I think x64 is a cool guy. He can use all memory and run 32-bit code and doesn't afraid of anything.
- Status
Here's what I did with them memory XP can't see.
I have a Lenovo T500, it has 4GB of cache, XP Pro 32bit can only see 3GB (2.99).
So I created a RAMDRIVE (R
, and loaded the RAMDRIVE in upper memory using Intel's PAE (physical address extensions)
I the loaded Firefox, Firefox profiles and Firefox cache on the ram drive. After installation, I created two files save_firefox and load_firefox, copies the directory C:\firefox to the ramdrive and vice versa.
The scripts are set to run on XP shutdown and startup.
I also point the environment variables to R:\TEMP and R:\local settings\temp.
Finally to top things off, I pointed a small page file there, 256mb-512mb.
My system can read and write from memory at 2.7GB/sec. Launching Firefox is instantaneous.
Another reason for doing this is I have an SSD drive. The ramdrive prevents a lot of small I/O, limiting the SSD cycles
I have a Lenovo T500, it has 4GB of cache, XP Pro 32bit can only see 3GB (2.99).
So I created a RAMDRIVE (R
, and loaded the RAMDRIVE in upper memory using Intel's PAE (physical address extensions)I the loaded Firefox, Firefox profiles and Firefox cache on the ram drive. After installation, I created two files save_firefox and load_firefox, copies the directory C:\firefox to the ramdrive and vice versa.
The scripts are set to run on XP shutdown and startup.
I also point the environment variables to R:\TEMP and R:\local settings\temp.
Finally to top things off, I pointed a small page file there, 256mb-512mb.
My system can read and write from memory at 2.7GB/sec. Launching Firefox is instantaneous.
Another reason for doing this is I have an SSD drive. The ramdrive prevents a lot of small I/O, limiting the SSD cycles
[citation][nom]EchoTech[/nom]Here's what I did with them memory XP can't see.I have a Lenovo T500, it has 4GB of cache, XP Pro 32bit can only see 3GB (2.99).So I created a RAMDRIVE (R, and loaded the RAMDRIVE in upper memory using Intel's PAE (physical address extensions)I the loaded Firefox, Firefox profiles and Firefox cache on the ram drive. After installation, I created two files save_firefox and load_firefox, copies the directory C:\firefox to the ramdrive and vice versa.The scripts are set to run on XP shutdown and startup.I also point the environment variables to R:\TEMP and R:\local settings\temp.Finally to top things off, I pointed a small page file there, 256mb-512mb.My system can read and write from memory at 2.7GB/sec. Launching Firefox is instantaneous.Another reason for doing this is I have an SSD drive. The ramdrive prevents a lot of small I/O, limiting the SSD cycles[/citation]
What software did you ustilised to create the ramdrive?
some time ago, I tried to create a compressed ramdrive to store the swap file, as i did in W98, but without success...
What software did you ustilised to create the ramdrive?
some time ago, I tried to create a compressed ramdrive to store the swap file, as i did in W98, but without success...
EmDzei
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2008
- 4
- 0
- 18,510
This article was good, but have lost one very important thing: 5.1 surround sounds, what are not supported on Vista x86 or x64 Direct 3D Sound. I do not know is there any better coming with Windows 7. Is there; build 7077?
Yep, this is one big thing for me and I am still playing my games in WinXP Pro x86 (800 MHz 2 x 2 GB dual channel DDR2 4-4-4-12 latency). I have Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatality sound card. Now I am building a new PC and this memory and x86/x64 OS question is on the lips very often. ;-) And game exes are still 32-bit exes.
Yep, this is one big thing for me and I am still playing my games in WinXP Pro x86 (800 MHz 2 x 2 GB dual channel DDR2 4-4-4-12 latency). I have Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatality sound card. Now I am building a new PC and this memory and x86/x64 OS question is on the lips very often. ;-) And game exes are still 32-bit exes.
EmDzei
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2008
- 4
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]What software did you ustilised to create the ramdrive?some time ago, I tried to create a compressed ramdrive to store the swap file, as i did in W98, but without success...[/citation]
I am using this free RAM-Disk on my x86 WinXP Pro: RamDisk
Support: Vista, XP, 2000 and 2003 Server.
I am using this free RAM-Disk on my x86 WinXP Pro: RamDisk
Support: Vista, XP, 2000 and 2003 Server.
Speaking as an application and game developer, fully optimized 64-bit code offers *almost nothing* over 32-bit code. In fact, most of my benchmarks run slower on 64-bit, due to the data structures being larger (pointers change from 4 bytes to 8 bytes, causing more cache misses / not fitting into one cache line/etc). The only real advantage to 64-bit is not being limited to 2-3 gigs of memory. The extra registers are nice, but X86 would have died almost thirty years ago if register size was all that mattered.
steiner666
Distinguished
- Jul 30, 2008
- 369
- 0
- 18,780
good article, great read. i've been interested in an update on the progress of the (slow as $#!^) transition to 64bit. Almost everyone i know that plays games and/or cares about maintaining a high-end PC has already made the change to 64bit, and with core i7 and ddr3... the choice between 3gb and 6gb is going to make even more ppl go 64bit in the very near future.
and gta4 should definitely remain as a benchmark. its one of the most cpu-intensive benchmarking games i've come across, and i've been wondering why you guys havent used it in articles/reviews yet. dead space was never a good benchmarker because it's pretty hard to find any new hardware (aside from maybe integrated graphics) that is really stressed very much to run the game. GTA4, while still buggy and glitchy and unoptimized (like all console ports), is a totally different story.
and gta4 should definitely remain as a benchmark. its one of the most cpu-intensive benchmarking games i've come across, and i've been wondering why you guys havent used it in articles/reviews yet. dead space was never a good benchmarker because it's pretty hard to find any new hardware (aside from maybe integrated graphics) that is really stressed very much to run the game. GTA4, while still buggy and glitchy and unoptimized (like all console ports), is a totally different story.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
Notification of new post here ...
I'd like to mention that I've applied the LAA trick to a few games since I read it. I've yet to see any of them use more memory, but curiously Saints Row 2 stopped freezing up after the change - but without using any more memory than it did before.
So that change does somehow affect memory management even if the available address space itself isn't a limitation.
ps. the LAA fix only changes 4 bytes ... wierd how little is needed for a change
I'd like to mention that I've applied the LAA trick to a few games since I read it. I've yet to see any of them use more memory, but curiously Saints Row 2 stopped freezing up after the change - but without using any more memory than it did before.
So that change does somehow affect memory management even if the available address space itself isn't a limitation.
ps. the LAA fix only changes 4 bytes ... wierd how little is needed for a change
I think the fault with the slow 64bit gaming lies in 2 places: First is the cost of hardware. However, the cost of hardware prices now are dropping at an incredible rate. Second is mostly with Microsoft's lack to push towards a 64-bit-only platform Then it would give software companies the incentive (financial and otherwise) to only push and develop 64 bit gaming/apps. Microsoft to temporary maintain support of legacy platforms like XP, and leave the discretion of support 32 bit gaming/apps to the software companies. I think some of the posters who are poking fun of the users of 32bit platforms and duo core hardware are placing the fault at the wrong people. And software companies are not usually slow. Quite the opposite, software companies want to push for 64 bit development. Most companies geeks posting comments here complaining failed to consider the business side of things. MS owns Windows. Period. People do not realize the addition overhead cost of developing and support software on different platforms. Right now its not worth going to 64bit platform, unless you have deep pockets to spend, there just aren't any mainstream/consumer support for it. Its like people who want to buy hydrogen fuel-celled cars, but got no place to plug it in to recharge. Don't blame the software developers or the consumers, they don't "own" MS therefore don't "own" Windows.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
It's wrong to blame microsoft really. They offered a 64bit windows version long before mainstream consumers knew about 64bit in the first place. Hardware vendors were however VERY slow to adopt, and on top of that it immidiately became appearant that no corporation would want to switch to it, as 64bit means giving up on support for 16bit applications. And the industry runs on a mix of very old, less old and new. Hell, even here at my company we've got a plasma cutter that's based off of a 386 with 2 3½" floppies. With serial over tcp we don't need the floppies anymore (except for the system disk), but the point is - old survives in an industry where investments have to be prioritized.
And lets face it - private individuals aren't all gamers, and those that are often are amongst those running non genuine operating systems in the first place. So the actual customer base for 64bit systems was rather small until the advent of ddr3 (in english - until 2gb ddr2 modules became dirt cheap).
So overall I can understand why microsoft hasn't exactly forced people onto a 64bit platform. But I suppose now that they offer an optional vmware clone with 32bit xp preinstalled in their newest 64bit os, they've overcome the 16bit support obstacle for individuals who don't depend on the 16bit application to interface with hardware directly (like the mashine that we used to cut signs with prior to 2009 which ran dos 6 on a 486).
In short the slow adoption is to be blamed on lacking flexibility in the industry based on economic considerations.
It's not really much different from the development of the usb! That was invented in the beginning of the 90s but all devices which interfaced with the pc at the time were using other standards, so nobody needed it, and it only became popular after hardware vendors chose to include it - and to this day our company has equipment that depends on serial ports to work, and I'm quite sure many other companies are just as not-flexible. 64bit is only an option now, because intel and amd chose to include it in 32bit capable processors - so like motherboard vendors in the late 90s chose to offer usb it only became popular because the option was already around. It doesn't always work though. Think firewire - no cow uses that anymore, but it's still there for the few devices who's vendors gambled on that instead of usb.
And lets face it - private individuals aren't all gamers, and those that are often are amongst those running non genuine operating systems in the first place. So the actual customer base for 64bit systems was rather small until the advent of ddr3 (in english - until 2gb ddr2 modules became dirt cheap).
So overall I can understand why microsoft hasn't exactly forced people onto a 64bit platform. But I suppose now that they offer an optional vmware clone with 32bit xp preinstalled in their newest 64bit os, they've overcome the 16bit support obstacle for individuals who don't depend on the 16bit application to interface with hardware directly (like the mashine that we used to cut signs with prior to 2009 which ran dos 6 on a 486).
In short the slow adoption is to be blamed on lacking flexibility in the industry based on economic considerations.
It's not really much different from the development of the usb! That was invented in the beginning of the 90s but all devices which interfaced with the pc at the time were using other standards, so nobody needed it, and it only became popular after hardware vendors chose to include it - and to this day our company has equipment that depends on serial ports to work, and I'm quite sure many other companies are just as not-flexible. 64bit is only an option now, because intel and amd chose to include it in 32bit capable processors - so like motherboard vendors in the late 90s chose to offer usb it only became popular because the option was already around. It doesn't always work though. Think firewire - no cow uses that anymore, but it's still there for the few devices who's vendors gambled on that instead of usb.
I don't know why, but for me, Crysis Warhead is very noticeably smoother using the 64bit executable than the 32bit one. Using Vista 64bit with Core i7 and gtx 260.
Wow, what an eclectic mix of posts!
As so often happens, a “killer” has to be introduced to make the exotic more main stream.
Many (many) moons ago, I was working for a shop selling computer games/hardware. We lashed out on a PC with an Intel 386x33 CPU with a graphics card capable of 256 colours. We ran a demo of Wing Commander (well I say a demo, it was us playing it). A huge amount of customers wanted to play it, and pay for the hardware. The difference between a 286 16 colour system was massive and really impressed people.
Half-Life was another factor in driving hardware, I remember buying Half-Life and saving up for a 3DFX card because I wanted to see the difference on my 486DX64 with 8MB of RAM.
These days, the graphics quality/speed increases have become so marginal for most gamers, that innovations get missed or dismissed. How may times have you read posts on a forum about some innovation for someone to post “But will it run Crysis?”
Also, Chuck Walbourn is heavily involved in XNA. So Chuck, what are Microsoft doing about supporting 64bit in XNA then? Are we going to see XNA games on Windows 64bit platforms supported? Are we going to see more support for controllers other than the Xbox360 game pad, keyboard or mouse?
All this talk about 64bit is fine, but when it comes from a Microsoft developer that’s a key player in XNA it seems a little poo when a lot of things XNA related seem to be restricted by the capabilities of the Xbox360.
As so often happens, a “killer” has to be introduced to make the exotic more main stream.
Many (many) moons ago, I was working for a shop selling computer games/hardware. We lashed out on a PC with an Intel 386x33 CPU with a graphics card capable of 256 colours. We ran a demo of Wing Commander (well I say a demo, it was us playing it). A huge amount of customers wanted to play it, and pay for the hardware. The difference between a 286 16 colour system was massive and really impressed people.
Half-Life was another factor in driving hardware, I remember buying Half-Life and saving up for a 3DFX card because I wanted to see the difference on my 486DX64 with 8MB of RAM.
These days, the graphics quality/speed increases have become so marginal for most gamers, that innovations get missed or dismissed. How may times have you read posts on a forum about some innovation for someone to post “But will it run Crysis?”
Also, Chuck Walbourn is heavily involved in XNA. So Chuck, what are Microsoft doing about supporting 64bit in XNA then? Are we going to see XNA games on Windows 64bit platforms supported? Are we going to see more support for controllers other than the Xbox360 game pad, keyboard or mouse?
All this talk about 64bit is fine, but when it comes from a Microsoft developer that’s a key player in XNA it seems a little poo when a lot of things XNA related seem to be restricted by the capabilities of the Xbox360.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]Miyasashi[/nom]Why not test it on the latest Windows 7 RC 32/64-bit?It would give us an indication if porting to Windows 7 and 32 > 64-bit would benefit in the upcoming OS.[/citation]
Am gaming in win 7 rc these days. Only thing I can complain about is 'scar' needing the win98 exe to run, not the xp. Everything else works just fine with the exception of my antivirus.
Am gaming in win 7 rc these days. Only thing I can complain about is 'scar' needing the win98 exe to run, not the xp. Everything else works just fine with the exception of my antivirus.
commodore-64
Distinguished
- Jun 18, 2009
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
hi ! i thought i am the only one who uses vista 64...good to see there are many more out there.....and yeah, i am also pissed of this MY XP AND MY 2 GB is up to date users...damn....we all should go x 64, m$ should force it, win7 should be just available in x 64...i mean....wtf...ram is so cheap these days......... leave that shitty xp behind, forget 2 gb of ram....i use 3 machines...two are quad core with 8 gb of ram, the other one is overclocked i7 with 12 gb of ram.....believe me...this machines kick ass
commodore-64
Distinguished
- Jun 18, 2009
- 6
- 0
- 18,510
hi ! i thought i am the only one who uses vista 64...good to see there are many more out there.....and yeah, i am also pissed of this MY XP AND MY 2 GB is up to date users...damn....we all should go x 64, m$ should force it, win7 should be just available in x 64...i mean....wtf...ram is so cheap these days......... leave that shitty xp behind, forget 2 gb of ram....i use 3 machines...two are quad core with 8 gb of ram, the other one is overclocked i7 with 12 gb of ram.....believe me...this machines kick ass
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]Miyasashi[/nom]Well yeah, I figured gaming would work but after hearing 7 will be an improved vista, will games perform better?[/citation]
Save for the games that didn't run at all in vista, there's no notable difference for me so far. Tabbing in and out of games feels a tad more responsive than before, but the games themselves don't seem to have noticed the change. So if you have some games that run poorly on vista, I wouldn't be hoping too vigorously for that to be solved in win7.
Save for the games that didn't run at all in vista, there's no notable difference for me so far. Tabbing in and out of games feels a tad more responsive than before, but the games themselves don't seem to have noticed the change. So if you have some games that run poorly on vista, I wouldn't be hoping too vigorously for that to be solved in win7.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]widcard[/nom]No game frame rate advantage with 64 bit over 32 bit Zipo None.[/citation]
Assuming you ignore stuttering in games that run out of memory without LAA, yes. I don't ignore that though, so the gaming performance does in some cases increase. Not often enough though.
Assuming you ignore stuttering in games that run out of memory without LAA, yes. I don't ignore that though, so the gaming performance does in some cases increase. Not often enough though.
abhishekshukla1989
Distinguished
- Sep 11, 2009
- 121
- 0
- 18,680
Don't drop gta 4 .It may be a console port but it shows us cpu performance much like crysis shows graphic card performance.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
suppose that's true, but I'd expect sandra to return more reiable numbers than gta given the nature of the game
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Intel unwraps Lunar Lake architecture: Up to 68% IPC gain for E-cores, 16% IPC gain for P-Cores- Started by Admin
- Replies: 60
-
News Door slammed on last remaining easy Windows 11 local account setup workaround
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 51
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram