To 64bit or not to 64bit (need some advice)

Don't think I'd take the plunge just yet. Maybe next version of Windows.

Just to many possibilities for problems, incompatible devices/programs, etc.

My 64bit works as well if not better than my 32bit. I gave my mother and father 64bit versions of windows, and it's safe to say they can't tell the difference. IF you believe that going 64bit will give you a gaming boost, then i say go for it...Nothing wrong with 64bit at all these days.

The only problem with 64 bit OS's are the assholes that aren't supporting them with working drivers.

Your system has too much memory for 32 bit, it would benefit substantially from the performance increases. Just be wary of badly done drivers.

Yes but not for the reasons your thinking. If your looking for a huge performance boost out of using x64, then you are probably not going to find it, aside from it being able to use 4gigs of ram, as opposed to however much it is using right now.

x64 bit operating systems are not "faster" than 32 bit operating systems until you start using all of those 64 bits.

wait whut? yeah alot of people get confused by this, myself included before i checked it out. Using large numbers 64 bit OS's are faster, because they are 64 bits as opposed to 32, but before you get to the point where you need 64 bits (as in video encoding, encryption, etc) you won't really see a performance increase.

That said, your 4 gigs will work now which could help, and all the driver complaints people say are usually because of XP x64, which was ..... a bastard child of windows to say the least.

from what i have heard, x64 Vista is supported very well, some say even better than 32.

So is it worth the hours of reinstalling my games and such? (Thanks for the info BTW guys!)

XP64 (XP Professional X64 Edition) was not intended for general use, but more for CG/VFX in the motion picture and television production industry. The advantage of 64 bit, is when using 64 bit applications: all that RAM is available to the application, instead of 2 to 3GB.

(Vista)64bit is the future. Brad himself recommends it.

In 32bit Windows, any process can only use 2GB of RAM. If it goes over that border then the program hangs. Stardock had to deallocate memory in Dark Avatar since the game ran out of memory and thereby crashed.

You may wonder why more resourceintensive games don't crash. They are programmed to take RAM from the videocard instead. That's a workaround which drives up the graphiccard system req a bit.

The solution is to use 64bit Windows. I don't remember what the RAM process limit is but I think it is 64GB (which we will reach in 10 years so things are safe).

quadcore
4 gig ram
8800 gt

been running windows 64bit for months and months now, runs great and I play all those games you mentioned above. Crysis runs on ultra high great, better then on 32bit.

I've only encountered one problem with 64bit so far and that was a application that overlays information from Teamspeak on games which was some dodgy 3rd party program.

Had a issue with drivers for my wirless when I first installed 64bit now I think about it. Other then those two everythings been fine. There seems to be a misconception that 32 bit apps wont run on a 64bit system. They run fine and install fine.

You basically get two install directories one called program files (86) for 32bit apps and Program files for 62 bit apps. In truth I dont think it matter what directory you put them in I've varied them. If in doubt, stick to what you know - put 64bit apps in the program files directory, and everything else in the program files (x86) dir.

all in all 64bit has been far superior.

I been using Vista 64 bit for about year now. It did suck in the beginning with drivers, but now thats not a issue unless you have very old hardware.

I have no issues with with any of the games you have listed. They all work just fine if not better as far as I can tell.

I'll never go back to 32 bit OS on my main computer.

Have been running Vista 64 for about 6 months.

I still find there are troubles with driver support. 3 devices: bluetooth dongle, wifi dongle, TV tuner card, two bought this year, the TV card a few years old. The manufacturers did not provide 64-bit support, but I was able to find alternative drivers from other manufacturers who used the same chipset.

You won't see much in the way performance benefits yet, optimisation still needs to be done.

You can address up to 3GB on a 32-bit machine (don't know why the odd number). You probably wouldn't see benefit from more than this, but 3GB would be a strange amount to install. I think you will see benefit from having more than 2GB now.

System has been very reliable though.

Many people who even complain about Vista admit that 64-bit Vista is a different animal entirely.

It even seems to make up drivers. Just to test it, I plugged a Linksys Wireless card into a 64-bit system, Linksys claims they have no drivers for it, Vista installed it as a generic Broadcom wireless device, and the first Windows update found Linksys 64-bit wireless drivers.

And of course programs that can use it, can take huge advantage of the 64-bit capabilities. And the performance emulating for 32-bit is the same as a normal 32-bit OS.

Good way to try and make your Mac a real computer. You might want to double check on the drivers though, Apple loves proprietary shit. You might upgrade to find some random things not compatibile.

Sounds good, but im still an avid vista hater. In fact i hate everthing about microsoft and windows.

No real issues for me
Vista 64bit Ultimate
Q6600
8GB Ram
3870X2

Microsoft is requiring 64 bit support for their logo program, so compatibility is becoming less of a problem. However, it still remains that some devices don't have drivers - so look for either Microsoft's certification logo, or even better it should specifically say it supports 64 bits.

The biggest, most obvious benefit is access to more memory. If you're pushing the limits of your memory, yes 64 bit will help.

There are some additional benefits, such as access to extra registers, that help, but nothing quire as drastic as the increased amount if memory.



You will benefit from more memory right away - 32 bit Windows only sees about 3.5 gigs of it, so you'll get an extra half gig just by going to 64 bit. If your motherboard supports it, you may be able to put more memory on it. My own motherboard supports up to 8 gigs, and I currently have 6 gigs on it.

The biggest benefit of going 64 bit is breaking the 4 GB barrier. Windows (in fact any OS) cannot use more than 4 gigs with 32 bits, and has to be 64 bits to use more than 4 gigs.

I love my 64 bit system, but i have always had one problem with it. It won't run my older computer games due to compatibility issues. I have a 32 bit with the same, if not better specs, and it plays these games just fine. So yeah, it's great, but older games don't tend to work with it. (By the way, the game that gives me the most problems is Star Wars: Empire at War. But hey, stupid old Lucasarts is at fault there. They won't release an update to fix the problem.)

I've had three 64 bit machines for awhile.

First off, ALOT erasier to run games using a nvidia card then ati.

I only have problems with one important game: max payne. I can run games as far back as 1995 (diablo 1)

thelifealchemist18: That's funny, I'm playing both WarCraft 2: Beyond the Dark Portal and Worms Armageddon and they work great. Only problem is that the result screen in WarCraft 2 gets a little blocky purple (but you still see everything). In Worms Armageddon the entire screen is "blocky purple" but a minimize and restore and it's perfect.

@JWest08:
Since you are running a laptop, I wouldn't bother. Running Vista 64-bit would be a great choice for a gaming system using at least a 8800GT/HD3870. Although if your laptop manufacturer has drivers and applications support for your model in 64-bit, I'd say go for it. Otherwise there's a very good chance your manufacturer doesn't have them so you would be stuck. 32-bit is great for a laptop, especially when you intend to keep it for a while.

If you ever build a gaming system within the next year or two, don't go with anything other than 64-bit.

wow. so many people dont understand 64bit.

He's running 4 gigs of memory. He'd benefit from it, laptop or not. The specs look like they're 64 bit compatible (Core 2 Duo is a 64 bit chip), although being a laptop I'd be a bit worried about drivers for devices specialized for laptops.



I would agree. Many people think it's just the extra memory, but a deep dive into microchip architecture, you'll find it's a lot more than that. Ars Technica has a section about the internal architecture of CPUs that is a good read - a lot of the older articles especially explain how CPUs work in detail.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu.ars



Drivers need 64 bit support since that's how Windows works - but applications do not need 64 bit support unless the application itself is going to push the 4 gig barrier single handedly, which is usually not the case. Both XP and Vista fully support 32 bit applications.

There are rare exceptions in security applications such as firewalls and antivirus that need 64 bit, but they are available.

Games and regular applications, however, do not need to be 64 bit. The support for 32 bit applications is practically perfect; I have yet to come across a regular application that does not work in 64 bit Windows.



Agreed. Many games are already pushing the 4 gig barrier, and they want to go further. GalCiv 2 itself pushes the barrier on the largest maps, and the company has repeatedly switched methods to use less memory with their textures.

I understand that he would benefit memory wise, however I was trying to make the point that if the manufacturer doesn't have the drivers he needs in 64-bit, there is no point in moving to it.



Some programs have issues running is 64-bit, I suppose I should have something like, "make sure the applications you use work on 64-bit", like some of Gametap's platforms won't work on Vista 64-bit.

Deinumite has the right idea (reply #4).

OP, you wont see a huge performance boost in games swopping to an x64 version of Windows, unless that game is specifically designed to take advantage of a 64bit system. I'm not aware of any games that do.

I don't that you'll notice any difference in performance being able to use 4gigs of RAM rather than 3.5gigs, at least not with current games. Maybe a few years down the line, you would.

Driver support for Vista x64 is actually pretty good now, I don't belive that it's really an issue any more unless you're running older bits of hardware (which you won't if you're building a new system).

Go with 64bit unless it'll cost you more.

It should be noted that 64 bit integers use more space in memory then 32 bit ones, so while you may have your full 4 GB addressable (vs ~3.25GB), you may find more space being used.... Kinda swings and roundabouts...

If the game is big enough that it's filling the 32 bit addressing space, then it's big enough to start knocking other applications and even the OS itself back to the page file. The more you prevent sending stuff to the page file, the faster your system will be.



While 64 bit addressing does indeed increase the size of the pointers, I doubt it's going to be a whole half a gig worth of bloat.

Which would only be an issue if integers were 64-bits to begin with.

WWW Link

x64 editions of Windows use the LLP64 data model.

Integers and Longs are still 32-bits. Long Longs are 64-bits and pointers are 64-bits which means that, other than pointers, a 64-bit program has to specifically create a 64-bit data type in order to use it; the existing data types don't increase in
size.