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

[devguy]

I have a dual boot between Windows 7 x64 and Ubuntu x86_64. I do a lot of video encoding, and having 64bit programs that are multi-threaded is extremely efficient. I can tell you that when a program is made for 64bit machines, it will typically do better. However, a ton of software for 64bit linux is simply the 32bit version with minimal changes, run through a 64bit compiler. For now, this is sufficient in a lot of cases, and like someone else already mentioned, I don't understand why all windows developers do not release binaries for both 32 and 64, even if just run through different compilers.

For example, in Crysis x64, I get no real performance benefit by using the 64bit version, but I can tell you my minimum framerate is higher than in the 32bit version. This may very likely be due to the fact that the 64bit version does nothing other than allow more than 2GB RAM usage. But even so, it is still helpful.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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.

I didn't know you needed 4,503,599.627370496 GB of RAM (that's 4 million gigabytes of RAM or 4 petabytes). Not even the world's largest super computers have that much RAM with over 100,000 processors...combined (each processor only has access to a few GiB each). The difference between it and competing 64-bit technologies are minor.

Truth be told, "true" doesn't exist. It is kind of like AMD and their "native" quad-cores. x86-64 processes 64-bit integers in a single clock which qualifies it as a 64-bit instruction set just as Core 2 Quad has four cores qualifying it as a quad-core. Sementics.

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.

32-bit is roadblock that, if not defeated today, must be defeated tomorrow. There is no sense in delaying the inevitable.

Put bluntly, the only thing stopping all your average software (like internet browsers, word processors, and the like) from being coded for 64-bit is the fact that Microsoft is still selling 32-bit operating systems. I highly doubt "Windows 8" in 2012 will be offered in a 32-bit variety. It is time to move on.

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.

And yet, you don't aknowledge how severe of a case of consolitis (small maps and if they weren't small, they weren't very detailed) the original Mass Effect had. Mass Effect, being a multiplatform title made by none other than EA (push it out the door unfinished), is a poor benchmark for the capabilities of 64-bit technology. We have some games with 64-bit binaries (Far Cry 2, Half-Life, etc.) but no game has yet to fully exploit the capabilities of 64-bit (game uses more than 4 GiB of RAM and puts it to good use). Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. As stated previously, consoles are delaying that transition more than anything else.


@devguy: I try to make my applications architecture neutral as often as possible (runs as x86 on x86, x64 on x64, and IA-64 on IA-64). There's a few instances (usually involving 32-bit registry keys from a 32-bit application) where I have to force the x86 architecture. I completely agree that it is silly how most Windows developers aren't compiling a 64-bit version regardless if the application needs it or not.

 

[cadaveca]

For gamers, I do see 64-bit OS as a requirement, dependant on the config of their entire system.


Example:

Let's say, for argument, that Vista uses 750MB.

You play a game that uses a full 2GB of address space.

Finally, you have a 1GB gpu.

To play that game, properly, requires 3750MB...750 for Vista, 2GB for the game, and 1GB for the GPU driver(which loads a full copy of data in local ram to system ram, again, dependant on the vga you use).

Add in Vent for chat, maybe a monitoring tool or two, network traffic...In order for the system to not be using the page file, you need 4GB of ram, and maybe a little bit more. 32-bit systems can't even address 4GB fully, due to addressing of components.

Now, I could be totally wrong in this..maybe the game itself copies data to system ram for the gpu...I dunno...but AFAIK, this is the driver, not the game, that does this.

Most games for me, push almost 4GB. GTA4 will use MORE.

Mass Effect, being a multiplatform title made by none other than EA (push it out the door unfinished), is a poor benchmark for the capabilities of 64-bit technology.

Just FYI, Bioware made Mass Effect, before being bought by EA. EA has nothing to do with it, other than being the distributor. Dragon Age is also a Bioware title...we see very little complaints about that game, now do we?

 

[PP Mguire]

Even if the game says it only needs 2gb your OS and background tasks AS WELL as memory addressing for other hardware needs more than 2gb. Thats where an x64 OS comes in. Not whether or not a certain program supports it but whether or not you need the extra leeway for the tasks and addressing your running in the background.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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.

No it doesn't. Instead of 0x00000001 + 0x00000001, it is 0x0000000000000001 + 0x0000000000000001. The actual instructions to get to that point are virtually unchanged (namely, the "add" command). The instruction pipeline is virtually unrelated to the number of bits those instructions are applied to so long as the processor has enough space (architecturally) to hold it.

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.

DirectX only handles rendering. It doesn't handle all the collision detection, textures, and other information that could be sitting in the RAM ready to be queued to a video card (at 10 GB/s) rather than a hard drive (at 60 MB/s). It would not be hard at all to put that space to good use.

That aside, yes, DirectX defaults to single-point decimals for performance sake. It is fully capable of running double-precision floats.

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.

I agree. I was (still am) quite angry with Microsoft's decision to release an x86 version of Windows 7. It delays the inevitable.

Just FYI, Bioware made Mass Effect, before being bought by EA. EA has nothing to do with it, other than being the distributor. Dragon Age is also a Bioware title...we see very little complaints about that game, now do we?

If you want complaints about Dragon Age, I have a lot. This point is relevant to this thread: Dragon Age suffers a severe case of consolitis as well. Just like Mass Effect, the play areas are either large and not very detailed or small and detailed.

 

[cadaveca]

NIf you want complaints about Dragon Age, I have a lot. This point is relevant to this thread: Dragon Age suffers a severe case of consolitis as well. Just like Mass Effect, the play areas are either large and not very detailed or small and detailed.

Ture enough, however, that's Bioware's fault, not EA. Was all I was saying. Not that I got any love for EA, but let's blame the proper parties here.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

EA is the money for all three titles. Just like the landlord, when they say jump, you do it or find another place to live. I'm positive if Bioware published Mass Effect on their own, the side missions would have had more variety. EA allowed them time to fine tune the story quests but the same can't be said for the rest.

Microsoft Game Studios may have played a part in that rush as well. Generally speaking, Microsoft published titles are far more fine-tuned than EA; therefore, I lean towards EA creating the publication deadlines and Microsoft playing along.

 

[Goodman]

good thread...but it makes me wonder , if you got an 64bit OS with 6GB of ram & play a game that is 32bit would that game only use less the 4Gb of ram like maybe 3.5 or would you be able to use the 6GB of ram?(since it's going to be in 32bit mode)

I guess i already know the anser for this but just want to be sure.

Anyhow i like my Win7x64 played all my games even the old HL-1 & there is no way i'm going back to 32bit OS...

 

[cadaveca]

EA is the money for all three titles. Just like the landlord, when they say jump, you do it or find another place to live. I'm positive if Bioware published Mass Effect on their own, the side missions would have had more variety. EA allowed them time to fine tune the story quests but the same can't be said for the rest.

Microsoft Game Studios may have played a part in that rush as well. Generally speaking, Microsoft published titles are far more fine-tuned than EA; therefore, I lean towards EA creating the publication deadlines and Microsoft playing along.

EA was not the funder, Elevation Partners was. Elevation owned VG Holding Corp(who was sold to EA), which actually owned Bioware.

That's just how they make thier titles..."consolitis" has nothing to do with 64-bit, as both the Cell cpu and the XBOX360's PowerPC cpu are both 64-bit.

To me, specifically, the "consolitis" is due to small amts of system ram only...and nothing else.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

I didn't know you needed 4,503,599.627370496 GB of RAM (that's 4 million gigabytes of RAM or 4 petabytes). Not even the world's largest super computers have that much RAM with over 100,000 processors...combined (each processor only has access to a few GiB each). The difference between it and competing 64-bit technologies are minor.

This really doesn't relate to that portion of my post. It is what it is which is not true 64-bit.

Truth be told, "true" doesn't exist. It is kind of like AMD and their "native" quad-cores. x86-64 processes 64-bit integers in a single clock which qualifies it as a 64-bit instruction set just as Core 2 Quad has four cores qualifying it as a quad-core. Sementics.





32-bit is roadblock that, if not defeated today, must be defeated tomorrow. There is no sense in delaying the inevitable.

Put bluntly, the only thing stopping all your average software (like internet browsers, word processors, and the like) from being coded for 64-bit is the fact that Microsoft is still selling 32-bit operating systems. I highly doubt "Windows 8" in 2012 will be offered in a 32-bit variety. It is time to move on.




And yet, you don't aknowledge how severe of a case of consolitis (small maps and if they weren't small, they weren't very detailed) the original Mass Effect had. Mass Effect, being a multiplatform title made by none other than EA (push it out the door unfinished), is a poor benchmark for the capabilities of 64-bit technology. We have some games with 64-bit binaries (Far Cry 2, Half-Life, etc.) but no game has yet to fully exploit the capabilities of 64-bit (game uses more than 4 GiB of RAM and puts it to good use). Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't. As stated previously, consoles are delaying that transition more than anything else.


@devguy: I try to make my applications architecture neutral as often as possible (runs as x86 on x86, x64 on x64, and IA-64 on IA-64). There's a few instances (usually involving 32-bit registry keys from a 32-bit application) where I have to force the x86 architecture. I completely agree that it is silly how most Windows developers aren't compiling a 64-bit version regardless if the application needs it or not.

The limitation is there which is why it's not true 64bit. I think you take the use of 32-bit a tad too seriously. There is nothing wrong with the preferences people have when choosing their OS. However, your entire post is completely against the very choice that allowed 64-bit to come into existence. Some here clearly see that and will either agree or disagree however, you on the other hand have blown this way out of portion.

And the truth is won't change anyone's mind because their preference can dictates the very opposite of what you disagree with. Ultimately, as we start out a new year the 1st few games being released either don't support 64-bit or haven't announced support (at the time of this post). PC gaming is the point of this thread and at least one developer clearly explained why 64bit wasn't supported do to it's lack of practical benefits for that game. This to me is telling regardless of how you feel about 64bit. Because if we are PC gamers we would spend a good portion of our time on the PC playing them. Since that is the case it would make sense that 64bit portion of the OS should be used. If it isn't and a person finds themselves rarely using it (if ever) is only a litmus test of their own personal need for it.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

good thread...but it makes me wonder , if you got an 64bit OS with 6GB of ram & play a game that is 32bit would that game only use less the 4Gb of ram like maybe 3.5 or would you be able to use the 6GB of ram?(since it's going to be in 32bit mode)

I guess i already know the anser for this but just want to be sure.

Anyhow i like my Win7x64 played all my games even the old HL-1 & there is no way i'm going back to 32bit OS...

Any 32-bit application can never exceed 4 GiB of total memory usage (at least without employing exotic memory management techniques with a performance penalty). If you have 6 GiB of RAM, that means one 32-bit application can use all 4 GiB it has access to and everything else (OS, background tasks) are left with the remaining 2 GiB. The system may use all 6 GiB but the game would be limited to 4 GiB.

That's just how they make thier titles..."consolitis" has nothing to do with 64-bit, as both the Cell cpu and the XBOX360's PowerPC cpu are both 64-bit.

To me, specifically, the "consolitis" is due to small amts of system ram only...and nothing else.

Consolitis -> 32-bit -> hardware performance

Games are designed first and foremost for consoles and, as you stated, the strongest manifestation is due to the 256-512 MiB RAM consoles have. If you remove that hurdle by developing for computers first, you'll quickly hit the 32-bit barrier. Beyond the 32-bit barrier, the performance/stability is limited by the hardware itself.

A really good analogy here is that 32-bit is to a computer as asthma is to a human. You'll get by with asthma/32-bit but you will constantly fighting it (stability issues in 32-bit signed to unsigned conversions, running out of memory, reconfiguring the code to run inside of 4 GiB, etc.). Converting a 32-bit unsigned (memory address) value into a 64-bit signed value is lossless (no error) while converting a 32-bit signed into a unsigned value may easily produce problems (errors and many opportunities for them).

 

[cadaveca]

Consolitis -> 32-bit -> hardware performance

Games are designed first and foremost for consoles and, as you stated, the strongest manifestation is due to the 256-512 MiB RAM consoles have. If you remove that hurdle by developing for computers first, you'll quickly hit the 32-bit barrier. Beyond the 32-bit barrier, the performance/stability is limited by the hardware itself.

A really good analogy here is that 32-bit is to a computer as asthma is to a human. You'll get by with asthma/32-bit but you will constantly fighting it (stability issues in 32-bit signed to unsigned conversions, running out of memory, reconfiguring the code to run inside of 4 GiB, etc.). Converting a 32-bit unsigned (memory address) value into a 64-bit signed value is lossless (no error) while converting a 32-bit signed into a unsigned value may easily produce problems (errors and many opportunities for them).

I do not understand how this is relevant though. Console hardware is 64-bit, the same as PCs. 64-bit is far more programming intensive though, so we have 32-bit titles running on 64-bit hardware, both in consoles and pcs. DX9 has nothing to do with it either, as FarCry has a 64-bit executable...in DX9.

It's entirely the programmer's choices here that affect whether apps are 64-bit or not, and to me, it's more to do with lazyness/lack of funding, than anything else. If someone wanted to make a 64-bit console game, there's nothing stopping them, other than no additional benefits except addressing larger AMTs of ram...which isn't an issue on consoles, due to design.

I just don't see how consoles are even relevant to this discussion...Just liek I didn't see EA as relevant.

 

[Goodman]

Any 32-bit application can never exceed 4 GiB of total memory usage (at least without employing exotic memory management techniques with a performance penalty). If you have 6 GiB of RAM, that means one 32-bit application can use all 4 GiB it has access to and everything else (OS, background tasks) are left with the remaining 2 GiB. The system may use all 6 GiB but the game would be limited to 4 GiB.

Thx! for the explaination , so having an 64 OS with more then 4GB of ram & only playing 32bit games you're still could benefits from the 64bit OS ... good to know

 

[FordGT90Concept]

@EastCoasthandle: As stated many, many times in this very thread, games won't widely support 64-bit until consoles do. It is going to happen as it did with the conversion from 16-bit to 32-bit. This is not about "preference" or "feelings."

I do not understand how this is relevant though. Console hardware is 64-bit, the same as PCs. 64-bit is far more programming intensive though, so we have 32-bit titles running on 64-bit hardware, both in consoles and pcs. DX9 has nothing to do with it either, as FarCry has a 64-bit executable...in DX9.

It's entirely the programmer's choices here that affect whether apps are 64-bit or not, and to me, it's more to do with lazyness/lack of funding, than anything else. If someone wanted to make a 64-bit console game, there's nothing stopping them, other than no additional benefits except addressing larger AMTs of ram...which isn't an issue on consoles, due to design.

The console is a standardized platform, the computer is not. You are right that console programmers can do 32-bit or 64-bit because the hardware and operating system are guaranteed to be 64-bit. Computers, however, still have more 32-bit operating systems than 64-bit operating systems. To compile just for 64-bit is to guarantee it won't run on over half of the computers out there. That is what is creating this rift in the Windows market on only Microsoft is to blame. Apple, IBM, and pretty much every other platform out there has been using 64-bit for some time now because they outright discontinued selling 32-bit platforms. Microsoft has not.

Consoles are important to this discussion because their limits carry over to Windows game development.

Consoles can hit the same signed/unsigned conversion issues computers do. Even if you intend to do almost everything with 32-bit variables, 64-bit variables are still a nice tool in the chest. At the same time, you don't need to compile the binary as 64-bit to use 64-bit variables. You are correct that 64-bit compiled console games (unless required) won't be very common until there is 4 GiB or more RAM available. The 32-bit binaries are smaller conserving some valuable memory for actual work.

 

[cadaveca]

Now I get what you are saying.


Do you really think that everyone is under M$'s thumb in this situation? I guess if the 360's OS is 32-bit, then sure, you'd have a very good argument here.

 

[Mussels]

me and w1zzard did some testing into this.

a 32 bit game under a 32 bit OS is capped at 2GB.
a 32 bit game with a certain flag set (which many modern games are), can access 4GB.


So if you have any more than 2GB of ram, (or a game that needs more than 2GB) - sure as hell go x64

summary for skim readers: 32 bit games benefit from a 64 bit OS.

 

[francis511]

Everybody says it but you don`t believe it until it happens to you......---- wireless adapters !!!
They don`t always work in 64-bit. This ruins windows 7 x64 for me but otherwise it`s gr8

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

For a modern gamer, running a high end rig, that wants to play games on high or better setting, x64 is a must.

Yes, the programs/games might not take advantage of it by themselves. But the fact that the OS has more address space to work with is required.

For high end gaming, 4GB of system RAM is pretty much the minimum. The game might only use 2GB for itself, but the OS needs RAM, your background programs need RAM, and all of that adds up.

Now, you add in modern graphics cards, taking up pretty much a minimum of 512MB, but most high end cards are taking up almost 1GB, some going to 2GB(HD5970). Of course, SLi and Crossfire means you could easily have 2 1GB cards. So on a 32-bit OS, when you consider the address space required for modern graphics cards, it just isn't enough. Dropping an HD5970 into a 32-bit OS means you only have enough address space for 2GB of system RAM, and the game wants that 2GB for itself, so you run out...

Now, you can say that the high end graphics cards aren't required, you don't need an HD5970, you don't need to run games maxed out, you don't need SLi/Crossfire. However, we don't need a lot fo things when it comes to gaming, but we like having them. We don't need to play at anything higher than 1024x768, we don't need to play at anything higher than low settings. And if you don't mind playing at those settings, then 32-bit probably is good enough for you, but for those of use that like to get the most out of our games, 64-bit is a requirement, even if the game doesn't actually support it.



So a 6 year old game and an 8 year old game? Sounds to me like the issue has nothing to do with x64, and everything to do with the games simply not being compatible with modern OSes.

Though it is possible that they use some 16-bit code, or installers, in which case it would be the x64 causing the problems, as 16-bit support was dropped, just like 8-bit support was dropped with x86 based Windows.

Of course XP mode would probably allow these games to work perfectly fine under x64 Win7, I know that is what I use to play SimTower...

This pretty much sums it.

Having 64bit is having the best of both worlds. Sure not all applications support 64bit, but still, SOME does.

Its like the whole dual / quad core shenanigan. Having more does not hurt.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Do you really think that everyone is under M$'s thumb in this situation? I guess if the 360's OS is 32-bit, then sure, you'd have a very good argument here.

Windows has jointly supported x86 and x64 since 2003. Apple, IBM, and the lot just said "x86 is done, all future operating systems will be x64 so you might as well develop for it." Microsoft on the other hand is saying "x64 is out but no one needs to use it." XP x64 was a great, forgotten OS because Microsoft did not push for its use at all. Vista x64 saw more use because of better driver support but again, it gets more x86 sales. Windows 7 x64, it is hard to say.


I can't find any information about if the Dashboard/NXE are 32-bit or 64-bit. Because it is only 32 MB in size, most likely it is 32-bit in order to conserve on memory.

Of course XP mode would probably allow these games to work perfectly fine under x64 Win7, I know that is what I use to play SimTower...

Shaweet! Virtualization for the win!

 

[Mussels]

Everybody says it but you don`t believe it until it happens to you......---- wireless adapters !!!
They don`t always work in 64-bit. This ruins windows 7 x64 for me but otherwise it`s gr8

ive had no trouble with that.

Then again, i avoid shitty brands like Dlink and netgear (who are always behind on the driver front)


Remember - if your wireless works vista x64, it also works in 7 x64. If your wireless adaptor doesn't work in either of those, you've got a shitty adapter.

 

[DrPepper]

ive had no trouble with that.

Then again, i avoid shitty brands like Dlink and netgear (who are always behind on the driver front)


Remember - if your wireless works vista x64, it also works in 7 x64. If your wireless adaptor doesn't work in either of those, you've got a shitty adapter.

What are the good adapters I've heard belkin are crap as well and so are the routers.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

To add to that, never assume a company is going to add driver support. Only buy it if they drivers are available for the platform up front. If you are upgrading an x86 computer to x64, you always run that risk if you don't double check everything first (chipset, SATA/RAID controllers, video card, NICs, sound cards, integrated sound, and all other cards you have installed).

 

[Mussels]

What are the good adapters I've heard belkin are crap as well and so are the routers.

before you buy, check the website for support. if they don't support every modern OS (this includs mac + linux. and x64 variants) - dont buy

if they dont support every OS at the time of purchase, they sure as hell wont when new OS's come out

 

[mikek75]

What are the good adapters I've heard belkin are crap as well and so are the routers.

I put a Belkin wireless card in my mums rig, worked fine in Vista 64. Took a little bit of fiddling to get it to work on W7x64 but its working fine there too. I'll have to check on Belkins site to see if they have a W7x64 specific driver now, thats the only reason I had to fiddle with it at launch.

EDIT: Just checked. No, still no W7 driver, but then its a superceded model so not surprising. Works fine with the Vista 64 driver though.

 

[rampage]

as mussels and a few others have tryed to say above and are slowly suceding about 32 bit vis 64 bit is right on the money.

1: 32 bit can only address up up 3.5 gb correctly

2: 32 bit can only address UP to 2 GB per application ( Supream Commander would crash when i tryed to use over 2 GB on a win 32bit OS, before the patches if i remember correctly)

3: and you ask what about 32 bit systems with 4 GB of RAM (remmber a 32bit OS can only properly address up to 3.5 GB and 2GB per app), (worst case with a dx 9 game (dx9 duplicates GFX RAM into system RAM) .. .. .. .. ..1Gb OS, 1GB GFX card, GFX card duplicated 1 GB, game up to 2 GB, thats worst case the system fighting and trying to balance and recourse UP TO 5GB of ram when it can only access and balance 3.5 GB

(i hope to god i got all that right)