Is it important to own a 64-bit OS if you are a gamer?

[TheLaughingMan]

Just my 2 cents, but at this point I think it is a must.

for much of what newtekie said to start with, but he didn't expand his last point. The only reason games are still claim no more than 2 GB is that is a limit for an app. in Windows XP. This is still tacked onto games for those die hard DX9 gamers out there. This, like the 16-bit and 8-bit support Newtekie brought up, will be phased out in say the next 2 years. Once DX9 is no longer a support requirement for a game, 32-bit OS will die along with it soon after.

Don't let rumors get you. There is not need to go up to 128-bit for processors. Doesn't matter what the OS claims to support, AMD and Intel are the ones who decide if that will be what is available on the processor market.

And true backwards compatibility is impossible when the core design of something is changes. There were drastic changes between XP to Vista and Vista to 7. You are just going to have to hope your obscure software can be replaced or updated by the creator.

 

[DirectorC]

When I was running 64-bit Vista it took several seconds for COD4 to switch to and from the desktop. That was annoying enough for me to stick to 32-bits for Win 7.

 

[mikek75]

I can't say I agree with some of the reason for 64-bit OS. For one, I see it as dying OS. With WIndows 8 already promoting 128-bit it's clear that 64-bit OS had peaked and on the decline of it's life cycle. It will be only a matter of time before we start seeing CPUs that support 128-bit, etc. Furthermore, as a gamer there is no practical use for it. Sure, you can use a 64-bit OS to run 32-bit games. But some posts seem to imply that if you have a 64-bit OS then everything else is 64-bit as well. I like to make it clear that's certainly not the case. If a program or game doesn't use 64-bit it will run in a 32-bit environment.

Now there is nothing wrong with that except if you fall into the category of running a 64-bit OS that you've never (or hardly) seen use of. Hoping that one day you will. In such an example is why I believe a 32-bit OS is just fine for gaming use.

No one in this thread has suggested that with a 64bit OS everything else is 64bit

 

[FlclAdam12]

I find a lot of games don't even work in x64.

So I'd say its not important.

yet.

What?!

Yon need a 64bit OS to address more than 4gb (or 3.5gb) of memory, it not going to be of any real advantage unless you have more than that. It won't simply make your games run faster, and every game should run under a 64bit OS.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

What?!

Yon need a 64bit OS to address more than 4gb (or 3.5gb) of memory, it not going to be of any real advantage unless you have more than that. It won't simply make your games run faster, and every game should run under a 64bit OS.

And that's the thing here. It's about practicality. Some are only advocating it to gamers simply because it's there. Sorry, but that's not a good explanation of why to use it if it not predominantly found in the game we play starting with the 1st 3 anticipated PC games of 2010. If the developer tells you that this game runs with just 2 Gigs of ram (ME2 for example). Then there is no practical benefit for a 64-bit OS. Now in that example, I am not talking about a game that's already out but an anticipated game yet to be release.

 

[DrPepper]

And that's the thing here. It's about practicality. Some are only advocating it to gamers simply because it's there. Sorry, but that's not a good explanation of why to use it if it not predominantly found in the game we play starting with the 1st 3 anticipated PC games of 2010. If the developer tells you that this game runs with just 2 Gigs of ram (ME2 for example). Then there is no practical benefit for a 64-bit OS. Now in that example, I am not talking about a game that's already out but an anticipated game yet to be release.

Again still not a good reason since it doesn't have any negative aspects and only benefits because even if a game only needs 2gb of ram the video card's especially future cards will be deploying with 4gb VRAM soon.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Again still not a good reason since it doesn't have any negative aspects and only benefits because even if a game only needs 2gb of ram the video card's especially future cards will be deploying with 4gb VRAM soon.

My post wasn't targeted towards you to convince you otherwise of what you already purchased. I created this thread because I was perplexed as to why I am not seeing the mass adaption for 64-bit support for PC games. That quote from Dice is part of (if not the one of the main) reasons why it hasn't happened. Also, with 128-bit OS on the horizon clearly puts a bad mark as to how things will go when the argument is made again of which to use:
A. 32-bit
B. 64-bit
C. 128 bit
If you were able to convience some to get a 64-bit simply because you thought 64 is better then 32 bit OS then there is nothing from stopping them to adapt 128-bit instead of 64-bit. Future proofing is still future proofing regardless if it's tangible to do so or not.

What I see is that if the game is develop and optimized properly you do not have the need for more virtual space/memory then what is allocated using a 32-bit environment. For some games that simply didn't happen and needed large address aware support. Games like Crysis Warhead, BF2, Empire total war, etc all needed LAA flag patch because those games were borked without it do to how they were developed. In cases like this it didn't make those games better it only made them playable.

 

[DrPepper]

My post wasn't targeted towards you to convince you otherwise of what you already purchased. I created this thread because I was perplexed as to why I am not seeing the mass adaption for of 64-bit support for PC games. That quote from Dice is part of (if not the one of the main) reasons why it hasn't happened.

I know I was just pointing out that there aren't really any negatives for using 64bit.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

Then there is no practical benefit for a 64-bit OS. Now in that example, I am not talking about a game that's already out but an anticipated game yet to be release.

If the games that are coming out are proper expanded for 64-bit, the game will run smoother in a 64-bit environment. The increased amount of information the app. and processor can transmit in a single 64-bit instruction as opposed to 32-bit will improve gameplay. The game should play smoother, load faster, and improve frame in cases where the CPU is heavily used for one reason or another.

There you go, practical. Required, no, practical for well written game, yes.

 

[Eva01Master]

And as always it's the developer BS us all with their recommendations, the game will run with the recommended settings at an average resolution, details, no AA, no AF... If you want to get your gaming to mind blowing details, without a toll to pay in the performance department you'll be in need for powerful hardware, and as powerful as hardware is, it can do shit if it's not run under the 64 Bit enviroment, 32 Bit is WAY too limited for nowadays standards in gaming rigs... Oh, unless you're the proud owner of a 15" CRT monitor, so you can crack all the way up in everything without leaving the confy 32 Bit side XD.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

If the games that are coming out are proper expanded for 64-bit, the game will run smoother in a 64-bit environment. The increased amount of information the app. and processor can transmit in a single 64-bit instruction as opposed to 32-bit will improve gameplay. The game should play smoother, load faster, and improve frame in cases where the CPU is heavily used for one reason or another.

There you go, practical. Required, no, practical for well written game, yes.

But do you really understand what you are asking here? If the game doesn't need the extra security, ram or virtual space how can it properly expand a 64-bit environment? IMO, it simply cannot do to the nature of benefits for a 64-bit OS when compared and contrasted for PC games. Again, a developer can make a game use 8 Gigs of ram. However, if it only needs 2 Gigs to run at it's greatest potential the extra 6 Gigs is nothing more then a placebo effect IMO. I'm sure some will believe that's the proper way to do it however as the person at Dice clearly stated, they have not practical use for it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I can't say I agree with some of the reason for 64-bit OS. For one, I see it as dying OS. With WIndows 8 already promoting 128-bit it's clear that 64-bit OS had peaked and on the decline of it's life cycle. It will be only a matter of time before we start seeing CPUs that support 128-bit, etc. Furthermore, as a gamer there is no practical use for it. Sure, you can use a 64-bit OS to run 32-bit games. But some posts seem to imply that if you have a 64-bit OS then everything else is 64-bit as well. I like to make it clear that's certainly not the case. If a program or game doesn't use 64-bit it will run in a 32-bit environment.

Now there is nothing wrong with that except if you fall into the category of running a 64-bit OS that you've never (or hardly) seen use of. Hoping that one day you will. In such an example is why I believe a 32-bit OS is just fine for gaming use.

a) An operating system can't support instructions the processor does not. They are disabled or emulated if that is the case.
b) Windows 8 will not support 128-bit integers. Only specialized applications would even use it.
c) Windows 8 might support "quads" (128-bit floating point decimals).
d) 32-bit processors have long supported "doubles" (64-bit floating point decimals).

As stated previously, we have the technology to make PC-only games that could put 10+ GiB of RAM to use but due to the market and higher priority placed on consoles, that capability is not being exploited.

And that's the thing here. It's about practicality. Some are only advocating it to gamers simply because it's there. Sorry, but that's not a good explanation of why to use it if it not predominantly found in the game we play starting with the 1st 3 anticipated PC games of 2010. If the developer tells you that this game runs with just 2 Gigs of ram (ME2 for example). Then there is no practical benefit for a 64-bit OS. Now in that example, I am not talking about a game that's already out but an anticipated game yet to be release.

Mass Effect 2 is based on the Unreal Engine which is 32-bit. It can't use more than 3 GiB of RAM at any given time. Mass Effect 2, like Mass Effect, is optimized for the Xbox 360 and ported to PC. This goes back to the point I made earlier that, until consoles are pushing 3+ GiB of RAM, PC gaming won't see much/any benefit from 64-bit in the gaming department. That doesn't mean they couldn't.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

a) An operating system can't support instructions the processor does not. They are disabled or emulated if that is the case.
b) Windows 8 will not support 128-bit integers. Only specialized applications would even use it.
c) Windows 8 might support "quads" (128-bit floating point decimals).
d) 32-bit processors have long supported "doubles" (64-bit floating point decimals).

As stated previously, we have the technology to make PC-only games that could put 10+ GiB of RAM to use but due to the market and higher priority placed on consoles, that capability is not being exploited.

Most current implementation of x86-64 CPUs isn't true 64-bit. So I really don't see the point. Regardless of what becomes of Windows 8 if it uses 128-bit it will be exactly the same thing many pointed out as what they think 64-bit is over 32-bit. It's a vicious cycle.

Mass Effect 2 is based on the Unreal Engine which is 32-bit. It can't use more than 3 GiB of RAM at any given time. Mass Effect 2, like Mass Effect, is optimized for the Xbox 360 and ported to PC. This goes back to the point I made earlier that, until consoles are pushing 3+ GiB of RAM, PC gaming won't see much/any benefit from 64-bit in the gaming department. That doesn't mean they couldn't.

The Unreal Engine is very customizable and apparently tailored to use 2 Gigs for ME2 according to the recommended specs. Therefore, it's moot if it can support 3 Gigs or 8 Gigs. Again, it's what practical.

 

[IINexusII]

the reason i switched to 64bit was because i have 4gb ram, thats all really.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

But do you really understand what you are asking here? If the game doesn't need the extra security, ram or virtual space how can it properly expand a 64-bit environment?

Simple. 64-bit is not just about security, address space, and virtual space. That is a secondary benefit of the code being a default 64-bit number. 64-bit is the length of all instructions for the processor. Thing of it this way.

You need to move a file from one location to another. Lets assume that is 4 32 bit instructions.

Select file
copy file to temp memory
save copy to new HDD block
release file

In a 64-bit system lets assume the system OS is a true 64-bit and has access to the 64-bit instruction set. The above 4 instructions can be changed to just 3.

Select and Copy file to temp Memory
Copy temp to new HDD block
Release file

While this doesn't seem to be all that great saving 1 instruction, but that is 1 clock cycle of time saved every time this can be done. Your CPU is processing 10's of thousands of instructions a second so this will add up fast. Code that is not properly expanded just sticks "0" in the top 32-bit instruction space and run 32-bit instructions calls in a 64-bit format. No time is gained in this senario. Code that uses the new 64-bit instructions will gain a fair amount of CPU work time back.

 

[newtekie1]

And that's the thing here. It's about practicality. Some are only advocating it to gamers simply because it's there. Sorry, but that's not a good explanation of why to use it if it not predominantly found in the game we play starting with the 1st 3 anticipated PC games of 2010. If the developer tells you that this game runs with just 2 Gigs of ram (ME2 for example). Then there is no practical benefit for a 64-bit OS. Now in that example, I am not talking about a game that's already out but an anticipated game yet to be release.

Your logic goes both ways, it seems that the only reason you are advocating 32-bit is because it is there.

The only difference is that in your view 64-bit offers no advantages, so it isn't worth it. However, we've shown you that there are advantages. If nothing else, people should be moving to 64-bit because it can address more than 4GB of RAM. Also, if you own a 32-bit OS(Vista or Win7) you already own a 64-bit OS as well, and vise versa, the keys are completely interchangable. So moving to 64-bit really has no negatives.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Most current implementation of x86-64 CPUs isn't true 64-bit. So I really don't see the point. Regardless of what becomes of Windows 8 if it uses 128-bit it will be exactly the same thing many pointed out as what they think 64-bit is over 32-bit. It's a vicious cycle.

There's only one real limitation to x86-64: The physical address space is limited to 52-bit rather than 64-bit. Other than that, it is a "true" 64-bit operating system.

128-bit quad floating point decimals allows for greater precision in decimal values. It is not as useful as going from single to double but there are some applications where it is becoming necessary. Generally speaking, precision is important so developers will use it if it is readily available and does not cause a performance loss. I think that by 2020, 128-bit quads will be as common as doubles are today.

The Unreal Engine is very customizable and apparently tailored to use 2 Gigs for ME2 according to the recommended specs. Therefore, it's moot if it can support 3 Gigs or 8 Gigs. Again, it's what practical.

Recommended specs are by no means scientific nor measured to a standard.

You need to move a file from one location to another. Lets assume that is 4 32 bit instructions.

...

Instruction sets reduce the number of cycles it takes to complete a complex task (e.g. 4 down to 3), not the size of numbers (64-bit). The greatest change with the extra length is the capability to handle longs (64-bit integers) in one clock instead of two or more clocks. This is especially crucial when dealing with government budgets ($2 trillion fy 2008, har har) and addressing memory.

 

[Polarman]

Gaming, watching movies, listening to music, writing a letter, browsing web pages, touching up photo's.

You really don't need a 64bit OS just to do those things above.

64 bit is meant for another type of "professionnal" crowd and not just because you have more than 4GB of ram.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

There's only one real limitation to x86-64: The physical address space is limited to 52-bit rather than 64-bit. Other than that, it is a "true" 64-bit operating system.

128-bit quad floating point decimals allows for greater precision in decimal values. It is not as useful as going from single to double but there are some applications where it is becoming necessary. Generally speaking, precision is important so developers will use it if it is readily available and does not cause a performance loss. I think that by 2020, 128-bit quads will be as common as doubles are today.



Recommended specs are by no means scientific nor measured to a standard.



Instruction sets reduce the number of cycles it takes to complete a complex task (e.g. 4 down to 3), not the size of numbers (64-bit). The greatest change with the extra length is the capability to handle longs (64-bit integers) in one clock instead of two or more clocks. This is especially crucial when dealing with government budgets ($2 trillion fy 2008, har har) and addressing memory.

What you say makes perfect sense.. and so does the Next Generation of Consoles being 64bit which will bring forth several 64bit games, making it easy for us PC users that already have 64bit OS's So I can't imagine Purposely installing a 32bit Os Now

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I really can't either. Because the Vista driver model encouraged 32-bit and 64-bit driver authoring, driver availability for 64-bit is not really an issue anymore. The only problem is 64-bit blacklisting (like XIII and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory does) and 16-bit legacy support being removed in x64 versions of Windows. I'm not 100% certain but I think running XP on a virtual machine inside of Windows 7 will allow 16-bit and 32-bit programs to function normally.

But yeah, there is no excuse not to get x64 on new computers. Keep an older computer around for 16-bit and 32-bit support (assuming you do anything that actually needs it).

 

[Bundy]

I agree with Newtekie but express the idea differently. The requirements for a game can differ from the best set up for a gamer. IMO 64 bit OS ability to address more RAM does make a difference, especially when you have other background processes running. Also, if we were to consider the requirements of the game alone, we may as well just buy consoles.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Simple. 64-bit is not just about security, address space, and virtual space. That is a secondary benefit of the code being a default 64-bit number. 64-bit is the length of all instructions for the processor. Thing of it this way.

You need to move a file from one location to another. Lets assume that is 4 32 bit instructions.

Select file
copy file to temp memory
save copy to new HDD block
release file

In a 64-bit system lets assume the system OS is a true 64-bit and has access to the 64-bit instruction set. The above 4 instructions can be changed to just 3.

Select and Copy file to temp Memory
Copy temp to new HDD block
Release file

While this doesn't seem to be all that great saving 1 instruction, but that is 1 clock cycle of time saved every time this can be done. Your CPU is processing 10's of thousands of instructions a second so this will add up fast. Code that is not properly expanded just sticks "0" in the top 32-bit instruction space and run 32-bit instructions calls in a 64-bit format. No time is gained in this senario. Code that uses the new 64-bit instructions will gain a fair amount of CPU work time back.

But this really doesn't benefit games. Which is why I asked specifically towards gamers.

You logic goes both ways, it seems that the only reason you are advocating 32-bit is because it is there.

Nah, I'm not telling anyone to buy 32-bit over 64-bit if they have use for it. What I am asking is the if you are predominately a gamer is there use for it. So far I don't see it.

The only difference is that in your view 64-bit offers no advantages, so it isn't worth it. However, we've shown you that there are advantages. If nothing else, people should be moving to 64-bit because it can address more than 4GB of RAM. Also, if you own a 32-bit OS(Vista or Win7) you already own a 64-bit OS as well, and vise versa, the keys are completely interchangable. So moving to 64-bit really has not negatives.

No, I didn't say that 64-bit OS didn't offer any advantages. Quite the opposite actually when I sighted fixes for BF2, Empire Total War etc. But what I said in the 1st portion of your post.

There's only one real limitation to x86-64: The physical address space is limited to 52-bit rather than 64-bit. Other than that, it is a "true" 64-bit operating system.

Not in my book which is why I said what I said. In that content it is true that it's not a true 64 bit and people need to see that because there are plenty who don't know that.

128-bit quad floating point decimals allows for greater precision in decimal values. It is not as useful as going from single to double but there are some applications where it is becoming necessary. Generally speaking, precision is important so developers will use it if it is readily available and does not cause a performance loss. I think that by 2020, 128-bit quads will be as common as doubles are today.

The pro's and cons can also be said regarding 32 vs 64 bit. It's really chasing of wind. In the end it's about practicality. Which is greatly eluded.

Recommended specs are by no means scientific nor measured to a standard.

No one advocated if it was or was not. However, I would tend to think that the developer has provided some measurement of some kind to derive at that conclusion. Albiet it's not clear to us how it was achieved it doesn't mean that the information is somehow completely unfounded.

 

[Kursah]

At this point I see no strict requirement for absolutely needing an x64 OS for gaming, but I prefer it. After messing with both Vista and 7 x86, I much prefer the x64 counterpart for my own personal reasons. I've had the fewest issues on both V and 7 in x64, gaming and general use, and the best stability, which to me is just as important as being able to game. But I don't go for max OC's or play ancient games, and really I can't think of a game out of the dozens I've played over the last couple of years that had any issues in x64, though I can also list very few that had x64 extensions, one was the original Far Cry with patches, and the next was my short stint with Crysis.

Sure it's a neat gimmick now, just like the DX9, 10's and 11's out there, but it could end up being useful to gaming someday, but there's gonna have to be a much, much larger market to trend that way and show it's something that will truly help the gaming experience, performance and stability. That'll be much easier on the market-side when folks are running more DX10/10.1/11 compliant gpu's, x64 modern OSes (XP not included, leave that for the benchers, old rigs and Vista/7 nay-sayers), and x64 based next-next-gen consoles. When will it happen? Probably not for a long time, does it need to happen? No. As long as my games play great, look good, are enjoyable and are stable, I don't care if they're x86 or x64, dx9, 10, or 11 based.

Doesn't mean I'd jump back to an x86 OS for any reason, sure they get the job done, but once you have a preference, or something new works well, go for it. I've ran x64 long enough to have enjoyed using it, and enjoying the stability it provides on my rig, if games utilize that cool, but it better be stable and useful, I don't wanna spend an extra $10-20 on the game just because it has x64 extensions that do nothing on current gaming rigs and OSes.

 

[TheLaughingMan]

The greatest change with the extra length is the capability to handle longs (64-bit integers) in one clock instead of two or more clocks.

A 64-bit integer is a number. I guess I could have used a more technical term, but that is what I was talking about.

Everything is just a series of binary numbers to your computer. being able to feed it bigger numbers, gives you more room for more complex instructions in a single clock, larger address space, less need for point use to keep track of lower and upper address locations, etc.

In the end, it is better to have a 64-bit OS. Benefit of a 64-bit OS is not being fully utilized, especially by games, because of this need for DX9 and 32-bit compatibility. Unfortunately, this will be a limitation unless games, either make two version of the game or 64-bit OS becomes far more common.

So to blunt answer your question, is not important, but it is beneficial. Some games will be better in 64-bit OS, period.

I personal don't think Windows 7 should have a 32-bit option at all. Windows 7 should be 64-bit OS period. I also think some game company needs to go, screw it, no 32-bit support, no DX9 support; however, the game is beautiful, huge, immersive, etc. I want a game with the freedom of Oblivion, Crysis graphics (minus the terrible optimization), and a story with the dept of Dragon Age. The likes of which are possible right now, but we can't have.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

At this point I see no strict requirement for absolutely needing an x64 OS for gaming, but I prefer it. After messing with both Vista and 7 x86, I much prefer the x64 counterpart for my own personal reasons. I've had the fewest issues on both V and 7 in x64, gaming and general use, and the best stability, which to me is just as important as being able to game. But I don't go for max OC's or play ancient games, and really I can't think of a game out of the dozens I've played over the last couple of years that had any issues in x64, though I can also list very few that had x64 extensions, one was the original Far Cry with patches, and the next was my short stint with Crysis.

Sure it's a neat gimmick now, just like the DX9, 10's and 11's out there, but it could end up being useful to gaming someday, but there's gonna have to be a much, much larger market to trend that way and show it's something that will truly help the gaming experience, performance and stability. That'll be much easier on the market-side when folks are running more DX10/10.1/11 compliant gpu's, x64 modern OSes (XP not included, leave that for the benchers, old rigs and Vista/7 nay-sayers), and x64 based next-next-gen consoles. When will it happen? Probably not for a long time, does it need to happen? No. As long as my games play great, look good, are enjoyable and are stable, I don't care if they're x86 or x64, dx9, 10, or 11 based.

Doesn't mean I'd jump back to an x86 OS for any reason, sure they get the job done, but once you have a preference, or something new works well, go for it. I've ran x64 long enough to have enjoyed using it, and enjoying the stability it provides on my rig, if games utilize that cool, but it better be stable and useful, I don't wanna spend an extra $10-20 on the game just because it has x64 extensions that do nothing on current gaming rigs and OSes.

Great post. In the end it's all about preference.