bit clients for 32bit games do look better is that companies
    like AMD used them as 64bit marketing tools (especially in the days
    where intel didn't had 64bit enhanced processors).

    Today, for gaming 32bit Windows is still the better platform. And that
    probably won't change for the next two years...

    Benjamin
    Benjamin Gawert, Feb 2, 2007
    #7
  8. * RMZ:

    > FarCry is the only game I know of where the vendor has actually
    > supplied a 64-bit (x64) executable in addition to the 32-bit .exe.


    There also are Source based games like HL² that also now have a x64
    client. The number of 64bit games is still close to nil, though.

    > I
    > haven't seen anyone compare the 32-bit version to the 64-bit (except
    > AMD's website)


    There were lots of reviews when the x64 client for FarCry came out which
    should be obtainable easily with google...

    > so if you do go through with the 64-bit install, please
    > write back and tell how it is.


    Gfx looks a bit better and it runs a little bit smoother, that's it. And
    that's simply because the 64bit client got several optimizations that
    the 32bit version didn't get (because AMD paid for the 64bit client
    looking better to use it for marketing). No big deal, and IMHO not worth
    going for 64bit Windows just for gaming...

    Benjamin
    Benjamin Gawert, Feb 2, 2007
    #8
  9. With 1G of memory, I suspect you will be just as well off (perhaps better for
    some compatibility issues) with the 32 bit version. Where the 64 bit version
    will pay off is if you have (and if your applications) support a large amount
    of memory (4G and up). The 64 bit addressing will get you use of the
    additional memory

    Your board supports up to 8G of RAM (of course loading it up with 4 2G
    matched fast memory modules might be a tad pricey).

    Folks installing 8G of RAM and running a 32 bit OS will be disappointed.
    Heck, depending on the motherboard BIOS, you might find that if you install
    4G, you still won't see all of that -- I know that is the case with some Dell
    systems -- that is, POST finds all 4G but a piece of the memory above 3G gets
    mapped by the BIOS.



    "Johnny C" wrote:

    > I loaded Vista Home Premium last night, 32 bit from the box.
    >
    > I hadn't bothered about the 64 bit as I read in a mag that for most people
    > it's more hassle than it's worth. My main use for the PC is playing games,
    > such as half-life 2 and far-cry.
    >
    > Is it worth me swapping to the 64 bit?
    >
    > My PC is fairly new. It has:
    > Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo (NForce4)
    > AMD 4200+ 64bit dual core CPU
    > 2 x XpertVision nVidia 7600GT connected via SLI bridge
    > 1Gb Corsair 800Mhz memory (2x512, one for each processor)
    > 1 DVD writer and 1 CD writer - these are going to be replaced in the next
    > week or two anyway
    > 2 Sata disks
    >
    > The graphics driver is a detonator 86.63 or something, the one from the box
    > didn't work on XP with the SLI bridge
    =?Utf-8?B?QmFycnkgU2NobnVy?=, Feb 2, 2007
    #9
  10. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obm55IEM=?=

    McG. Guest

    "Benjamin Gawert" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >* McG.:
    >
    >> Source now recognizes and runs 64 bit code when it detects a 64 bit
    >> OS being run. Far Cry has 64 bit version also. As does FEAR. I
    >> have a pair of 7800GTX's in SLI, X2 4800+, 2 gigs ram, XP Pro x64
    >> (and soon Vista Ultimate x64). There are a lot of games now with 64
    >> bit code.

    >
    > Which are? Most games are still 32bit only, and this is for some
    > reason...
    >
    >> The games are not only faster, but one like Far Cry x64 have improved
    >> textures and run even more models and higher geometry with 64 bits.
    >> It's faster and it looks better.

    >
    > FarCry looks better with the 64bit client not because it's 64bit but
    > simply because the client contains lots of improvements that have zero
    > to do with 64bit (that's btw the reason btw that there are
    > instructions around how to get the same result with the 32bit client).
    > Same is valid for HL² and other Source based 64bit games.
    >
    > 64bit does not make games faster or look better. The main reason why
    > the handfull 64bit clients for 32bit games do look better is that
    > companies like AMD used them as 64bit marketing tools (especially in
    > the days where intel didn't had 64bit enhanced processors).
    >
    > Today, for gaming 32bit Windows is still the better platform. And that
    > probably won't change for the next two years...
    >
    > Benjamin


    Hi Ben, good seeing you again.

    This discussion about the games and 64 bits isn't and shouldn't be the
    hottest topic concerning 64 bit OS and code, methinks. However, it IS
    something I am interested in, and I'm sure there is quite a bit of
    erroneous information all over concerning this.

    I mentioned the games I have that I'm sure have 64 bit clients. Far
    Cry, HL2 (and mods), FEAR. I think Riddick EFBB also has a 64 bit
    client, but I don't have it installed at the moment. Not sure if Quake4
    or Doom3 have 64 bit clients.

    Since I'm not a programmer, enlighten me. How is it that the 64 bit
    version of Far Cry is so much faster even WITH the inclusion of more
    entities in the game plus the few visual enhancements if these gamespeed
    improvements had nothing to do with 64 bit?
    HL2 and the Source games; prior to Valve running in 64 bit on my
    system, I had to use SLI to get playable framerates in 1600x1200 with
    all the goodies on full. About 3 months ago I stopped using SLI and
    am playing HL2/DM in single display acceleration and while the fr's
    aren't quite as high, they are still from 60's and higher.
    FEAR is the only game I've got that I installed in XP x64 and it's run
    64 bits from the start on my system.
    I admit, I haven't booted to XP x32 to compare. You're saying they
    should perform just as well in 32 bit? The one game of these that I'd
    have to say "I don't think so!" is Far Cry. Still, the important thing
    is how well the games play. And, none of these are multithreaded
    either.

    Well, that's as far as the games go. Not the most important stuff in
    the world. So far, not too much is done to help with the thing I do
    that is important to me. Photography :)

    McG.
    McG., Feb 3, 2007
    #10
  11. * Barry Schnur:

    > Folks installing 8G of RAM and running a 32 bit OS will be disappointed.
    > Heck, depending on the motherboard BIOS, you might find that if you install
    > 4G, you still won't see all of that -- I know that is the case with some Dell
    > systems -- that is, POST finds all 4G but a piece of the memory above 3G gets
    > mapped by the BIOS.


    That is the case with all systems and not only with Dell. It's simply
    because a small area below the first 4GB of memory is reserved for the
    PCI address space.

    Benjamin
    Benjamin Gawert, Feb 3, 2007
    #11
  12. * McG.:

    > This discussion about the games and 64 bits isn't and shouldn't be the
    > hottest topic concerning 64 bit OS and code, methinks. However, it IS
    > something I am interested in, and I'm sure there is quite a bit of
    > erroneous information all over concerning this.


    I don't think it's really off topic here since it also touches 64bit
    Windows.

    > I mentioned the games I have that I'm sure have 64 bit clients. Far
    > Cry, HL2 (and mods), FEAR. I think Riddick EFBB also has a 64 bit
    > client, but I don't have it installed at the moment. Not sure if Quake4
    > or Doom3 have 64 bit clients.


    IIRC there are 64bit Linux clients for Doom³ and Quake4. There also is a
    64bit Windows client for Unreal Tournament 2004. But basically that's
    it. The majority of games still are 32bit only.

    > Since I'm not a programmer, enlighten me. How is it that the 64 bit
    > version of Far Cry is so much faster even WITH the inclusion of more
    > entities in the game plus the few visual enhancements if these gamespeed
    > improvements had nothing to do with 64 bit?


    Simply because the FarCry client contains several improvements that are
    not apparent on the older 32bit client. Crytek didn't upgrade the 32bit
    client because AMD only paid for the 64bit version, and AMD also wanted
    to have the 64bit client having an advantage over the 32bit game.
    However, there are tools and instructions how to incorporate these
    imporvements into the 32bit version of FarCry, removing the need for
    running 64bit Windows while still getting the nicer gfx and the improved
    performance. One example is here:

    <http://farcry.filefront.com/file/FC_64ecu_to_32os_conversion;50861>

    > HL2 and the Source games; prior to Valve running in 64 bit on my
    > system, I had to use SLI to get playable framerates in 1600x1200 with
    > all the goodies on full. About 3 months ago I stopped using SLI and
    > am playing HL2/DM in single display acceleration and while the fr's
    > aren't quite as high, they are still from 60's and higher.
    > FEAR is the only game I've got that I installed in XP x64 and it's run
    > 64 bits from the start on my system.


    I had no problem playing 32bit HL² in 1680x1050 with a single GF7800GTX
    256MB (at that time my system was a HP xw8200 with 2x XEON 3.6GHz and
    16GB RAM), the 64bit client brought some few improvement in gfx and some
    very slight improvements in the frame rate, but nothing really
    groundbreaking.

    But then HL² already ran just fine on an old HP x2000 P4 2GHz with 1GB
    RAM and GF6600 256MB...

    > I admit, I haven't booted to XP x32 to compare.


    I haven't done that, too (using 32bit XP is useless on my main systems,
    it only runs on a few older systems that I don't use for gaming
    anymore). What I did is compare the 32bit and 64bit versions of these
    games on the same machine running 64bit Windowsxp. The advantage is that
    I see the differences in the games itself and not any differences caused
    by different drivers or other things.

    > You're saying they
    > should perform just as well in 32 bit? The one game of these that I'd
    > have to say "I don't think so!" is Far Cry.


    You're right when comparing 64bit FC with out-of-the-box 32bit FC, but
    as I said you can modify the 32bit game to perform the same like the
    64bit version. No need for 64bit, especially since the 64bit clients of
    FC or HL² still don't (and can't) use more than 2GB of RAM...

    > Still, the important thing
    > is how well the games play. And, none of these are multithreaded
    > either.


    IIRC FarCry was already multithreaded as is HL², but none of them are
    really optimized for multiple processors/cores.

    > Well, that's as far as the games go. Not the most important stuff in
    > the world. So far, not too much is done to help with the thing I do
    > that is important to me. Photography :)


    That's indeed a field where 64bit really would make sense...

    Benjamin
    Benjamin Gawert, Feb 3, 2007
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?ZWxpdGVwa251?=

    which vista should i get 32 bit or 64 bit

    =?Utf-8?B?ZWxpdGVwa251?=, Apr 9, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    359
    John Barnes
    Apr 9, 2007
  2. DONOTREPLY
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,285
    Roger Johnstone
    May 12, 2007
  3. BP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,096
    PhilSweet
    Dec 19, 2008
  4. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    742
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  5. David B.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    474
    David B.
    Jan 20, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page