 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows Vista / Games / August 200764 or 32 bit for Games?
What is the general concensus on this? I am building a new machine and games are the thing on it. 64 bit is rstrictive when it comes to drivers. 32 bit is supported more easily. 64 bit for the future or better support now? Thinking of an OEM version here.  SignatureVerger "What are we in time going by"-- Mountain ( For Yasgur's Farm) > What is the general concensus on this? I am building a new machine and > games are the thing on it. 64 bit is rstrictive when it comes to > drivers. 32 bit is supported more easily. 64 bit for the future or > better support now? Good question, if your hardware is all supported, and you don't mind tackling compatibility issues when they come up go 64-bit. Some games are already using more than 2GB of RAM, which on 32-bit Windows has issues unless you configure Windows to set more memory aside for applications, and alter the game's executable to be large_address_aware. In my opinion we'll start seeing games using more than say 3 or 4GB of RAM within a couple of years, and as such they'll end up being compiled for 64-bit. SignaturePaul Smith, Yeovil, UK. Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User. http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/ http://www.windowsresource.net/ *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail* You can run a 32 Bit O/S on a 64 Bit processor. I know Dell is installing Vista on their 64 bit chip systems that way since a majority of consumers still use 32 bit applications. But in the future if you want 64 bit, you can do so. > > What is the general concensus on this? I am building a new machine and > > games are the thing on it. 64 bit is rstrictive when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > within a couple of years, and as such they'll end up being compiled for > 64-bit. >> > What is the general concensus on this? I am building a new machine and >> > games are the thing on it. 64 bit is rstrictive when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> within a couple of years, and as such they'll end up being compiled for >> 64-bit. > You can run a 32 Bit O/S on a 64 Bit processor. I know Dell is installing > Vista on their 64 bit chip systems that way since a majority of consumers > still use 32 bit applications. But in the future if you want 64 bit, you > can > do so. There are actually a couple notebooks at Best Buy (HPs or Gateways I think) that come with Vista Premium x64, thought that was kind of cool, but at the same time a little risky, BUT I'd be curious if you didn't tell a consumer they were getting the 64-bit OS version, if they'd even notice? I mean the drivers are obivously supported, wouldn't make much sense to sell a computer without some of the drivers, so I mean it's not like there are any programs that come up and say, sorry this won't run in Windows x64, as far as I know. I'm still ok with my 32-bit system. Only have 2 gigs of ram anyways. If a game requires a minimum of 3gigs ram I'm gonna have to question the programers ability to optimize game and art assets to a more manageable level. -a. > I mean the drivers are obivously supported, wouldn't make much sense to > sell a computer without some of the drivers, so I mean it's not like there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > programers ability to optimize game and art assets to a more manageable > level. Well, Command and Conquer 3 had problems with Vista 64 until they released a patch to fix it. Here is the deceptive error I got when I first try to run it under Vista 64 http://images.filecloud.com/407563/CnC3_error.jpg They fixed in a patch about a week or so after launce, but it would be pretty frustrating for a new user to get hit with that right away. PCanywhere and my VPN software still doesn't offer a 64bit version for Vista. PCanywhere should have support very soon (though it's been 7 months) Outside of that, V64 has been able to do most everything Vista32 does. Personally, if one is not overly techncial, I'd stick with V32 for another couple of years. If you like to tinker, then go for it > I'm still ok with my 32-bit system. Only have 2 gigs of ram anyways. If a > game requires a minimum of 3gigs ram I'm gonna have to question the > programers ability to optimize game and art assets to a more manageable > level. > > -a. Yea, if Xbox 360 can run graphics intensive games with far less ram then there is definitely something wrong with PC game designers or there is something fundamentally wrong with the PC architecture as it currently is. Maybe they need to dump the PC architecture and start from square one and design it in a smarter way this time so it is more efficient. Just before Vista came out, I built a new machine with Vista 64 in mind all the way. My own experience has shown that it's older peripherals which suffer, driver-wise, with 64bit OS but I would have thought in unlikely anyone building a new machine is going to source older bits and pieces unless you prefer Bargain Bin components! I checked each manufacturer/vendors website for 64bit drivers, current or pending, before I bought vid cards/sound cards etc. I have had no real problem at all since installing V64, and still have no major problems at all. On the subject of games, this is really no different and my current rosta includes: Flight SimX Halo2 SimCity4 Fable Caesar VI City Life Black and White2 But there again, every computer set up is different as we all know. The only thing that currently annoys me is Dreamweaver quits without warning at least 3 times an hour: but I'll get to the bottom of that one day! Best of luck with the new PC. Paul > What is the general concensus on this? I am building a new machine and > games are the thing on it. 64 bit is rstrictive when it comes to > drivers. 32 bit is supported more easily. 64 bit for the future or > better support now? > > Thinking of an OEM version here. >Just before Vista came out, I built a new machine with Vista 64 in mind all >the way. My own experience has shown that it's older peripherals which [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Best of luck with the new PC. >Paul Thanks to all for the help. since I am a gamer and I am designing my new PC for games, perhaps 32 bit is the way to go even though it seems that on 32 bit people experience a lot of problems anyway. I am planning on buying Crysis and more of these very demanding games. My system will look like this: Gigabyte P353-DS3R (can use DDR2 and DDR3 RAM.) 2048 MB RAM, Kit, Crucial, DDR2 800Mhz (can upgrade to DDR3 later when it becomes affordable and actually faster.) Intel E6750 Point of View 8800 GTS 640MB Creative X-Fi Music Antec P180b case. But games...apart from RAM hogging will there be other ways developpers will effectively build for 64bit? And in what way? More use of the dual cores? Now, I have old peripherals. Scanner and printer. But I can use those on my older XP SP2 system just fine. I suppose I could netwrok the two and print over a network...and/or just use a USB stick of some size to put docs back and forth. Should not e a big deal. I suppose the cionfig above would not have trouble with Vista 64 bit... It is all new hardware. But it would be almost a disater when I cannot play Crysis and Bioshock, Spore and more of these gems that are released in the next year or so. SignatureVerger "What are we in time going by"-- Mountain ( For Yasgur's Farm) "But it would be almost a disater when I > cannot play Crysis and Bioshock, Spore and more of these gems that are > released in the next year or so." But why shouldn't they play on V64 though? Especially if you have a brand new set-up. Like some of the other posters have commented: 32bit apps will usually run on a 64bit OS (an oversimplification admittedly...) but in my experience the over-riding requirement is for the video and audio drivers to be compatible with the OS. And at least with a 64bit system your future memory expansion will be alot easier! Paul - a 64 bit fan :-) >>Just before Vista came out, I built a new machine with Vista 64 in mind >>all [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > cannot play Crysis and Bioshock, Spore and more of these gems that are > released in the next year or so. >"But it would be almost a disater when I >> cannot play Crysis and Bioshock, Spore and more of these gems that are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Paul - a 64 bit fan :-) So I see :-) Well, I am about to click 'order' for 64 bit. I should just accept that this is it! The transition from old to new, from 32 bit to 64bit. From old hardware to new hardware that from now on will certainly feature 64 bit drivers. I worry about Total Commander. I am not sure I can even use a computer without it. It does not support 64 bit. It woks though. DirOpus also works but doesn't support it. I suppose in time they will. Click, order placed. It is done. No way back now. SignatureVerger "What are we in time going by"-- Mountain ( For Yasgur's Farm) > So I see :-) Well, I am about to click 'order' for 64 bit. I should > just accept that this is it! The transition from old to new, from 32 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Click, order placed. It is done. No way back now. What do you do with your old hardware? I keep mine and have three PC's. Am about to build a 4th. Because of that I can run pretty much any OS and game. I have WinME, Win2KPro/XP/Vista all installed right now. Next machine will make use of my caddy drive and will have Ubuntu Linux and probably Win98SE. The only problem is finding room and enough power sockets to use them all. >> So I see :-) Well, I am about to click 'order' for 64 bit. I should >> just accept that this is it! The transition from old to new, from 32 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >make use of my caddy drive and will have Ubuntu Linux and probably Win98SE. >The only problem is finding room and enough power sockets to use them all. I keep my old hardware. I have an Epson Stylus Color 660. ink is already hard to find for it. Some shops carry Epson's own ink but mostly I have to rely on pelican or other ink-brands. The 660 was a strange duck anyway from the start. And I own an Agfa Snapcan 310. Good reliable scanner, bulky but for the time flat enough. They run fine on XP. So I'll keep this amchine on the side for when i want to print. I was thinking of creating a network with my new Vista machine when it is done. Still waiting for my mobo and processor and some stuff. But I am afraid of networks and I am afraid of routers. It would be cool to print over the network. But if it is handy to startup another PC just for a printjob... I was thinking perhaps buy an USB memstick of a GB or 2. I would still have to turn on the other PC but I won't have to harass myself with painful networking trouble. On the old XP PC i will be able to run older games just fine. But at some point you just have to switch over and cut the losses. There are some games in a period from a few years after my geForce FX5600 until now that won't run smoothly on my old XP machine but are already too old to probably work flawlessly on the new Vista PC. I guess you can't have it all. From now I I'll fovcus on the new yummy stuff. Crysis and that sort of juicy stuff and my Vista machine will run it just fine with an 8800 GTS 640 MB. And an E6850. SignatureVerger "What are we in time going by"-- Mountain ( For Yasgur's Farm) > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:49:15 +0100, "Paul Graham" > Thanks to all for the help. since I am a gamer and I am designing my > new PC for games, perhaps 32 bit is the way to go even though it seems > that on 32 bit people experience a lot of problems anyway. No, if you are designing a game today you should make it both 32bit and have a 64bit exe too. 64bit is here to stay so start giving us the software that can take advantage of it instead of taking the easy way out and making it 32bit only. >> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:49:15 +0100, "Paul Graham" >> Thanks to all for the help. since I am a gamer and I am designing my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >can take advantage of it instead of taking the easy way out and making it >32bit only. Yes I figured if I build a new PC for the future I mght as well go 64 bit and just let go of the greed to be able to run just about any game of the last years I should have bought 2 years ago anyway. The only annoying thing is that my XP machine is too old in GFX power to run games of now. And I do not feel like investing in a new AGP vidcard just to be able to play the games that were pusblished after my old geforce FX5600. I could get real cheap some GeForce 6600 or something in the 7 series. But why waste money when already i spend 370 euro's on a vidcard for my new Vista PC. SignatureVerger "What are we in time going by"-- Mountain ( For Yasgur's Farm) >>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:49:15 +0100, "Paul Graham" >>> Thanks to all for the help. since I am a gamer and I am designing my [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > But why waste money when already i spend 370 euro's on a vidcard for > my new Vista PC. Completed a new comp this week, with Vista 64, I do not regret it. It actually runs UT99 very well, straight install. AA & Far cry too, but need a little tweaking to get them going. Just Google it, a lot of information out there. Martin I currently use my Vista 64 Ultimate for a gaming rig. As with all gamer rigs, it's the latest and greatest so I haven't had a problem with 64 bit drivers. Better to have the 64 bit to run the 32 bit apps to take advantage of the 32 bit emulation and segregation of processing and memory management. > What is the general concensus on this? I am building a new machine and > games are the thing on it. 64 bit is rstrictive when it comes to > drivers. 32 bit is supported more easily. 64 bit for the future or > better support now? > > Thinking of an OEM version here. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.