Why should gamers go 64bit?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
C

Cataclysm

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2006
3
0
18,510
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm
 
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm
Click to expand...

althought a p4 is clocked faster than an amd...amd's do millions of more calculations per clock than p4's do..which is why i choose a 64 bit amd versus a p4. Ever hear of the word.."future" 32 bit will be a thing of the past...maybe not now, but soon. iv played 64 bit far cry...and the difference is amazing from the 32 bit version..
 
Ever hear of the word.."future" 32 bit will be a thing of the past...maybe not now, but soon.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.

32-bit is a dying legacy. Eventually 32-bit will be like old 386s ya know. Go ahead a dig a 6 foot hole for both 32-bit stuff and AGP.
 
I have to straddle the fence on this one and agree with a couple of people. First of all, prozac is right. Not much support for gaming with the 64 bit processing. However, if nobody ever bothered to upgrade their computers at all, we'd all still be playing 386 games. So the more of a "user base" we get with 64 bit processors, the more gaming companies will respond with 64 bit games. Read LordBelial's post to see what happens then.....

Strictly talking capacities.........
2^32 = 4,294,967,296bytes, or 4GB
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,600,000bytes, or 17,179,869,184GB

So going to the point of absurd, though to make the point, 64 bit processing can realistically address over 17 BILLION GIG of memory! Say goodbye to memory limits for the next 20 years or so fellas.
A 32 bit processor can have an instruction bank of 4,294,967,296 different instructions (1 32-bit word at a time). A 64 bit processor can have an instruction bank of 18,446,744,073,709,600,000 different instructions. In other words, a complex set of instructions in 32 bit machine code might be accomplished by running 1 set of 64 bit code. The possibilities here are geometrically higher. 64 bit code does not represent a doubling of potential, it represents a geometrically higher potential.

So the sooner we can adopt 64 bit computing, the sooner we can reap some of these benefits--such as games made without developers worrying about machine limits.
 
CPUs support 64bit for the future, so it's useless now for a gamer. Unless you're on XP 64bit Edition running like a workstation. It's not really an issue for a gamer, since he doesn't need XP 64bit Edition.
Click to expand...

So it's safe to say to gamers not to switch to 64 bit architecture yet and use the 32 bit for now?
Huh, I guess it's kind of like the Pci-e x16 SLI that people saying there's not much difference for the meantime. :?
 
CPUs support 64bit for the future, so it's useless now for a gamer. Unless you're on XP 64bit Edition running like a workstation. It's not really an issue for a gamer, since he doesn't need XP 64bit Edition.
Click to expand...

So it's safe to say to gamers not to switch to 64 bit architecture yet and use the 32 bit for now?
Huh, I guess it's kind of like the Pci-e x16 SLI that people saying there's not much difference for the meantime. :?

I know you weren't responding to me, but my point was that gamers should upgrade. Otherwise, there will be no push for game companies go 64 bit processing, and we'll all be stuck playing PacMan.

So for all you gamers out there with the means, don't be a computing girlie man!
 
I'm really hopeing that Vanguard will take some use out the 64-bit arch, or dual core for that matter. That's just me though :)
 
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm
Click to expand...

What 32 bit chips are faster than the 64bit chips in 32 bit mode? Sorry to dissalusion you but the AMD64 chips have been king in 32 bit mode since they were introduced. Intel has a sweet chip coming later this year, but that "32 bit is faster than 64 bit" argument can be filed away with "a 486 with 66mhz internal clock will never make a big difference because it still communitates with the outside world at 33mhz". (OK. Some of you may be too young to remember the introduction of the DX2's and the enormous skepticism that brewed over them when they were announced).
 
Ok so I see that first reply had the more logical version of it, while the rest went for the "Look to the future, young Marty". Yes, in time the 32bit will become boat anchors. No one made a comment on the prices I quoted. If most my games, (I play MMO's) run on 32bit and the upcomming ones still will run on 32bit, why would I spend 600 bucks to down-grade to a 2.4 when I can spend 300 bucks and run my games on a 3.6? Way I see it, why spend extra money for options I cant use, lower my performance (because i'm running in 32bit mode). When 64bit games hit the market then i'll go for the upgrade, by then that 600 dollar chip will be half or less of what it is today.

Cataclysm
 
thats right. Its easy to dismiss 64 bit gaming for now, but with FarCry, Doom3, and HalfLife2 all using 64 bit versions, its only a matter of time before they all are 64bit. The same can be said for dual-cores too.
 
ahh. You've fallen into the mhz trap.
Lets ignor 64bit for the moment. The AMD (and the next Intel). Are both faster than the 3.6Ghz CPu and they only run at 2.6 Ghz.
Thats because they do more work per clock cycle.
Even the latest 3.6Ghz Intel p4 can do 64bit. So don't worry about the 64bitness, think of it as an added bonus when you decide to go Vista.

The trouble with highly clocked chips (P4 and potentiall future AMDs) is massive heat output.
What you do have to decide however, is do you need dual core or single core.
E.g. An AMD X2 3800+ runs at a lower frequency that the AMD 3800+.
If you are purley interested in running games get the single core 3800+ or higher, but if you do something intesive in the background whilst playing a game (burning a DVD) get the X2 or intel equivalent.
 
There is really no harm in going to 64bit now. Just to get used to it. Almost all of your programs will run on a 64bit OS as it is right now. The exceptions are few, standouts being Diskeeper (older version) and WinRAR. Though I think if you get the latest and greatest versions of these, they work fine.

I have Vista 64 sitting on my desk to test out, and also XP64, just have been waiting for my Opteron to get stable (just bought it).

This is often my gripe over at the BF2 forums, why gaming companies don't push forward and take advantage of all the potential x64 CPUs and a 64bit OS has to offer. There is always the driver support issue they would have to contend with, but when EA, Activision, Serria, and Blizzard start pushing the software, the hardware will already be there.

You could say it is the chicken/egg problem. Gaming companies don't build much support for WS FOV, because they think statically there is not a lot of WS LCDs. But, you put it in there, are a chunk of us that will take advantage of it.

just my two cents....

But if you want some further help, here is some more information...

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=406695
 
Anyone who is comparing a single core Intel 3.6 GHz processor to a dual core AMD 2.4 GHz processor isn't really thinking straight. GHz to GHz there is no comparison in terms of real world performance... and then when you factor in the single core vs. dual core you're really talking about apples and oranges.

If you want a $300 AMD CPU to compare an Intel 3.6 to, choose an X2-3800... every one on the planet will likely OC to 2.4 GHz which will give it a tremdendous lead in gaming performance over that NetBurst Intel.
 
The 64bit chips run 32bit apps very, very fast. Check the Tom's CPU charts. Compare the top 32bit P4 (3.4GHz) listed there to the 4800+ X2, or almost any other 64bit chip for that matter (except some of the lowest end ones), the 64bit chips win in big in all the gaming apps, as well as almost every other app. You can get a 3800+ X2 or some other 64bit chip for $300 that will be faster in 32bit and have 64bit and dual core technology for the future.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=233&model2=220&chart=68
 
Vista, aside from the several versions comes in 32bit and 64bit flavors. I really wish MS had just put their foot down and said they are going 64bit only. Considering they are putting their foot down on everything else (aside form DRM).
 
I didnt purchase based upon 32bit 64 bit but wrather overall cpu performance. Nearly every bench mark you will see is done in 32bit anyhow so not like matters.

Dual cores at stock (like the X2 3800+) when running single threaded apps leave alot to be desired. Overclock them and run some mutli threaded apps and watch in awe...

Clockspeeds arn't the hype they used to be... ever wonder why Intel stopped naming their CPU's based upon clock frequency??
 
Never mind the brand of processor, intel or amd...i'm looking at the 32bit prices over the 64bit prices. I'm looking for the debate over why a gamer should spend extra money going 64bit when games run at 32bit. The processors I used where picked for pricing matters. Should a gamer spend extra money on going 64bit when most games and even upcomming titles run on 32bit? Yeah there are a few games out there that run on 64bit, but I can only count those games on one hand.

continue to discuss.....

Cataclysm
 
If optimized for a 64-bit processor, games can and will receive a performance increase. Look at Half-Life2 64-bit and Far Cry 64-bit.
Click to expand...
You gain maybe 5-10 FPS. Also, some games such as HL2 LOSE performance in 64bit.
64 bit is just worthless in gaming..
Not to mention 64to32 bit emulation WILL lose performance.
 
The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that considering the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 are faster than both 32-bit only P4s and 64-bit capable P4s and Pentium Ds.
Doesn't matter if its in 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows.


All consumer level 64-bit processors are mostly just a 32-bit processor with 64-bit extensions on them so they can run 64-bit code.
 
wusy
EM-64T DOES NOT have those extra registries to increase speed in x86-64 environment.
Click to expand...

Not to roll a hand gernade in to the room here, but is Conroe based on EM-64T? Or does Conroe have it's own improved version of those extensions?

IF, and I'm just speculating here, Conroe is EM-64T and the above is true about the lack of registers slows down 64bit apps, Conroe might not be as fast as AMD64 based processors in a 64bit enviornment. The tests we saw were in XP Pro, not XP 64.

I'm probably wrong on this, but it's a theory. Someone will probably point out to me there is something faster in Conroe to replace EM-64T or something like that.
 
wusy EM-64T DOES NOT have those extra registries to increase speed in x86-64 environment.
Click to expand...

Not to roll a hand gernade in to the room here, but is Conroe based on EM-64T? Or does Conroe have it's own improved version of those extensions?

IF, and I'm just speculating here, Conroe is EM-64T and the above is true about the lack of registers slowing down 64bit apps, Conroe might not be as fast as AMD64 based processors in a 64bit enviornment. The tests we saw were in XP Pro, not XP 64.

I'm probably wrong on this, but it's a theory. Someone will probably point out to me there is something faster in Conroe to replace EM-64T or something like that.

Nobody cares. Intel didn't care about 64 bit for desktops, and honestly I agree. No real programs are coming out on 64bit, and the fact is that few companies are really planning for 64bit either...dual core is the rage now, and for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom