Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista 64-bits and Crysis.

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
August 30, 2007 3:00:35 AM

My new computer is arriving tomorrow and I've still haven't decided between 32- and 64-bits vista.

According to CryTek, the 64-bit version "will bring a performance difference of up to 10 to 15 percent on each thread" compared to the 32-bit version.

According to some forum users:
"64 bit Vista uses multi-core much more efficiently than 32 bit Vista does. Especially, if you are running a multiple processor system like AMDs 4x4 solution, 64 bit Vista is able to tell physical processors apart from simple processing cores. Intel will also be introducing a 4x4 platform as well because of how much more performance is netted by adding another physical processor, instead of adding more cores on one silicon. This allows the operating system to assign threads in a more resource-efficient manner and when optimized makes 32 bit a past time and you better believe there is going to be a difference in Crysis, between 32 bit and 64 bit."

So my question is simply, is this true or just some promotional bullshit for Vista 64-bits?

More about : vista bits crysis

August 30, 2007 5:43:49 AM

Since it appears they're making a separate version for 64-bit, it is likely to significantly take advantage of the benefits. This equates primarily to being able to do more or more complex operations in less time, or at least the same amount but with less quantitative operations and hence more quickly. Chances are the performance increase they claim is realistic if this is indeed the case.

There may be additional benefit from the removal of 32-bit memory limitations, but this would likely depend on the system and the system's load - variable and unlikely to be a major point except in certain circumstances. When they talk about telling the difference with the processors, what they really mean is superior load-balancing in 4x4 systems, but be aware that this refers to multi-processor systems and not multi-core systems (4x4 means 2 processors, but each has multiple cores).
m
0
l
August 30, 2007 12:55:40 PM

Personally, I'm hedging my bets a bit: I'm running 32 bit at the moment, and am satisfied with it. Had a couple minor driver issues very early on, but it's all sorted now. Earlier this year, they started out kind of rocky, but nVidia's latest beta drivers have made a visible difference (better) than the last, and I've experienced no weirdness in the past few months.

As far as 64 bit - Tho my current hardware should be fine as far as compatability and horsepower, I'm mildly concerned about drivers and program compatibilities. But since I have a retail version of Vista there's no reason not to use both - It's the same physical machine, after all... So I'm waiting to get my hands on a new Seagate 7200.11 HDD, since they're supposed to be a nice bit faster than .9 I have now. Those should become available next month. Then I'll go dual boot 32/64 bit Vista to see how it works out.

Also: If you're not familiar with the OS yet, be advised that Vista is *much* more aggressive about managing your system resources than XP. For example, it learns what programs you habitually use and will pre-load them for faster launching. This takes up system resources, such as memory, but the OS relinquishes the space if/when you go do something else. I bring up this point because a lot of people seem to get p*ssed off that their Vista box shows 1+gig (idle) of memory usage doing the same things as their XP box maybe only used 512 for. (yes, I made up the numbers...) Or that the HDD churns about for longer than it did on their last machine. Or...


m
0
l
Related resources
August 30, 2007 7:45:32 PM

I'll agree that 64-bit drivers can be harder to come by (sometimes I do resort to XP64 drivers, even), but I believe Microsoft is requiring manufacturers to deliver both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their drivers in order to receive WHQL for Vista. Certainly you should check for drivers before making the choice, and even though I haven't had any problems it is usually devices like printers and TV tuners that have the most difficulty.
m
0
l
September 1, 2007 6:49:40 PM

I personally have Vista Hope Premium 64 bit on my new PC. I have no driver problems, except for my printer (this one should be out before Christmas). For new hardware, everything should be fine. For older hardware, most of the time you can forget about it.

Like Maxxify, I'm also having problems finding a TV Tuner card with proper drivers. But, since I'll be using that computer for 2 years at least, I really didn't want to stick to 32-bit version. I'm gladly using 4GB memory at DDR2-833@4-4-4-12 timing with rock solid stability. Not bad at all for a "buggy OS" (like some say) I'd say. With 32 bit, I'd be stuck at 3GB, still good but not enough to my taste.

It all depends on what you plan to do with your PC... and how long you'll keep it.
m
0
l
September 1, 2007 9:29:18 PM

I actually did have trouble with my TV Tuner drivers, on both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista. On 32-bit, I just pointed it to the XP drivers. On 64-bit, and there were no XP64 drivers either, I just looked around at similar TV tuners from popular companies since they tend to use the same hardware. I downloaded beta Vista 64-bit drivers for such a product, and voila - works fine. That may not be a solution for everybody, but it is a good example of how you can work around driver issues.
m
0
l
Anonymous
January 13, 2009 1:21:41 PM

Hi, I've just upgraded to vista 64, installed crysis and i can definately say it runs infinitely better but with big issues. Previously i was running a 32bit version of xp on my system (athlon 64 5200+ x2 at 2.7ghz oc'd to 3.1, hd4870 1g, 4g of ram, obviously the system only recognised about 3.) On xp at the highest settings, no AA, the game lagged pretty bad, at times under 20fps at 1920x1080, which was unplayable. Now, using the 64 bit version, i have everything set to very high at same res (still no AA) and it runs like a dream, very smooth. But there are 2 major problems. First of all, i have no v-sync option now and at times, especially cut scenes, the sync is TERRIBLE. Also and much worse, when you aim down sight lots of objects just go black like as if there's something wrong with the shaders. i'm currently downloading the 1.2 patch, fingers crossed this will work.
m
0
l
January 13, 2009 9:05:11 PM

Some thing to know is that when you play Crysis and like it you
will prolly want to play crysis warhead and it is not ported to 64 bit.
Its no trouble just no 64 bit.

Also make sure you vid card and game settings agree.
Either control options in game (preferable) or in the vid controls. Not both as it will conflict.
I dont use V-sync with a 8800 gtx and it works well.
I know with V-sync options off turn off triple buffer in vid control also.
Maybe that is the cause.
Crysis is very hard on your system so may be that could trouble.
Check your temps as that seemed to help the most for me.
Try running it in DX9 and see if it help.
I can see little difference but the performance goes way up.
m
0
l
January 13, 2009 9:05:19 PM

64-bit Vista is the way to go because most of, if not all of the compatibility are over. Plus the 32-bit version doesn't exist, or it's going to get that very soon. Vista 32 can only handle 3 GB of RAM, so install more, and it's not gonna work. Vista-64-bit can support up to 128Gb of RAM, that's 'if' you're EVER going to need that much. Also, look in most retail stores and notice that 50% of their pcs are vista 64.

m
0
l
!