Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Win XP Pro 32 bit vs. Vista 64 bit for playing Crysis

Tags:
  • Windows XP
  • Crysis
  • Windows Vista
Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
September 21, 2008 6:22:30 AM

I was wondering if the 64 bit version of Vista would give my AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ CPU noticeably more punch when playing a heavy game like Crysis than the 32 bit version of XP Pro. I know many people have complained that Vista runs slower but I was wondering if the greater usage of my processor would more than make up for that. I was also curious if the 64 bit version of Vista Business 64 was just as capable of being an OS for gaming as Vista Ultimate 64 (when I asked M$ over the phone, they said Ultimate was better, but I have the strong suspicion they're trying to up-sell me like any salesman would). I don't need any of that media center garbage.

More about : win pro bit vista bit playing crysis

September 21, 2008 7:07:29 PM

Well at first I was dual booting Vista 64 home Premium and XP Pro 32, Crysis is one of my favorite games along with F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate.

DX10 in Crysis is awesome, its performance in Vista 64 surpasses WinXP Pro, so I'm no longer dual booting, just running Vista 64 period.

I'm also running an AMD platform, if you're interested check my member configuration.

I chose Vista 64 Home Premium because of price and also the amount of memory it can handle, hope that helps.
m
0
l
September 21, 2008 9:42:32 PM

Vista Home Premium handles more memory? I thought they all handled the same amount.
m
0
l
Related resources
September 21, 2008 10:28:07 PM

doomhammr said:
I was wondering if the 64 bit version of Vista would give my AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ CPU noticeably more punch when playing a heavy game like Crysis than the 32 bit version of XP Pro. I know many people have complained that Vista runs slower but I was wondering if the greater usage of my processor would more than make up for that. I was also curious if the 64 bit version of Vista Business 64 was just as capable of being an OS for gaming as Vista Ultimate 64 (when I asked M$ over the phone, they said Ultimate was better, but I have the strong suspicion they're trying to up-sell me like any salesman would). I don't need any of that media center garbage.


No, vista 64-bit would not give a performance increase- it gives a 10-15% DECREASE over XP. Fortunately, with SP1, that's pretty much gone thanks to them fixing their retarded drivers. I would just get ultimate... the OEM is like $10 more than business, and it comes with some worthless extras. Personally, I got ultimate. Why? I have no idea.

Edit: Oh yea, Ultimate has full-system backup. That could save your life, especially if you decided to waste your time with raid 0.
m
0
l
September 21, 2008 10:29:10 PM

Oh, actually, vista would still have worse fps if you had DX10 enabled. But DX10 gives better lighting, particle effects, and textures, so thats understandable. And the decrease is only a few fps.
m
0
l
September 22, 2008 3:10:45 AM

I seriously don't want any of the gadgets of other crap that comes with Vista and will probably be stripping it out with V-Lite to the point where it would look and behave just like XP in classic theme. I don't need or want any of that pretty bubbly GUI garbage. The only reason I am even looking at Vista is to get 64 bit support, DirectX 10 support, and to be able to play Vista exclusive games (so far it only seems to be Halo 2). I was looking at the OEM version but M$ told me that if I switch out my processor, motherboard, or HD, that it will no longer recognize my PC as the same machine and invalidate my OEM copy. I could give a rat's ass about backup. I keep hard copies of any important paperwork, don't really care if I lose my game saves, and keep all my digital work backed up on CD-R, DVD-R, or external HD's.
m
0
l
September 22, 2008 11:19:00 AM

@doomhammr 64bit Vista Home Premium can handle 16G of memory vs Ultimates 128G, IMO 16G is quite enough for now seeing as how most available M/Bs are maximum 8G capacity anyway.
m
0
l
September 22, 2008 9:12:23 PM

Exactly. I don't know any mobos that can handle that much RAM other than a Mac Pro and who wants to pay for that?
m
0
l
September 23, 2008 5:56:05 PM

You do realize that the "bubbly GUI garbage" doesn't affect your performance, right? If you have the sidebar enabled with a ton of gadgets on it, then yes, that will affect your performance... but the Aero interface itself uses the GPU to render the desktop rather than the CPU. I don't notice any difference whatsoever for what I'm running.

I use Vista Business at work... it runs pretty much like XP Pro. Ultimate does have a few extra features... you have to decide if it's worth it for you. As for invalidating your OEM copy... my experience has shown that you can reaload an OEM copy up to three times before it will ask for reactivation. Of course if you change a pile of hardware and don't reload, it will probably want reactivation at that time as well. MS has to do this, as they cannot possibly expect you to purchas a new copy of Windows every time you experience hardware failure. All they really care about is if the copy is only installed on one computer.
m
0
l
September 23, 2008 6:30:18 PM

Doom -

doomhammr said:
Exactly. I don't know any mobos that can handle that much RAM other than a Mac Pro and who wants to pay for that?


Address space limitations come into play with as little as 3GB of ram when you are using large GPU setups? The reason for this is that the OS has to address a lot more than "just" memory.


Please don't take this as an attack, rather I am curious: Reading the tone/tenor of your posts, it appears that rather than looking for a reason to use Vista, you are actually looking for a reason *not* to. Given that mindset, I'm a little confused why you would bother with the forum posts and instead save the time and effort and just use what you want...
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 2:05:54 AM

Id go OEM premium 64, you wont need tons of ram and the only real benefit of ultimate is a faster search index, drive encryption you wont use, a few tricks and languages, and a faster backup. It also costs $60 more for OEM than home premium on newegg (its going for $99) so its completely affordable now.
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 2:55:13 AM

Zoron said:
You do realize that the "bubbly GUI garbage" doesn't affect your performance, right? If you have the sidebar enabled with a ton of gadgets on it, then yes, that will affect your performance... but the Aero interface itself uses the GPU to render the desktop rather than the CPU. I don't notice any difference whatsoever for what I'm running.


I understand that, but if it's utilizing the GPU, won't that still leave less GPU power for gaming because wouldn't that stuff still be going in the background or is it so minuscule you won't even notice.

Scotteq said:
Doom -

Please don't take this as an attack, rather I am curious: Reading the tone/tenor of your posts, it appears that rather than looking for a reason to use Vista, you are actually looking for a reason *not* to. Given that mindset, I'm a little confused why you would bother with the forum posts and instead save the time and effort and just use what you want...


You are right on that I don't WANT to go to Vista, but if the improvements of DX10 is worth it or if the OS can make better usage of my hardware (64 bit processor, usage of more RAM) than XP and make a noticeable difference, I'd pony up the cash for it (and a few other PC upgrades). How has DirectX 10 been anyway? I've seen the screenshots but is everyone who has tried it been pretty satisfied with it in action?

zanny said:
Id go OEM premium 64, you wont need tons of ram and the only real benefit of ultimate is a faster search index, drive encryption you wont use, a few tricks and languages, and a faster backup. It also costs $60 more for OEM than home premium on newegg (its going for $99) so its completely affordable now.


When I do make the jump to Vista, I'll most likely get Home Premium 64 OEM. I'll just make sure I've got all my hardware situated right where I want it. Speaking of drive encryption, I won't be touching that with a 10 foot pole even if I had access to it. I know it's a completely different OS, but a friend of mine had FileVault encryption turned on in Mac OS X.3.0 (the buggy .0 release) and when his computer crashed, it trashed ALL his documents. I'll use good ol' VLite to strip out all the junk I don't want and I'll be good to go.

Thanks for all the feedback guys. You were a real help but I'll keep checking this post every now an then if you have anymore feedback.
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 3:05:34 AM

Quote:
I understand that, but if it's utilizing the GPU, won't that still leave less GPU power for gaming because wouldn't that stuff still be going in the background or is it so minuscule you won't even notice.


Since the GUI is not running while games are playing (unless you are in windowed mode or using dual monitors) there should be NO effect. That's my understanding anyway.

The offloading of the gui to the gfx card is one of the real nice features of Vista. If you are on a machine using shared video ram this may have an effect, not sure about that, but on a machine with dedicated gfx ram I see no degeneration of performance myself, even outside of games.
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 10:38:01 AM

I always thought it was the other way around. Normally when I'm playing a game, I have the button layout of my Fang gamepad open on the other monitor to refer to. Does it only render the gui on the second monitor then?
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 1:09:59 PM

doomhammr said:
You are right on that I don't WANT to go to Vista, but if the improvements of DX10 is worth it or if the OS can make better usage of my hardware (64 bit processor, usage of more RAM) than XP and make a noticeable difference, I'd pony up the cash for it (and a few other PC upgrades). How has DirectX 10 been anyway? I've seen the screenshots but is everyone who has tried it been pretty satisfied with it in action?



Well... If you don't *want* to use it, then don't. Again, I want to be very clear I'm not taking a shot at you. Just that in my experience, when someone goes into something against their judgement/will/perceptions, often all that happen is they find things they don't like, and simply use that to justify why they should have stuck with their original intent in the first place. In short: If your perception is such that you hate it how, you'll simply end up hating it all the more because whatever differences you find. And Vista *is* different from XP. Yes, they are very similar. But hardly the same in use/feel. If that's the mindset you have going into it, then sticking to what you want to begin with will spare you the effort.


Regarding the other questions:

- Early performance differences were due to bad/badly optimized drivers. nVidia and Creative being especially guilty.

- The GUI only matters if you're running an underpowered piece of sh*t. Full Stop.

- Vista has TWO versions of Direct X - 9L (AKA 9ex), and DX10. 9L is a version of 9 that uses the new WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model), and adds the capability for otherwise DX9 games to take advantage of a subset of the new functionality in DX10. Most often what this amounts to are nicer looking gamma effects (shinier water, nicer smoke, whatever). When you are running an otherwise DX9 game in "DX10 Mode", the game may or may not be taking advantage of the added functionality in 9L. Otherwise, very very few games are really DX10. If they were, they wouldn't run on an XP box at all.

- Regarding usage of added resources: Vista 64 blows XP32 out of the water on this one, and this is the primary reason most enthusiasts make the switch. You want to actually be able to use all 4GB of RAM that you bought? Guess what - You can't do that in XP32 because of address space limitations. The system itself takes 500Mb~ish worth of address space just to handle the Bios, communications, and installed devices, and you only have a total of 4GB of space to begin with. So even in a moderate build, you can't access all of that RAM bacause of address space allocation for the actual computer itself. This is why even OEMs are now offering 64 bit Vista on their new boxes. They do NOT want to deal with the millions of dumbfounded dipsh*ts calling their support lines asking why their computer only sees 3.25GB or memory when they bought 4.

Now, you may decide that 3.25~3.5GB is enough and that it's OK the system can't quite use it all. But the more aggressive you are with the box you're building, the less and less room you have to justify staying 32bit. Thinking about a big Crossfire/SLI graphics setup?? Guess what - A portion of that video memory is *also* mapped into the OS's address space, so you'll end up with even less RAM available on a system that likely would use MORE, not less.




Now, I've been using 64 bit Vista for the last year. In my experience: It does everything I need an OS to do. Games? Successfully installed and play everything in my collection - Going back to Baldur's Gate. It's been reliable, stable, and to be honest - Application errors which would have brought XP down do NOT bring down Vista 64. Yes, it gets pissy when something isn't running right, but (so far) no app issue has brought down the OS itself. Sure, it still happens. But it's been my experience that V64 is "tougher" than XP ever was - And I started using XP at it's release and still use it at work. (Cos my employers are cheap b*stards who don't ever replace computers until they physically die)


Niggles? 18 months after release and there is STILL NO 64BIT VERSION OF FLASH PLAYER. /spit @ Adobe The workaround is to use a 32 bit browser (they all work just fine in 64). 32 bit Flash runs perfectly in a 32 bit browser.


If you like to play with a lot of shareware/warez, be advised that Vista 64's security is more than a little bit tighter than anything you'll find in XP. Unsigned apps and drivers will NOT be permitted to run. What I would advise is using a VM, and virtualizing your playground for this stuff. It'll get around the OS's security, and quite frankly it's just a damned good idea to do that anyhow because if you do run a file infected with an electronic STD it can be contained.


Oh - Regarding vLiting out features - I don't recommend it. Performance gains are VERY minimal considering you can just shut unneeded features off instead of stripping them out. And you run a real risk of screwing up the OS.


my $0.02.
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 2:59:34 PM

doomhammr said:
I always thought it was the other way around. Normally when I'm playing a game, I have the button layout of my Fang gamepad open on the other monitor to refer to. Does it only render the gui on the second monitor then?


I'm not entirely sure but I THINK that Aero turns off when you play a game such that even if you are running dual monitors they gfx card is left unaffected. If there is any doubt you could always turn Aero off when gaming.
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 3:57:56 PM

I don't think aero works if you have a game set to full screen.

My solution for you is to find a better game to play.... crysis sucks the same on any OS.

Crysis is by far the most over-rated game ever...its level of mediocrity is amazing. people feel compelled to upgrade their hardware to run it despite it being complete trash.
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 7:35:11 PM

Scotteq said:
Well... If you don't *want* to use it, then don't. Again, I want to be very clear I'm not taking a shot at you. Just that in my experience, when someone goes into something against their judgement/will/perceptions, often all that happen is they find things they don't like, and simply use that to justify why they should have stuck with their original intent in the first place. In short: If your perception is such that you hate it how, you'll simply end up hating it all the more because whatever differences you find. And Vista *is* different from XP. Yes, they are very similar. But hardly the same in use/feel. If that's the mindset you have going into it, then sticking to what you want to begin with will spare you the effort.

- Vista has TWO versions of Direct X - 9L (AKA 9ex), and DX10. 9L is a version of 9 that uses the new WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model), and adds the capability for otherwise DX9 games to take advantage of a subset of the new functionality in DX10. Most often what this amounts to are nicer looking gamma effects (shinier water, nicer smoke, whatever). When you are running an otherwise DX9 game in "DX10 Mode", the game may or may not be taking advantage of the added functionality in 9L. Otherwise, very very few games are really DX10. If they were, they wouldn't run on an XP box at all.

- Regarding usage of added resources: Vista 64 blows XP32 out of the water on this one, and this is the primary reason most enthusiasts make the switch. You want to actually be able to use all 4GB of RAM that you bought? Guess what - You can't do that in XP32 because of address space limitations. The system itself takes 500Mb~ish worth of address space just to handle the Bios, communications, and installed devices, and you only have a total of 4GB of space to begin with. So even in a moderate build, you can't access all of that RAM bacause of address space allocation for the actual computer itself. This is why even OEMs are now offering 64 bit Vista on their new boxes. They do NOT want to deal with the millions of dumbfounded dipsh*ts calling their support lines asking why their computer only sees 3.25GB or memory when they bought 4.

Now, you may decide that 3.25~3.5GB is enough and that it's OK the system can't quite use it all. But the more aggressive you are with the box you're building, the less and less room you have to justify staying 32bit. Thinking about a big Crossfire/SLI graphics setup?? Guess what - A portion of that video memory is *also* mapped into the OS's address space, so you'll end up with even less RAM available on a system that likely would use MORE, not less.


Now, I've been using 64 bit Vista for the last year. In my experience: It does everything I need an OS to do. Games? Successfully installed and play everything in my collection - Going back to Baldur's Gate. It's been reliable, stable, and to be honest - Application errors which would have brought XP down do NOT bring down Vista 64. Yes, it gets pissy when something isn't running right, but (so far) no app issue has brought down the OS itself. Sure, it still happens. But it's been my experience that V64 is "tougher" than XP ever was - And I started using XP at it's release and still use it at work. (Cos my employers are cheap b*stards who don't ever replace computers until they physically die)


Niggles? 18 months after release and there is STILL NO 64BIT VERSION OF FLASH PLAYER. /spit @ Adobe The workaround is to use a 32 bit browser (they all work just fine in 64). 32 bit Flash runs perfectly in a 32 bit browser.


If you like to play with a lot of shareware/warez, be advised that Vista 64's security is more than a little bit tighter than anything you'll find in XP. Unsigned apps and drivers will NOT be permitted to run. What I would advise is using a VM, and virtualizing your playground for this stuff. It'll get around the OS's security, and quite frankly it's just a damned good idea to do that anyhow because if you do run a file infected with an electronic STD it can be contained.


Oh - Regarding vLiting out features - I don't recommend it. Performance gains are VERY minimal considering you can just shut unneeded features off instead of stripping them out. And you run a real risk of screwing up the OS.


my $0.02.


I've had good luck so far with nLite and XP. The biggest feature I took out was System Restore and the XP theme while everything else removed was just unneeded drivers (and then I added the service packs and updates for IE and Media Player). You're absolutely spot on that M$ gets a bum rap for programs crashing when much of the time it is a badly programmed application. Otherwise EVERY app would crash just the same. Vista's security is a pain in the ass. On a friend's computer with Vista, I wanted to throw the machine across the room because EVERY little thing I changed in the control panel, it kept asking me "are you sure?" "are you sure?" "are you sure?". I don't screw around with warez though so I won't have any problems there. I've currently got 2 gigs of RAM (board can handle 4 max) and one 512 MB video card. Crysis is actually the only game I can't run maxed out since upgrading my vid card last December and even though Crysis was the focus since it's the most system intensive game, any decisions I made to upgrade won't be until the future when more games like it push my machine to the limit. I already knew about the RAM limitations of XP 32 and will absolutely go Vista 64 when it comes time to add more. My main concern with the post was if running a 64 bit OS would give a 64 bit processor more punch before adding anything else (like an SLI setup or more RAM).

itadakimasu said:
I don't think aero works if you have a game set to full screen.

My solution for you is to find a better game to play.... crysis sucks the same on any OS.

Crysis is by far the most over-rated game ever...its level of mediocrity is amazing. people feel compelled to upgrade their hardware to run it despite it being complete trash.


Sorry you feel that way. What games DO you like then? You don't know overrated until you've played Gears of War. I'm so sick of fighting generic musclebound aliens in monochrome environments. I'll probably get bitchslapped for saying this, but I actually enjoyed Kayne & Lynch more. Then again, it's probably because I'm a big Michael Mann fan.

You're right in that Aero shuts off when playing a game. It even shuts off when watching a DVD.
m
0
l
September 24, 2008 8:01:26 PM

6-7 hours of killing koreans was enough for me before i put crysis away for good.

FPS wise, big fan of half-life/half-life 2 and CSS, TF2 was good when it first came out too. I bought crysis because of all the hype and was not impressed even slightly.
m
0
l
September 25, 2008 1:31:07 AM

itadakimasu said:
6-7 hours of killing koreans was enough for me before i put crysis away for good.

FPS wise, big fan of half-life/half-life 2 and CSS, TF2 was good when it first came out too. I bought crysis because of all the hype and was not impressed even slightly.


I loved the Half Life series but HL2 and its mods are starting to show their age. CSS was a blast for its time but its WAYYYY old now. I know Crysis has a 2 dimensional storyline, but what thrilled me was the sandbox play and the nano suit (which was a blast but unfortunately makes the game way too easy in some areas even on Delta difficulty). Other than the HL series, I really can't think of an FPS series with a good solid storyline you could write a novel on (okay, Halo managed to crank out a few). Not only that, but like with Far Cry, Crysis is an FPS game that actually has some enjoyable environments to kill bad guys in unlike Halo (gray hallways), Gears of War, (brown bombed out buildings), and Lost Planet (snow, snow, and more snow). While I'm talking about great environments in a game, Rainbow Six Vegas also holds a special place in my heart since I live in Las Vegas. The first half of The Strip and the Fremont Street levels were pretty damn accurate as well as the LVU library which on the interior looks quite a bit like the UNLV stacks.
m
0
l
!