Windows 7 64-bit now used by majority of Steam owners

[newtekie1]

I actually still have machines that don't have a 64-bit processor, so I have to use Win7 32-bit on some.

[_JP_]

I have taken a second look at the survey and noticed something that definitely wasn't there the last time I checked.
The most used DX11 card is (now) the GTX 560. It used to be the HD 5770. When did that happen?

[zootac]

Originally Posted by Inceptor

It's a world market now, for computers, computer components, and computer gaming. It doesn't matter where those people come from; it tells you what most game developers need to factor into their designs, and what hardware manufacturers need to produce for a world market.

I bet Steam sell on that info there get two the game devs for makeing games must land Steam some good cash that side line,

[keling]

After a week of playing around with my freshly installed Windows 7 64 bit last September, I was so disappointed with myself for not getting it earlier.

I still have the old Win XP on another HDD just in case. Unfortunately it have been months since I last booted it up since the Win 7 seems to handle the older games rather exceptionally.

[ThE_MaD_ShOt]

I use 32 bit for gaming and 64 bit for web surfing.

[mastrdrver]

The real question is when are the developers going to start releasing 64-bit games?

That will be the real game changer.

[slyfox2151]

Originally Posted by mastrdrver

The real question is when are the developers going to start releasing 64-bit games?

That will be the real game changer.

World of Warcraft has a x64 bit executable

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3988300405

[mastrdrver]

Any others? How long has x64 OSes been with us?

I was really expecting BF3 to be x64, shouldn't have been surprised.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by mastrdrver

Any others? How long has x64 OSes been with us?

I was really expecting BF3 to be x64, shouldn't have been surprised.

There are several, but 64-bit games are rather pointless considering most games don't benefit from the extra memory allocation space beyond 4GB.

Now I'm not saying PCs don't benefit from more than 4GB of RAM. What I'm saying is that a properly coded 32-bit game/executable run in a 64-bit OS can access up to 4GB of RAM just for the game/executable itself, and most games barely use half that.

[phanbuey]

Wasn't there something that the wayt that x32 OS handles graphics that the game couldnt address Ram and Vram separately, and was therefore limited cumulatively to both.

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

Wasn't there something that the wayt that x32 OS handles graphics that the game couldnt address Ram and Vram separately, and was therefore limited cumulatively to both.

No, that is actually the OS limitation. I don't believe games directly address VRAM.

[mastrdrver]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

There are several, but 64-bit games are rather pointless considering most games don't benefit from the extra memory allocation space beyond 4GB.

Now I'm not saying PCs don't benefit from more than 4GB of RAM. What I'm saying is that a properly coded 32-bit game/executable run in a 64-bit OS can access up to 4GB of RAM just for the game/executable itself, and most games barely use half that.

Got some more examples? I'm interested.

Um I'm pretty sure the reason games don't use more then 4GB of ram is because they are x86. Thus has to allocate not only system ram but also VRam, etc. Though I've never programmed a modern game so I could be wrong there. Also I'm pretty sure that the game controls the textures and such that are loaded in to the VRam, thus it has to account for that address space since it and not the OS handles that.

According to that link for the x64 WoW executable, at least that game, benefits from the extra address space that is available. By quite a bit too.

edit: Thanks to Mussels posting I remembered his x86 vs x64 thread and found this:

MS article: "On a modern operating system such as Windows Vista, applications run within their own private virtual address space. Typically, the size of the virtual address space is fixed at 2 gigabytes (GB) for 32-bit applications. How much virtual address space is available is not related to how much physical memory there is on the computer.

A modern graphics processing unit (GPU) can have 512 MB or more of video memory. Applications that try to take advantage of such large amounts of video memory can use a large proportion of their virtual address space for an in-memory copy of their video resources. On 32-bit systems, such applications may consume all the available virtual address space."

Mussels: This shows another side to this - 32 bit applications can only have 2GB total for the entire application, regardless of the amount of available ram and system-wide address space. so even if you have 4GB of ram and 3.5GB showing as available, if you've got a 1GB video card in a 32 bit OS you're in for a world of hurt on high settings on modern games.

This is why a game does not use more then 2GB of system memory. It has nothing to do with a game being properly coded. It has to do with the limitations MS put on x86 programs even in a x64 OS.

[Super XP]

I've been using 64-bit Windows months after the very first one got released. I believe that was Win XP x64.

[Mussels]

they need to add in a steam benchmark, similar to windows vista/7's WEI score, and show the average results.


that way developers know just how fast steam gamers CPU's are in single and multi threaded apps, ram, GPU, etc.

[RuskiSnajper]

I went from XP 32bit to Win7 x64bit

[_JP_]

Originally Posted by Mussels

they need to add in a steam benchmark, similar to windows vista/7's WEI score, and show the average results.


that way developers know just how fast steam gamers CPU's are in single and multi threaded apps, ram, GPU, etc.

What the hell are you waiting for? Send a mail to Newell immediately! He could pay you in games for that idea!

[illli]

does not surprise me considering how cheap ram is these days

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by mastrdrver

This is why a game does not use more then 2GB of system memory. It has nothing to do with a game being properly coded. It has to do with the limitations MS put on x86 programs even in a x64 OS.

No, if they are properly coded they will be large address aware, which allows a 32-bit program to access up to 4GB in a 64-bit OS, or 3GB in a 32-bit OS. That is specifically why I said "properly coded".

Also, the in memory copy of their video memory was done away with in DX10/11.

[mastrdrver]

If it was that simple how come all the games are not doing it? Seems too simple but odd that few (if any?) implement this flag.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by mastrdrver

If it was that simple how come all the games are not doing it? Seems too simple but odd that few (if any?) implement this flag.

because if they did and then customers ran a 32 bit OS, they'd just crash passing the 2GB limit.

[xBruce88x]

Originally Posted by slyfox2151

World of Warcraft has a x64 bit executable

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/3988300405

Crysis and Far Cry also have 64bit executables. Though I haven't really seen a difference in performance. I think Lost Planet does too.

Hopefully games will take better advantage of 64bit after the next wave of consoles are released.

[mastrdrver]

Originally Posted by Mussels

because if they did and then customers ran a 32 bit OS, they'd just crash passing the 2GB limit.

I thought that flag only worked (to expand to 4GB) on x64 OSes?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by mastrdrver

If it was that simple how come all the games are not doing it? Seems too simple but odd that few (if any?) implement this flag.

Originally Posted by Mussels

because if they did and then customers ran a 32 bit OS, they'd just crash passing the 2GB limit.

Originally Posted by mastrdrver

I thought that flag only worked (to expand to 4GB) on x64 OSes?

The flag works in both 32 and 64-bit OSes. In 32-bit OSes it gives the executable 3GB of address space to work with, in 64-bit OSes it gives the executable 4GB of address space to work with.

And yes, it really is as simple as switching a flag, in fact there was even a program floating around somewhere on these forums that "patched" normal 32-bit executables to be large address aware.

Why aren't more games using it? Because like I said, most games don't even use 2GB of RAM, so giving them access to 4GB doesn't help any. And even most games that have 64-bit native executables don't really show any improvement over the 32-bit executable.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Why aren't more games using it? Because like I said, most games don't even use 2GB of RAM, so giving them access to 4GB doesn't help any. And even most games that have 64-bit native executables don't really show any improvement over the 32-bit executable.

fordgt90 wrote that app, and its a lifesaver. supreme commander (original, and then FA before it got patched in) sims 3, sins of a solar empire, and many other games all had crashes prevented if that flag was active in an x64 os, or a modded 32bit os (for the 3GB limit)


the problem is that with or without the flag, if the apps try to use more than 2GB in a non modded 32 bit OS, they crash to desktop. so the game devs put in limits to prevent that happening (which then get breached by people running higher res displays and cranking AA and such past levels that were normal when the game was tested/launched)


it wont go away until x86 gaming machines go away, but when it does, games will finally stop suffering consolitis - look at all the texture limitations skyrim had/has, and all the crashes people get/had running a non LAA version of the game with texture mods enabled.