Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

32bit programs slower on 64bit windows 7?

Tags:
Last response: in Windows 7
Share
September 9, 2010 11:35:32 PM

I just installed windows 7 64-bit, everything worked fine after hours of tweaking for some things i have that are old (sound card).

But i play counter strike: source a lot, and my fps is running considerably lower now.

The game is 32 bit, i dont know if this is common for 32bit programs in a 64bit OS, or if it has to do with the DirectX level, but my fps test was 250 on XP pro 32bit, now its 180.

but other things, like Passmark benchmark 64bit tests are considerably higher than on XP pro.

i play CSS as my main game and i really wish i could get it to run the same as before, when i change to DXlevel 11 it runs REALLY bad, 9 is ok, but 81 is the best. but still not as good as before.

system :
e6500 dual-core
2x2gb g.skill ddr2 1000mhz
evga 7900 gt ko
evga 750i sli ftw
600 watt PSU
a b $ Windows 7
September 10, 2010 3:59:38 AM

For one, your video card can't run DX 11
Seeing it came out in March 2006, its prob. time for an upgrade.

For the most part, the only difference that most people will see between 32-bit and 64-bit programs (games included) is the amount of RAM that they can access. A 32 bit program can read @ max. 3.5 GB, where as a 64 bit program has a limit of 256 TB of RAM.

So, for you your x64 programs are reading all 4 GB of your ram, and the x32 apps. are only reading 3.5 gb of it. that really shouldn't make to much of a difference though in fps.
m
0
l
a c 215 $ Windows 7
September 10, 2010 5:02:34 AM

arges86 said:
For one, your video card can't run DX 11


For two, it can't even run DirectX 10.

lumbar, you can't tell the difference between 250 and 180 fps in a game anyway, so I really wouldn't worry about it. The brain cannot process anything over 60-65 fps.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b $ Windows 7
September 10, 2010 5:26:23 PM

I'm not a gamer.
1) 32 Bit programs are Normally limited to 2 gigs, the 3.5 Gig is what is available for Operating system and Programs in a 32 bit system w/4 gigs installed (Will map the 4 gigs but maps out IMIOs leaving between 2.8 -> 3.6 Gigs)

2) Agree a new GPU is called for! Will agree not much difference is 180 – 220 FPS but the max of 60->65 is a little misleading. Some find the 60 Hz flicker of florescent tubes very annoying. Also when comparing the 525 lines (US based on 60 Hz) against the 800 lines (Germany) for CRTs – The latter produced a much clear picture. There is also some improvement in 120 Hz FP TVs compared to 60 Hz version (must compare identical systems where only the freq is changed).

More a question, but isn't the game (with the 180 FPS) more a funtion of the CPU/operating system as appossed to GPU?
m
0
l
September 10, 2010 11:13:17 PM

You guys are right, i don't need the game at those Frame Rates, but i was just concerned something was installed wrong, ect.

Firstly, the game in question CS:S is running in directx 81 anyway, but I do want a new vid card, but like RetiredChief asked, this CSS game isn't using the GPU for anything really anyway. If i start playing a more demanding game that needs a better GPU, ill get one, but for now i play CS:S, and Warcraft which is running just beautifully.

Thank you guys for the replies though, i feel better about the performance I'm seeing. My next upgrades are gonna be a GPU, and a SSD.
m
0
l
!