Gaming In 64-Bit: Tom's Tests, Microsoft Weighs In
-
Page 1:Introduction
-
Page 2:More Memory, Please
-
Page 3:A Pair Of 64-Bit Gaming Case Studies
-
Page 4:Tom's Hardware Sits Down With Chuck Walbourn
-
Page 5:Tell Me More About Hacking LAA
-
Page 6:Setting Up An In-Depth Look At Performance
-
Page 7:Crysis: Testing Native 64-Bit Performance
-
Page 8:World In Conflict: Adding Frame Rate Minimums
-
Page 9:Far Cry 2
-
Page 10:Grand Theft Auto 4
-
Page 11:Left 4 Dead
-
Page 12:3DMark Vantage
-
Page 13:Conclusion
Left 4 Dead
In a repeat of what we saw in Grand Theft Auto, shifting to a 64-bit platform results in lost performance in Left 4 Dead at both 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. It’s only when you step up to 6 GB that the speed is recovered—though the 6 GB platform is not any faster than the 3 GB, 32-bit configuration.
Summary
- Introduction
- More Memory, Please
- A Pair Of 64-Bit Gaming Case Studies
- Tom's Hardware Sits Down With Chuck Walbourn
- Tell Me More About Hacking LAA
- Setting Up An In-Depth Look At Performance
- Crysis: Testing Native 64-Bit Performance
- World In Conflict: Adding Frame Rate Minimums
- Far Cry 2
- Grand Theft Auto 4
- Left 4 Dead
- 3DMark Vantage
- Conclusion
with Windows 7 around the corner, m$ already said that they expect the majority of windows installations will be 64.
NO ONE uses a system with nothing bar windows a single game installed - they have a few security apps, torrent apps, messenger, keyboard/mouse apps etc - they all sap up resources, so 64 bit gives all apps all the memory they need - for example 8gb is useless to a 32-bit app, but when you got that hungry game ASWELL as a hungry background app etc they both get the full amount of memory!
Also lessens the "thrashing" effect on HDD's and helps there lifespan etc
As for why there arnt any benifits for 64 bit games etc - there all still native 32-bit because all those morons still think there 2gb and XP is "sufficent and up to date" - move to 64-bit so we can all benifit!
with Windows 7 around the corner, m$ already said that they expect the majority of windows installations will be 64.
This mainly has to do with resources. Most developers use the same engine they've built or bought for a span of many years. Take bioware, for instance, who used the Auroa engine for 9+ years, knowing that it was limited to single threads and low memory.
To switch to 64-bit, these developers would have to take the time not just to modify their existing engines, but more likely rewrite the entire engine because of the changes involved. Something that some developers just cant afford.
NO ONE uses a system with nothing bar windows a single game installed - they have a few security apps, torrent apps, messenger, keyboard/mouse apps etc - they all sap up resources, so 64 bit gives all apps all the memory they need - for example 8gb is useless to a 32-bit app, but when you got that hungry game ASWELL as a hungry background app etc they both get the full amount of memory!
Also lessens the "thrashing" effect on HDD's and helps there lifespan etc
As for why there arnt any benifits for 64 bit games etc - there all still native 32-bit because all those morons still think there 2gb and XP is "sufficent and up to date" - move to 64-bit so we can all benifit!
We should all be 64 bit.
Those who play hardcore games should have at least a x64 proc.
So, devs should make 64bit games simply.
The world will transition in due time.
We just are at the frontier.
1) Games and applications will demand more than 2GB RAM each (we're still far away from this reality).
2) Games and applications will be truly multi-tasking, multi-process, competing each other, and requiring plenty of memory each.
3) Windows and software houses stop having 32bit versions and 64bit will be massified.
Currently most benchmarks and articles search for a motive to upgrade to 64bit on performance, which is wrong while home applications and games don't demand more than 2GB RAM each. Today it has nothing to do with performance gains, since as benchmarks reveal it brings no relevant advantage.
Virtualization (like VMWare ESX and Citrix Xen) is a good motive to have lots of installed memory over 4GB but that's an area for enthusiasts, developers, students and enterprises, not for the masses.
In an absurd analysis, if each game had its own independent OS to be loaded through a virtualization OS then i'm pretty sure 64bit were pretty much developed and maybe today the standard was 32GB RAM on 16-core PCs! :-)
When your playing WoW, your not just playing WoW,atleast it dont.
Your running ventrilo,xfire, and sometimes itunes for music, and with 6gb you'd be able to do it no problem.
64bit is the minimal anyone building/buying a machine should be looking at, and 4GB/6GB is also the minimal. Microsoft should have stopped making Win Vista 32bit from the beginning. as always, software developers are too slow to catch up.
for Win7, with netbooks as part of target audience, Microsoft should ONLY have 32bit netbook edition. all other desktop editions should be 64bit without question.
posted on a quad core, 8GB RAM, Vista 64bit and sitting here waiting for more native 64bit programs
Great discover... A game (which performance depends mostly on the GPU) doesn't improve when running in a 64Bit os... Wow... Very strange uh? Expecially considering that the code is in 32bit.
This ignorance of "testing" is almost offensive for IT professionals who know what they are talking about.
Why don't you try the difference with some native 64-bit apps? Ray-tracing anyone? Video encoding?
Virtualization as i said in a post here... (did you read? ...)
Your missing the point, when running a game, like i said, you could be able to do other things, not be limited to the game and fear lag if you say, decide to go on google for a second.
And using more powerfull GPU eliminates the bottleneck.
And using more powerfull GPU eliminates the bottleneck, to see the real diferents.
I am from Argentina sory my inglish.