To 64 or not to 64, that is the question....

I dual boot, so I can take advantage of DX10 if needed and jump back to XP if I have any games that struggle with Vista 64.

Despite what people say there isnt too much difference it in now with SP1. But I have to disagree with the fact you wont have some problems with some games as you will.

Dual boot is the way to go :)
 
Been using x64 for well over a year. Everything works and 4gigs is the dogs ********. It's not an essential upgrade but it's definately a good investment!
 
I had x64 Vista for 3 months with 2GB. Now I put 2GB more in, it's so much more responsive.

Edit: I'd Edit the sweary out mate.
 
If you're going to go Vista at all, you may as well go 64bit as you do need 4GB of ram for the latest and greatest games.

Driver support isn't really any worse in 64bit Vista than it is in 32bit (aside from a few rare cases - some wireless cards for instance).

I'm back on XP now but I tested Vista64 with 4GB, 3GB, 2GB and 1GB of ram and the you definitely need to have 3+ to get the best performance. 1GB was just laughable and 2 noticeably slower in some games (and in alt-tabbing in *all* games).
 
*Half-Life 2
*Lost Coast
*Bet On Soldier: Blood Sport
* Codename: Panzers (Phase one)
* Colin McRae Rally 2005
*Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
*Far Cry
*Fahrenheit
*Shadow Ops: Red Mercury
*Unreal Tournament 2004
*WWII Tank Commander
*S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl
*Dreadnought

list of 64bit games so far, there are more, thats from one of the first hits on google, theres others though, Hellgate for sure and I think a few others are around. THe thing is, lots of games streamline the install and don't tell you what they've installed, most of those simply install as normal without remotely mentioning which version they are installing. You'd think they'd make a lot of noise about having the lastest code/tech being used but its all very quiet.

Its silly to not go 64bit if buying new though.
 
Crysis Warhead was using 1800MB+ at one point.

edit: Also for minimum frame rates

Crysis_Warhead_RAM_Geforce.JPG
 
I recently moved over to 64 bit Vista and 4Gb of Ram.
I can't find a single benefit with it and 32 vista has had the memmory issue addressed now anyway!

All 64 bit Vista gives a user is slightly more agro than 32 bit and a few less progs that work!

Yes all the major recent games work fine but so what..they did with 32bit!

As for speed I find it slower than 32 bit with quite a few applications.
 
Guinny said:
I recently moved over to 64 bit Vista and 4Gb of Ram.
I can't find a single benefit with it and 32 vista has had the memmory issue addressed now anyway!

All 64 bit Vista gives a user is slightly more agro than 32 bit and a few less progs that work!

Yes all the major recent games work fine but so what..they did with 32bit!

As for speed I find it slower than 32 bit with quite a few applications.
Click to expand...


All microsoft did was change it from how much ram is available to how much ram is installed,you still only have 3.2-3.5Gb available the same as before.
 
One benefit of 64bit applications is the ability to for the process to access more than 2gig ram. So I think as time moves on more and more developers will look at having native 64bit versions of their games.

In fact, that's one reason why I don't think there is a great deal of benefit (for gaming) of having more than 3gig RAM.... most games are 32bit and thus won't use more than 2gig ram (fancy boot switches aside), leaving 1gig left over for Windows and background processes.
 
HangTime said:
One benefit of 64bit applications is the ability to for the process to access more than 2gig ram. So I think as time moves on more and more developers will look at having native 64bit versions of their games.

In fact, that's one reason why I don't think there is a great deal of benefit (for gaming) of having more than 3gig RAM.... most games are 32bit and thus won't use more than 2gig ram (fancy boot switches aside), leaving 1gig left over for Windows and background processes.
Click to expand...

Currently that's the case yes - as you say though, as 64bit applications become more common we should see some more cases where 4GB becomes more useful.
 
I'm going to side with the naysayers on this one. I'd love the extra addressing space, RAM has been capped at this limit for far too long, but there just isnt much out there that has 64 bit executables. Instead, you run WOW Emulation and end up with a net performance hit
 
Dude. Just get 64 bit Vista. I have had it for over a year and not had one problem. Dont personally understand why people want to buy 32bit.

If its for a computer with 2 gig of ram and you NEVER plan to upgrade it, then ok go for 32bit. But if you go for 64bit, then down the line if you want to add more ram, then you can. Again so far everything and every game I have run on 64 bit works. Even my old games from 4 years ago. So why go buy 32 bit?

Future proof yourself and get 64 bit is what I say :)
 
I use win XP x64 with 4gb of ram, i usually have to look alittle harder for new x64 drivers but ive never not found any :)

these days 4gb is a must for gamers and to get that full 4gig your gunna need a 64bit OS
 
i can fully understand 32bit xp users not wanting to upgrade. that's fine...... :)

but for anybody looking for a new os and choosing 32bit vista. that is MADNESS i tell thee. and ram has never been cheaper (ok maybe a couple of months back :p). either way it's still dirt cheap. for the price of a game you can have 4gb. it's a no brainer really.
 
Alty said:
so can games without 64bit executables still make use of the 4GB+?
Click to expand...

No, but it means it's more likely to be able to use closer to 4GB because the OS can put other program's data in the extra memory it is able to access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom