Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best 64 - bit OS for Gaming?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 5, 2010 12:29:27 AM

I am currently using Windows XP Pro, but I was looking move up to a 64-bit OS.

I love that my OS is compatible with Ol' Skool and New games now, but I want to be able to use all of my memory on my Hard Drive and have room to upgrade my memory if needed.

I love games, so my question would be what would be the best 64-bit OS for gaming? What is the most compatible?

I love my 32 bit games for windows, so far I was told Win XP Pro 64-bit Edition, Win 7 Home 64-bit Edition.

More about : bit gaming

December 5, 2010 5:42:13 AM

Am using Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit patched running 16GB (4x4GB) of ram with +4GB patch for games to remove the 2GB limiter. My Fallout 3 on 32-bit pawns my other computer which is 64-bit using same system specs.

- All PC games are compatible on 32-bit even legacy games
- PC games were built on 32-bit what a lame excuse to say go 64-bit
- 64-bit operating systems use 32-bit code to use and play old games and application

Tell me what's great about 64-bit operating system in regards to computer gaming, when games where build on 32-bit?

Think about that for a moment.

If you want to maximize your ram given you have more than 4 google this “32 bit ram patch” select the link from unawave.
December 5, 2010 5:47:26 AM

psychophat said:
Am using Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit patched running 16GB (4x4GB) of ram with +4GB patch for games to remove the 2GB limiter. My Fallout 3 on 32-bit pawns my other computer which is 64-bit using same system specs.

- All PC games are compatible on 32-bit even legacy games
- PC games were built on 32-bit what a lame excuse to say go 64-bit
- 64-bit operating systems use 32-bit code to use and play old games and application

Tell me what's great about 64-bit operating system in regards to computer gaming, when games where build on 32-bit?

Think about that for a moment.

If you want to maximize your ram given you have more than 4 google this “32 bit ram patch” select the link from unawave.

Thats an alternative to keep current os, but i would still recommend going for a real 64 bit windows 7, 7 is just much better than xp..
Related resources
December 5, 2010 5:56:50 AM

I didn't quite get what you said there . . . that ain't an alternative, it's a solution. Because my system is not bound to the 4GB cap on Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit and we are talking about computer gaming which has a lot of issues related to 64-bit.

I would recommend 64-bit if your using server related applications or heavy multimedia.

Aside from that the world of computer gaming is still using 32-bit assembly language unless the developers are lying.
December 5, 2010 6:07:41 AM

There are currently no issues with current 64 bit os nowadays..
For gaming, I would recommend 64 bit even if you can tweak 32 bit to use more ram, 64 bit is not the same compared to 32 bit, even with ram management, I was only using 32 bit before, I now use 2 64 bits os partitioned hdd with all my software w/o any prob..
December 5, 2010 6:28:56 AM

I agree only to what you said nowadays, but if an avid gamer plays legacy games which do not support 64-bit code. And you'll be using 64-bit OS as a norm, the OS will still use its 32-bit emulator to launch the game and you'll eventually encounter problems.

This is currently a fact and experienced as of today by a lot of gamers that is why some still prefer XP.
December 5, 2010 1:24:25 PM

psychophat said:
I agree only to what you said nowadays, but if an avid gamer plays legacy games which do not support 64-bit code. And you'll be using 64-bit OS as a norm, the OS will still use its 32-bit emulator to launch the game and you'll eventually encounter problems.

This is currently a fact and experienced as of today by a lot of gamers that is why some still prefer XP.


Well, thats your point of view, I did suggest windows 64 bit, and thats it, and about the patch, whats it use, windows x86 and x64 are same prices..
December 5, 2010 1:57:50 PM

I would have to say to go for Windows 7 64bit.

DX10 and DX11 are available for W7 where for XP they aren't (I don't count the DX10 "trick" for XP that was released), and games designers are now writing with W7 (and Vista) in mind rather than XP users - which will only increase over time. Some manufacturers never made drivers for XP 64bit for their products, so you might run into problems using it on some of your components/peripherals. The only product I've ever run into that didn't have a Vista/7 64bit driver since my first install in 2007 was an £8 Alba webcam from Argos - everything else has run flawlessly.

As for whether a 64bit OS is needed at all, which I realise isn't a question you raised but Psychophat did, all but one of the games I've tried on 64bit have worked but then my oldest game is from 2004 (Worms Mayhem) so not sure if your experience will be the same if you have any games released around the Windows 98 era or earlier. The only game I tried that didn't run on W7 64bit is Road Rash because although the game is 32bit (I think), it's installer was 16bit and so couldn't run. I simply installed XP on another hard drive and booted into that to play the game. After a few plays, I was bored so removed the hard drive.

I know Psychophat says that playing games on 64bit will eventually lead to problems but in my personal experience, this has simply not been the case. I am sure the patches he has explained work well at removing some of the limitations of a 32bit OS, but I would have said hacking your copy of Windows to do things it was never designed to is more likely to cause problems than doing something it is meant to do (such as running 32bit games executables).

I can only speak from my experience of gaming (my PC has run Vista 64 bit since early '07, moved to W7 64bit on release day; my stepson's gaming PC has run Vista 64 since Oct 09; other stepson's laptop has run Vista 32 since Dec 09) but if I was building another gaming PC for anyone who doesn't have lots of 10+ year old games, I would always install W7 64bit on it.
December 6, 2010 3:05:02 PM

I've been using Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit since the beta came out.


I haven't had ONE problem relating to the OS in any game I play. I don't know where you are getting your idea's from.

If you really "need" to play some old games (as mentioned) - run a dual boot setup.
December 6, 2010 3:28:33 PM

@psychophat
I went to that site and a warning to all...It contains nude picture. Not very good when you viewing this information @ work!
December 6, 2010 3:30:13 PM

jgiron said:
@psychophat
I went to that site and a warning to all...It contains nude picture. Not very good when you viewing this information @ work!

Ohho - !

@ phychopat- Not nice-
December 7, 2010 3:18:36 AM


I am not sure but I think I saw someone did mention that games are not written for 64 bit. Well, the games which are getting released these days are written primarily to run on 32 bit while they all have coding for 64 bit as well and this is without any doubt true.

In coming months and years this will be completely reversed. So no matter you find it more convenient to play on 32 bit, it has to retire.

For efficiency, since I also play on 32 bit, I can only expect that being the word size of 64 bit on those OS, I think they should run faster.
December 7, 2010 10:38:45 AM

psychophat said:
I agree only to what you said nowadays, but if an avid gamer plays legacy games which do not support 64-bit code. And you'll be using 64-bit OS as a norm, the OS will still use its 32-bit emulator to launch the game and you'll eventually encounter problems.

This is currently a fact and experienced as of today by a lot of gamers that is why some still prefer XP.


All my games (including some 1995 classics like Command & Conquer) work perfectly on Windows 7 64bit.
December 7, 2010 8:06:10 PM

yeah step up to Win7. Its very stable plus you got no limit caps like on memory with 32 bit :)  I havent had any trouble with games(old and new) on Windows 7.
December 7, 2010 8:41:36 PM

psychophat said:
I agree only to what you said nowadays, but if an avid gamer plays legacy games which do not support 64-bit code. And you'll be using 64-bit OS as a norm, the OS will still use its 32-bit emulator to launch the game and you'll eventually encounter problems.

This is currently a fact and experienced as of today by a lot of gamers that is why some still prefer XP.


I don't know about other 64 bit Operating Systems. But Windows does NOT emulate 32bit Processes in a 64bit environment in the AMD64 versions. The processor is actually switched between 64 and 32 bit modes for the processes. There is a special translator to make up for any differences in calls to the Windows Kernel, There is no separate 32bit Kernel being executed. 32bit system files are provided for 32bit processes, you will find these under the \%systemroot%\sysWOW64\ directory.
Most 32bit applications will run under 64bit windows at ~100% speed. Many applications actually perform better on 64bit systems. There are some classes of applications that cannot function in WOW64 mode, Games are not one of these.

Now from personal experience.
I have not used a 32bit operating system since I first used XP x64 not long after its release. I have never encountered a 32bit application that will not function on my x64 systems. I have generally found 64bit systems to be more secure and faster than their 32bit counter parts. The only gripe is the lack of 16bit application support (Do you worry about the performance of 16 bit applications on your 32bit system? no you don't. They are handled in a similar way to 32bit on 64bit systems.) but most 16 bit applications can be run fine under DOSBOX or VMWare anyway, a sacrifice I am willing to make for the 4 or 5 old games I would play.
December 8, 2010 3:09:18 PM

I've been running 64 bit Win7 for a year now and was running Vista 32 before that and I have to say that the performance of the Win7 Os is amazing. Games run fast and never crash on me, which happened alot with XP. I have an extensive library of old and new games. The only recent issue with one that wouldn't run was Codename Panzer and that was on Vista. I recommend 64 bit as driver support is going to become extremely difficult in the near future from hardware vendors and drivers are where you get stability and performance from. I recently discovered this with my second game machine, my Alienware m15x. Nvidia stopped releasing drivers for it and newer games will not run well without newer drivers. GPU-z showed me that the graphics card downclocks itself when newer games run but cranks up when I play games from the 2008-2009 era.
December 9, 2010 12:26:25 AM

64 bit Win 7 - beats XP and kills Vista in my experience.
Still XP and Vista play older games better with no tweaks.
Dave
December 9, 2010 4:55:01 AM

One thing that is also worth mentioning is that MS roll out patches for Windows 7 every so often that fix known compatibility problems. Thus the gaming potential of 7 will actually improve over time, while XP and Vista will eventually stagnate as their support cycle comes to an end.
December 9, 2010 4:59:29 AM

stillerfan15 said:
64 bit Win 7 - beats XP and kills Vista in my experience.
Still XP and Vista play older games better with no tweaks.
Dave

Lol stiller " My owner is an idiot" :p 



Btw, I dont think there is a better Os than win 7 64 bit..
having used xp, vista , win 7, win 7 is simply the best in any way..
December 9, 2010 10:04:53 AM

psychophat said:
I didn't quite get what you said there . . . that ain't an alternative, it's a solution. Because my system is not bound to the 4GB cap on Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit and we are talking about computer gaming which has a lot of issues related to 64-bit.

I would recommend 64-bit if your using server related applications or heavy multimedia.

Aside from that the world of computer gaming is still using 32-bit assembly language unless the developers are lying.

It's not a total solution... things can still be buggy and unstable. 32bit os'es weren't made to run more than 4 gigs of ram and no matter how hard you try, that's not going to change. It's better and more stable to just get a solid 64bit os.
December 9, 2010 8:37:30 PM

yeah grab Win7 64 bit. I hear that windows 8 is in the works lol. If you go to college or anything go to the tech center and Microsoft should have a program where you get Microsoft Products for free :)  I have gotten 3 Win7 keys for free from this program to put on my computers.
December 13, 2010 1:27:16 AM

psychophat said:
Am using Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit patched running 16GB (4x4GB) of ram with +4GB patch for games to remove the 2GB limiter. My Fallout 3 on 32-bit pawns my other computer which is 64-bit using same system specs.

- All PC games are compatible on 32-bit even legacy games
- PC games were built on 32-bit what a lame excuse to say go 64-bit
- 64-bit operating systems use 32-bit code to use and play old games and application

Tell me what's great about 64-bit operating system in regards to computer gaming, when games where build on 32-bit?

Think about that for a moment.

If you want to maximize your ram given you have more than 4 google this “32 bit ram patch” select the link from unawave.


I have 1 TB of Hard Drive space. I was told that I needed a 64-bit OS. About the excuse, if what you said is true,
then it is a lame excuse to sell me a 64-bit OS! if the patch will work for my HDD then that is a plus!
December 13, 2010 1:30:42 AM

psychophat said:
Am using Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit patched running 16GB (4x4GB) of ram with +4GB patch for games to remove the 2GB limiter. My Fallout 3 on 32-bit pawns my other computer which is 64-bit using same system specs.

- All PC games are compatible on 32-bit even legacy games
- PC games were built on 32-bit what a lame excuse to say go 64-bit
- 64-bit operating systems use 32-bit code to use and play old games and application

Tell me what's great about 64-bit operating system in regards to computer gaming, when games where build on 32-bit?

Think about that for a moment.

If you want to maximize your ram given you have more than 4 google this “32 bit ram patch” select the link from unawave.


I have 1 TB of Hard Drive space. I was told that I needed a 64-bit OS. About the excuse, if what you said is true,
then it is a lame excuse to sell me a 64-bit OS! if the patch will work for my HDD then that is a plus!
December 13, 2010 1:32:11 AM

whoever told you that is an idiot. your hard drive size has nothing to do with either 32 bit or 64 bit operating software. It's based on RAM
December 13, 2010 1:34:37 AM

psychophat said:
Am using Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit patched running 16GB (4x4GB) of ram with +4GB patch for games to remove the 2GB limiter. My Fallout 3 on 32-bit pawns my other computer which is 64-bit using same system specs.

- All PC games are compatible on 32-bit even legacy games
- PC games were built on 32-bit what a lame excuse to say go 64-bit
- 64-bit operating systems use 32-bit code to use and play old games and application

Tell me what's great about 64-bit operating system in regards to computer gaming, when games where build on 32-bit?

Think about that for a moment.

If you want to maximize your ram given you have more than 4 google this “32 bit ram patch” select the link from unawave.



I have 1 TB of Hard Drive space. I was told that I needed a 64-bit OS to use all of the memory on my Hard Drive. About the excuse, if what you said is true,
then it is a lame excuse to sell me a 64-bit OS! if the patch will work for my HDD then that is a plus! I do plan to max out my rig to 8GB, and soon.
December 13, 2010 5:42:26 AM

OK, you've now posted the same thing 3 times. The OS has nothing to do with how much space you have on your hard drive, but a 32bit OS will limit the amount of RAM you are able to use. If you plan to install 8GB, then a 64 OS is the best bet.
December 14, 2010 3:12:56 AM

Herr_Koos said:
OK, you've now posted the same thing 3 times. The OS has nothing to do with how much space you have on your hard drive, but a 32bit OS will limit the amount of RAM you are able to use. If you plan to install 8GB, then a 64 OS is the best bet.



I already emailed Psychophat about what had happpened with the messages! It was a problem with Google Chrome or now I think it may be the Website. I clicked back then forward on my browser a few times and it send 3 messages. one was supposed to be a revision.

The person that told me I need a 64-bit OS, is a Technician that build computers, Only 931 GB is registered by the OS. I was thinking to finding a solution so my OS would register a full 1TB.
December 14, 2010 3:14:04 AM

jefe323 said:
whoever told you that is an idiot. your hard drive size has nothing to do with either 32 bit or 64 bit operating software. It's based on RAM



The person that told me I need a 64-bit OS, is a Technician that build computers, Only 931 GB is registered by the OS. I was thinking to finding a solution so my OS would register a full 1TB.
December 14, 2010 4:21:09 AM

Ultimate Antman said:
The person that told me I need a 64-bit OS, is a Technician that build computers, Only 931 GB is registered by the OS. I was thinking to finding a solution so my OS would register a full 1TB.

The os recognizing 931gb out of 1 tb is absolutely normal, dont expect any os to recognize full 1 tb, as its not os dependent, all disks are this way..
December 14, 2010 6:45:56 AM

55Range said:
The os recognizing 931gb out of 1 tb is absolutely normal, dont expect any os to recognize full 1 tb, as its not os dependent, all disks are this way..

That's not about the OS recognizing the space, or not using it, its about a difference in the way disk manufacturers calculate the capacity of a drive and nothing to do with the operating system at all.
See the table on "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Binary_p..." for more information.

In short form 931GiB (what your OS is recognizing) is equivalent to 1TB (what your disk manufacturer says you should get)
December 14, 2010 8:04:22 AM

Vampyrbyte said:
That's not about the OS recognizing the space, or not using it, its about a difference in the way disk manufacturers calculate the capacity of a drive and nothing to do with the operating system at all.
See the table on "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Binary_p..." for more information.

In short form 931GiB (what your OS is recognizing) is equivalent to 1TB (what your disk manufacturer says you should get)


Whats the point in re-writing whatever i just wrote ?
December 14, 2010 8:13:31 AM

Well, he did provide some additional reading material as proof...
December 14, 2010 9:17:13 AM

Then whats the point of quoting my msg ?
December 14, 2010 9:22:53 AM

Probably because he agrees with you.
December 14, 2010 9:37:09 AM

55range, I quoted your message because I wanted to back-up what you had said and provide some clarification.
Someone reading your message alone could be forgiven for making the assumption that the drive was actually smaller to the OS than its actual size. As we both know this is not the case.
I was merely hoping to provide extra information and build on your post, not to disagree with you.
December 14, 2010 10:14:36 AM

Vampyrbyte said:
55range, I quoted your message because I wanted to back-up what you had said and provide some clarification.
Someone reading your message alone could be forgiven for making the assumption that the drive was actually smaller to the OS than its actual size. As we both know this is not the case.
I was merely hoping to provide extra information and build on your post, not to disagree with you.


I see.. Np, misunderstood-
December 15, 2010 2:05:00 AM

Confused Stu said:
I would have to say to go for Windows 7 64bit.

DX10 and DX11 are available for W7 where for XP they aren't (I don't count the DX10 "trick" for XP that was released), and games designers are now writing with W7 (and Vista) in mind rather than XP users - which will only increase over time. Some manufacturers never made drivers for XP 64bit for their products, so you might run into problems using it on some of your components/peripherals. The only product I've ever run into that didn't have a Vista/7 64bit driver since my first install in 2007 was an £8 Alba webcam from Argos - everything else has run flawlessly.

As for whether a 64bit OS is needed at all, which I realise isn't a question you raised but Psychophat did, all but one of the games I've tried on 64bit have worked but then my oldest game is from 2004 (Worms Mayhem) so not sure if your experience will be the same if you have any games released around the Windows 98 era or earlier. The only game I tried that didn't run on W7 64bit is Road Rash because although the game is 32bit (I think), it's installer was 16bit and so couldn't run. I simply installed XP on another hard drive and booted into that to play the game. After a few plays, I was bored so removed the hard drive.

I know Psychophat says that playing games on 64bit will eventually lead to problems but in my personal experience, this has simply not been the case. I am sure the patches he has explained work well at removing some of the limitations of a 32bit OS, but I would have said hacking your copy of Windows to do things it was never designed to is more likely to cause problems than doing something it is meant to do (such as running 32bit games executables).

I can only speak from my experience of gaming (my PC has run Vista 64 bit since early '07, moved to W7 64bit on release day; my stepson's gaming PC has run Vista 64 since Oct 09; other stepson's laptop has run Vista 32 since Dec 09) but if I was building another gaming PC for anyone who doesn't have lots of 10+ year old games, I would always install W7 64bit on it.


The MS Website shows that Gears of War is not compatible with Win 7 64 or 32 bit. Is that information outdated?
February 1, 2012 12:27:58 PM

Windows 7 pro and ultimate are pointless for home users, even power users, the extra features are purely for integration with domains and windows servers.

Windows 7 home 64bit is all you really need, it will address all your memory properly compared to the 32bit version with PAE activated as controllers on the motherboard for input and output with Direct memory access use part of the 32bit memory allocation table for themselves which is why systems will show less than 4GB of ram, also graphics memory shadows system memory meaning that both cannot be allocated at the same time meaning even less system memory is accessible, it will also allow full access to all the graphics ram by the system and not just the gpu for direct writes to graphics ram.

and those talking about lower than maximum sizes for HDD's the drives are actually larger than their displayed size say 1tb they might actually be 1.2 TB as it has redundant sectors on disk if any in the main pool become damaged or faulty, also the disk shows at 931 instead of 1tb because the File allocation table of the file system uses this room for itself.
February 1, 2012 3:01:28 PM

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey
!