Gaming In 64-Bit: Tom's Tests, Microsoft Weighs In

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]superhighperf[/nom]it does not look like 64 bit improves performance that much if at all but are there other advantages? like load time when using ramdisc software to mount the game in the abundance of ram? i would like to see how well a game runs if it is mounted in the ram. even if all you have is 8gb of ram that should be enough to mount most games and still have plenty left to play the game.just curious.[/citation]
Most games are 6-8 GB's total with patches, and sometimes even more with custom content like oblivion or Fallout3. You're more than likely going to need 12-16 GB's to reliably load games from a ramdisk.
 
GTA4 is a very bad benchmark, you cant expect to get consistent results accross the board with a badly optimized game like GTA4, weve seen it in the forums were people with similiar setups get varyed results, leave it out stick to the stable games not ports from consoles which are nearly always badly coded for the PC.... and to the poster above whether a game is fun or not doesnt decide whether its a good benchmark.
 
The change to 64 bit for programmers is a major paradigm shift. When memory was very expensive they were for forced to optimize their programs. With XP stuck on 3 gig that didn't change. Now with some very amazing hardware and Vista/Windows 7 memory potential programmers haven't learned what the new combo can do and how to optimize it. Why should they with the rough launch of Vista why would they expend resources to do so. It will happen in time, I would rather it not take so long.
 
GTA test is really helpful about understanding cpu power so ill be glad if you continue to run your tests with GTA IV
 
I only hope that the switch to x64 and more RAM doesn't excuse poor memory management by developers. I want apps to be as lean as possible, regardless of how much RAM I have. Otherwise what have I gained? I am not talking about precaching here, that is another thing entirely. I am talking about actual memory consumption by applications at runtime.
 
To the person who said he played it for hours and didn't have any issues. You said your self you seen it leaking. You must have 4gb like me because, yes it isn't as bad with 4GB because it takes alot longer for the game to steal your wall paper memory "it disapears" and system memory then it locks your system up eventually but, the leak is there and it is obvious.

People with 2GB are screwed because theirs glitches out alot faster, locking up the PC or making it CTD. I have also noticed that people with certain video cards don't have this issue. People with newer ones seem to have the issue alot more then people with "some" older cards.

The error that usualy comes with the CTD is out of video memory because of the obvious leak. They said 1% were having issues, they are full of crap. Go to gtaforums and look at all the people bitching in the PC section that had waited for them to come out with this only to play it and realize what a mess they made of the games coding.

The game it self is awesome and I love playing it but, I want its flaws that have been ignored fixed. I am tired of reinstalling my OS because of their game locking my computer up because of the memory leak.
 
[citation][nom]bachree[/nom]GTA test is really helpful about understanding cpu power so ill be glad if you continue to run your tests with GTA IV[/citation]
*shrug* So is SuperPi or even Winrar for that matter.
 
Maybe 64bit vs 32bit tests needs to add stability of game. I know it is not easy and time consuming, but I wonder if GTA4 on x64 is more stable then x32 OS...

Just a thought
 
[citation][nom]bachree[/nom]GTA test is really helpful about understanding cpu power so ill be glad if you continue to run your tests with GTA IV[/citation]
Well, I don't think GTA4 will be a good CPU benchmark. It just doesn't seem to be built for multicore systems, strange behaviour on my i7.
 
@wh3resmycar

We all know it runs perfect on your system.. For us people thatdon't have exactly what the development team tested it on "probably one specific GPU for each camp the 8800 and 1900 series LMAO". Next time state your setup and then say I have no issues other wise..
 
One thing I noticed is that having 3GB or 6GB RAM on a 64-bit OS didn't have any negative effects vs. 3GB on the 32-bit.

The differences between the systems in performance and price are negligible if you are building a system. If you bought 3GB of RAM, how much would it cost to get 6GB instead?

The increase in cost isn't worth thinking about, if you are an enthusiast or gamer that is.

This article was written for gamers last time I checked. Thank you Tom's, BTW.

Oh, and for those who have problems finding 64-bit compatible drivers, there is a little thing you should have a look at. It's called RESEARCH.

If the future looks to be 64-bit, and the price to equip a system to utilize a 64-bit is negligibly more expensive, then go ahead and build a system to support 64-bit OS's to their fullest.

My copy of Windows Vista Ultimate came with 2 disks. One 32-bit and one 64-bit. I assume Windows 7 will be similar (hopefully only 64-bit.) Where's the problem?

People stuck on XP really need to get over it. Especially gamers. If you want to play modern games, do us all a favor. Shut up, and go pick up a copy of Vista. You can always DUAL-BOOT.

Because I am getting sick and tired of people saying that an XP PRO 32-bit machine with 2GB of RAM is faster than my Vista Ultimate x64-bit with 4GB. Even if it were, I still have an edge. It's called having more addressable memory + less swap file usage.

Microsoft can't support XP forever if they don't keep selling products. Hardware changes, so do the OS's that run on them, in order to give you the performance that you paid for.

That's the nature of technology. Time to deal with it.
 
Let's face it, the problem is proprietary software - Microsoft's in particular. The 64bit version of XP never went anywhere because there weren't drivers for it. 64bit Vista has a similar problem that is aggravated by the lack of Vista support (32 or 64 bit) for older hardware. And with Vista's reputation, few people have upgraded their perfectly good 32bit XP just to get a 64bit operating system.

On Linux, everything's been 64bit for a few years now. This wasn't a big leap because Linux has run on 64bit and 128bit hardware for a long while. A 64bit x86 architecture was just one more.

The open-source drivers and code has also meant you lose nothing by matching your operating system version to your hardware. If an open source driver was available, it got translated to work in 64bits.

For game development companies, the open APIs have also worked in 64bits. And they work across platforms, so you could develop for Mac, Linux and Windows at the same time. Unfortunately too many game vendors have concentrated on the Windows market. So while the rest of the world is 64bits, the backwards Windows market has meant a slow pace for 64bit games.

What you need to do is demand 64bit Linux and Mac versions of your favourite games. Don't wait for Windows to catch up.
 
WTF is with the people thinking vista is bad especially x64 with drivers etc? THATS YOUR THIRD PARTY HARDWARE COMPANYS ISSUES NOT VISTA OR X64, even then its rare to find something that wont work with vista.

For most internal hardware windows update will pick up device drivers anyhow! if not you cam mod the drivers (eg ralink chipsets, mod the inf file and remove the subsystem tags to make the strings less "unique" etc) - simple! Been doing it for years.

GTA4 runs great with a Quad, Vista x64, 4gb and 8800GT+/4850+ - all mainstream hardware etc and affordable - DONT TELL ME GTAIV IS HEAVY ON YOUR ANCIENT SYSTEMS.

Your game and computer hardware age should be relative - new game + new hardware = aok, old game + old hardware = aok, new game + old hardware = fail, old game + new hardware = dont expect anything.

With windows 7 microsoft should have gone with only x64 - it would even save them dev time etc and tech support as only modern hardware would work with it etc - the oldest rigs being Socket 775 and Socket 754 which are both ancient anyhow.

Keep GTAIV to thrash the systems, just like FarCry did when it was first out kicking the FX and 9 series cards asses trying to run it at full settings.

 
@ apache_lives :

Dude you have an 8800 series video card man, did you not see my comment right above yours? Not everyone has an 8800 series card man and every one that doesn't can't run the game right, why try benching it for results if it isn't coded properly to work with anything other then a 8800 series card??
 
didnt say it required an 8800 specifically - just saying it runs fine on it, and that even then its a ~2 year old design - even its ancient for any "gamer" when theres 4870's and GTX280's etc out there

Vista x64 and x86 driver support is fine - i dont wtf your talking about, oh wait, your another one of them Mojive people - couldnt expect more from you since you live under a giant rock.

Linux? were talking gaming here - i can pick up any PC title off a shelf and install it on my windows machine, cant do that with linux (no offence, but gaming = windows)

128-bit hardware??
 
[citation][nom]Flightmare[/nom]Well, I don't think GTA4 will be a good CPU benchmark. It just doesn't seem to be built for multicore systems, strange behaviour on my i7.[/citation]

It owns on an i7 system - the game loves cpu power - a dual core cant quite give it enough
 
@ apache_lives :


Yeah, obviously you do not have a clue wtf I am talking about... I never even talked about Vista?? I have Windows 7 x64 Build 7057 and have Vista Ultimate sitting in my drawer at home so, wtf are you talking about exactly because I have no clue as I never said anything about Vista at all and I actually like it TY. You need to learn to read before you comment man seriously.


The point is "again I am saying this to you and I'm not even talking about Vista here nor did I ever mention Vista, note to your self " that it only runs right on an 8800 series GPU and maybe another GPU that the development team tested this on before releasing it like the 1900 series maybe. I have noticed tha people with 8800 series GPUs have no issues.. not to sure about the other side of the fence though. The game is buggy as hell and they need to reolve the issues is has on every one elses PCs. End of rant sorry..
 
Until Microsoft comes out with a pure 64bit o/s support will be slow.
I think the world will have to be draged,kicking and screaming,to go 64bit.
 
OTOH..If we had an operating system that could properly manage resources and allocate 4g of ram to each cpu with full multi threaded operations ,,in protected memory....???...:)
 
This is microsofts fault, and they need a single 64 bit OS. Driver support in 64 bit IS microsoft's fault, as in shipping 32 and 64, 64 has been the black sheep. Come on, 64 bit cpus have been around for a while - and windows 7 still 32 bit???
 
Couldn't appreciate the article more with regards to performance. The key trade-off that I think needs to be emphasized is stability. Since transitioning to a 64bit system over the last month, all of the games that I had stability problems with (Crysis, Fallout, WIC, Call of Duty) have all but gone away.
 
[citation][nom]suddenstop[/nom]This is microsofts fault, and they need a single 64 bit OS. Driver support in 64 bit IS microsoft's fault, as in shipping 32 and 64, 64 has been the black sheep. Come on, 64 bit cpus have been around for a while - and windows 7 still 32 bit???[/citation]
Since when is microsoft`s faut for your poor hardware support ? better bash the company from where you purchesed the components for poor driver support, this has absolutely nothing to do with MS, what do you want now MS devs to build drivers to random companies ?
 
DROP THE GTA BENCHMARK PLEASE.
That game should NOT be used as a testing application for any system, as it is severely broken and very poorly ported. Hell, even with an overclocked quad-core the game still likes to dip in the 20s regularly (as a counter argument for the idiots who keep spouting crap about the game being "CPU hungry"), and the framerate always seems erratic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom