Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

32bit and 64bit?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 16, 2007 2:11:16 AM

Wouldnt it make sense for a graphics card to run better on a 64bit OS? how come we dont see better performance?

More about : 32bit 64bit

December 16, 2007 2:20:25 AM

Graphics cards are not like processors, the are not designed to be 32 bit or 64 bit. Unless you want to run 64 bit exclusive aps or use over 3 gigs of ram, 32 bit OS's are better due to the better driver support.
December 16, 2007 3:44:24 AM

I honestly hate people who say things like
Quote:
32 bit OS's are better due to the better driver support.


That is honestly a stupid thing to say. Why would you want to run a new OS on old hardware? On things that came out in 2000? This is why people say Vista sucks, i have never had a problem with anything on Vista. Better Driver support, HA. 64bit OS's have been out long enough so taht driver support isnt an issue. your dumb


PS i realize now that my question was stupid. i had just woken up and it was on my mind. So 2 stupids make an ok
Related resources
December 16, 2007 3:53:39 AM

The funny part is... he's right. You made fun of him for giving you the right answer. For that, you win the jackass award! :D 

32-bit drivers have had way more development than 64-bit drivers.

The first 64-bit windows OS with gaming in mind is Vista... nobody bothered to make 64-bit gaming drivers before that, because previous 64-bit OS' weren't meant for games...
December 16, 2007 4:14:27 AM

The other reason XP-32 Bit and Vista-32 tend to be a little more stable vs Vista-64 is just testing and market share.

Many errors are discoverd and reported by users.

There are far more 32-bit users, so errors are found sooner and resolved faster.

Vista-64 has a smaller market share so there is less chance of finding errors and when errors are found, they will have a lower priority than on the 64-bit platform.

Also, very few games will take advantage of the real benefeits of a 64-bit OS at this point in time, which is mostly large memory spaces to work with.

In 1-2 years, more and more games will be optimized for 64-bit and the pull will be stronger.
a b U Graphics card
December 16, 2007 5:04:38 AM

Cleeve, zenmaster, and smokedyou911 are all correct. They said everything I would have said.
December 16, 2007 5:17:21 AM

Dudes my dad and i screw.

You are all pwned
December 16, 2007 5:33:10 AM

Wait a minute... doesn't that mean your dad pwns?..

...unless you enjoy it, too. Then you both win! :D 
December 16, 2007 5:56:35 AM

We both are winners we i mean weiners
December 16, 2007 5:59:42 AM

WTF? :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 

Is this the "Other" forum? Maybe it should be moved there.
December 16, 2007 6:02:43 AM

DXsocko007 said:
We both are winners we i mean weiners
Go to the Community -> Other forum and look up Wingy, he will help you.
December 16, 2007 9:39:20 PM

I love how i did a little trash talk that i knew nothing about that came back to bite me in the a** and now that i made fun of myself everyone stopped posting. Yes. I win!
December 16, 2007 9:44:59 PM

Most games have 32bit operating system in mind. 64bit operating systems work with most 32bit games but are not fully supported.

I had to uninstall Vista 64 because it just didn't suit my needs. 64bit is snappier and for the future but still need to grow until it can go mainstream.
December 17, 2007 12:12:30 AM

I thought you won because your dad buggered you.

In any case, we're easy to get along with here, that's what makes this forum great. You can admit you're a jackass or we can call you on it, it's all the same to us.

And if you want to declare yourself a winner because you have inapropriate parental relations, hey, who are we to say otherwise? :sol: 
December 17, 2007 12:51:52 AM

^ lmao. instant kill.
December 17, 2007 1:02:19 AM

64-bit os's ARE mainstream and are NOT just in testing. Nor were they not meant for games. Where do you guys get this sh]t from?
FYI Vista is not the first 64 bit Microsoft os. XP and windows 2000 both have 64 bit versions thats been out for years.
Also to bust another of your clueless street-myths: In most cases, 64-bit binaries come from exactly the same source code as 32-bit binaries,you just need to compile it for a different target which takes 5 seconds to make the change, so there's usually no difference in 'maturity level' between 32 and 64 bit software because its the same frickin source code in both versions.
Also FYI 32-bit programs (including OS's) don't run as optimally on a 64-bit processor as 64-bit binaries do because the CPU has to run in a 32-bit instruction/addressing emulation mode so can't ever reach its full efficiency.
Yet another fact you all seem to not know is that 64-bit XP and 64-bit vista both can run 32-bit binaries (including drivers via WOW) so there's absolutely no advantage to running a 32-bit OS if you have a 64-bit cpu even if you do only have 32-bit drivers, which for most modern hardware isn't the case anyway.
Basically 32-bit is dead. get over it and move on, and stop spreading clueless nonsense about 32-bit windows being better on a 64-bit cpu in any technical or practical way.
December 17, 2007 1:11:24 AM

Niz,

These are not "myths".
I work for a multi-billiondollar Software development firm as a software developer. I know quite well what we have had to do to make our software work under the 64-bit operating systems.


December 17, 2007 1:13:23 AM

Join the club. I'm also a software developer and consultant. the ONLY reason you need to fix code to run on 64-bit is if it was written badly in the first place. A common mistake by lamer C programmers is to do pointer math assuming an int type is always 32 bits long, so their code screws up on anything other than a 32-bit platform.
December 17, 2007 1:15:52 AM

You win Niz. Before you posted there wasn't enough intelligence in this thread to bother. Unfortunately this forum is poorly moderated so clueless people post all the time. Then again at least few of the mods are clueless as well...
December 17, 2007 1:31:02 AM

iPod Touch doesnt work on 64 bit vista. According to whats been said it appears apple are as#holes and should take the 5 seconds needed to compile a 64 bit driver or "64 bit itunes". Just wanted to send my hate out to apple. Payce.
December 17, 2007 1:33:59 AM

Zenmaster where do you work? More importantly what do you do there? Your post doesnt strike me as one by an expert.

Your statement that 32 bit OS are more stable is not true at all. In fact I would wager that most of your servers run a 64 bit OS. So what you are really saying is the recompiled code is less stable if anything. I run both version of Vista 64/32 bit stability is same, rock solid. All of our servers run 64 bit OS's and are extremely stable.

Market share is primary reason why 64bit desktop OS lack in gaming. I had hoped that Crysis would change that, it did not.
December 17, 2007 1:35:36 AM

@Cleeve Rofl!
@DXsock, You ask a question than tell me the answer I gave you is wrong? First of I was right. Second if you knew the only answer (completely wrong) to your question that you wanted to hear, why did you ask in the first place?

December 17, 2007 1:35:49 AM

PCI-express is a serial bus (1bit at a time), so it doesnt matter how wide the system bus is.
December 17, 2007 5:04:59 AM

Dude i just bought Vista 128bit to go with my PS3 its kick ass
December 17, 2007 12:11:55 PM

GPUS already use much larger memory addressing buses for their on PCB memory so it's really a mute matter. Seeing as how if it was designed for a certain graphics API you could just keep increasing it's memory bus and reaping the rewards of more bandwidth.

For a normal CPU you have to recompile the code or rewrite it completely to take advantage of 64 bit. Some programs will never get any benefit from switching just based on how they work.
December 17, 2007 12:37:47 PM

DXsocko007 said:
I honestly hate people who say things like
Quote:
32 bit OS's are better due to the better driver support.


That is honestly a stupid thing to say. Why would you want to run a new OS on old hardware? On things that came out in 2000? This is why people say Vista sucks, i have never had a problem with anything on Vista. Better Driver support, HA. 64bit OS's have been out long enough so taht driver support isnt an issue. your dumb


PS i realize now that my question was stupid. i had just woken up and it was on my mind. So 2 stupids make an ok



Someone needs a hug.
December 17, 2007 12:39:40 PM

DXsocko007 said:
Dudes my dad and i screw.

You are all pwned



You screw your dad? Akansas living is alive and well. Please don't give any more information on this... Ever...
December 17, 2007 12:49:20 PM

64 bit is awesome until you drop it all over the floor and have 64 little itty bits you need to pick up. 32 bit is naturally quite a bit better in this regard as it takes half the time to pick up the little bits and pieces.

Allow me to illustrate. Here are 64 bits:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

and here are 32 bits:
////////////////////////////////

Now imagine these bits are those little 1 square flat lego pieces and the floor is a big shaggy carpet. Would you rather be using 64 bit or 32 bit when the cat walks by and knocks over your bit bucket?

Next up I discuss why VLB is superior to PCIe.

December 17, 2007 12:51:58 PM

metrazol said:
64 bit is awesome until you drop it all over the floor and have 64 little itty bits you need to pick up. 32 bit is naturally quite a bit better in this regard as it takes half the time to pick up the little bits and pieces.

Allow me to illustrate. Here are 64 bits:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

and here are 32 bits:
////////////////////////////////

Now imagine these bits are those little 1 square flat lego pieces and the floor is a big shaggy carpet. Would you rather be using 64 bit or 32 bit when the cat walks by and knocks over your bit bucket?

Next up I discuss why VLB is superior to PCIe.


^^^ This is why we don't use drugs, children.
December 17, 2007 1:39:17 PM

I wish I had never wandered into this thread...
December 17, 2007 1:41:28 PM

I am not sure whether 32-bit or 64-bit driver would be more stable, I just know 3 things:

- 64-bit drivers are harder to debug than 32-bit drivers
- 32-bit drivers have far more users than 64-bit drivers
- 64-bit process requires more resource to do processing than 32-bit process under the current X86 processor architecture, under the condition that the code of both processes are doing exactly the same thing, using the same coders and without optimization

It is hard to tell unless we have two identical machines to test on this.
December 17, 2007 2:38:49 PM

mahoumatic said:


- 64-bit drivers are harder to debug than 32-bit drivers


Why? Looking at the processor registers it's almost exactly the same - well, a little better even. Using the 64 bit mode (Long mode) there are more registers available than in 32 bit mode and most other registers have twice the length (Actually they have the same length in 32 bit mode but the remaining 32 bit get filled up with zeros).

mahoumatic said:

- 64-bit process requires more resource to do processing than 32-bit process under the current X86 processor architecture, under the condition that the code of both processes are doing exactly the same thing, using the same coders and without optimization


That is not entirely correct.
First off, optimization is a very vague word. Running 32 bit software on a 64 bit cpu is like driving your porsche in a 30mph zone. You are artificially slowed. Switching from real to long mode and using adequate software makes the mathematical calculations more precise AND faster. Really optimizing it would increase the lead of 64 bit even further (ie. using the SSE commands instead of the FPU).
On the other hand there are simple tasks a CPU does that don't benefit from more and wider registers, but those tasks should be left to really old CPUs...
Last but not least, 64 bit code needs more memory. That is correct. Given the current price of RAM that shouldn´t be an issue at all.
December 17, 2007 2:45:54 PM

Slobogob said:
Running 32 bit software on a 64 bit cpu is like driving your porsche in a 30mph zone.


Isn't it more like running a lada on the Autobahn? ;) 
December 17, 2007 3:32:08 PM

cleeve said:
Isn't it more like running a lada on the Autobahn? ;) 

To meet the min. 80 km/h that would be a Lada GTS OC, right? :lol: 

December 17, 2007 6:57:58 PM

I'm still not over the whole idea of DXsocko007 and his unusual relationship with his own father.
December 17, 2007 11:12:07 PM

So i woke up hopped on my Vista 64 computer and i realize that i had spunked my shorts...

Than i turned around to see my dad smiling and he said "that spunk is mine"
a b U Graphics card
December 17, 2007 11:38:56 PM

mahoumatic said:
- 64-bit process requires more resource to do processing than 32-bit process under the current X86 processor architecture

That is why the glorious Itanium was invented. ;) 

@hairycat: Yea, I've been accused of unusual relationships with cats, but I don't go around saying it myself :heink: 
December 17, 2007 11:45:52 PM

why dont 16bit apps run on 64bit os
December 17, 2007 11:48:55 PM

There is no techinical reason why 16-bit apps do not run under a 64-OS.

Microsoft chose to remove support for them, though they could have done so.

The biggest issue with that is that many Installer programs until recently were only 16-bit even though the software they were installing was 32-bit. So long as you are only installing very new software, this is not an issue or if you are able to repackage the software on a 32-bit software into a true 32-bit installer.
December 19, 2007 10:38:23 PM

So when systems say 128bit is that the processor? or what?
December 19, 2007 11:31:08 PM

niz said:
...Yet another fact you all seem to not know is that 64-bit XP and 64-bit vista both can run 32-bit binaries (including drivers via WOW) ...


What is WOW? (What does it stand for) ... And don't say, "whip it out Wednesday" from Opie and Anthony Radio ...
Thanks. Just trying hard to follow the conversation.
December 19, 2007 11:40:59 PM

DXsocko007 said:
So when systems say 128bit is that the processor? or what?



thats the type of memory, a higher bit memory allows higher bandwidth
December 19, 2007 11:44:55 PM

WoW stands for "Windows on Windows Emulator" and is used to run "16-bit" programs under 32-bit versions of Windows and to run "32-bit" versions of programs on "64-bit" versions of Windows.

!