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

[EastCoasthandle]

I think that a lot that has been discussed is putting the carriage before the horse. Yes, 64-bit OS does allow for more then 3.5 Gigs of ram and allows for more then 2Gigs of virtual address space. However, what's not being told (which is why I've included it in the OP) is the actual need for the additional ram when gaming.

From the gist of it from one developer, depending on how the game is developed, there may not be a need for additional virtual space/ram. Hence why they state at least 2 Gigs of ram as recommended in their specs. As there is no ram bottlenecking performance of the game which would hinder it from being playable as intended from the developer. Pending video card drivers, CPU, etc is within spec for that game.

Now all this talk about getting the OS to recognize more ram does not make it an absolute that it will be needed for that game or for the average gamer. Which is why we are seeing so few games actually using 64-bit. And in cases that we do see the large address aware flags, etc is because it's allows for stability of the game. In hindsight, that's what increasing virtual space is actually doing in such cases. It's allowing you to play the game as intended.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

And again, Mass Effect 2 is developed for Xbox 360 (has 512 MiB shared memory) before Windows (x86 still outsells x64) on Unreal Engine 3 (32-bit binaries).


Five years down the road (Windows 8 and Unreal Engine 4), mainstream games not requring a 64-bit operating environment may be few and far between due to memory restrictions on 32-bit. Again, how soon 64-bit games becomes the norm is dependant upon how soon consoles come equiped with 4+ GiB RAM. It is going to happen sooner or later no matter your definition of "needed."

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Sigh, that's not relevant. Had the ram requirements on the PC been exactly the same on the console would such a thing need to be addressed. But that's not the case here. They can make a game for both PC and console without it having anything to do with that.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It is extremely relevant. Developers create games for the lowest common denominator be it the Wii, PS3, Xbox 360, Windows, or a specific engine like Unreal Engine 3 in order to keep development costs to a minimum. From the lowest common denominator, hardware requirements grow exponentially against eye candy. You add something that makes it look twice as good, it is going to require four times the system resources it would have if you originally designed the game to appear twice as good. This is why games like Mass Effect and GTA IV look only marginally better on PC compared to console despite a much larger resource footprint.

 

[cadaveca]

I do not see it as needing 4x the resources...that's jsut an excuse for lazy programming. Case and point...Street Fighter 4 for the pc...

2560x1600, 4xAA, 150FPS+, still only uses 256MB of vga ram. THAT is what good optimization brings.

There's no need for PC titles to use extra resources over consoles...other than the developer knowing that extra resources are available, so will not HAVE to optimize as much. Proper compression algorithms, and resource management can make all the difference in the world.

And sure, different hardware specs can have a slight effect on this, but again, SF4 shows this is not always the case...and very few titles actually deliver more on the PC than they do on the console...other than higher resolutions. And if the base textures are higher-res, then there would be no need for AA in most instances, however, we know that this is NOT the case.

I think this is why ECH has taken this tact...programming laziness and time constraints aren't good enough excuses...no matter how you look at it, it's still just an excuse. There's jsut really no need for 64-bit programs, IMHO, but 64-bit OS, yes, to me, there definately is a need.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Finally!!!! Someone (and others) gets it...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I do not see it as needing 4x the resources...that's jsut an excuse for lazy programming. Case and point...Street Fighter 4 for the pc...

2560x1600, 4xAA, 150FPS+, still only uses 256MB of vga ram. THAT is what good optimization brings.

I don't see how Street Fighter 4 even begins to compare with titles like GTA4. Street Fighter 4 has small, simple environments that naturally require very little resources. GTA4 is massive with hundreds of textures cached simultaneously, long view distance, people and cars to animate, physics to process, complex AI, etc. 256 MiB VRAM, all things considered, isn't very optimized. I'm sure they didn't have to do hardly anything to convert it from Xbox 360 to Windows except add keyboard support and a graphics menu because it is such a simple game in the first place.

There's no need for PC titles to use extra resources over consoles...other than the developer knowing that extra resources are available, so will not HAVE to optimize as much. Proper compression algorithms, and resource management can make all the difference in the world.

Compression reduces the memory footprint by increasing the CPU footprint. It is a trade off that makes sense on consoles because they are deprived of memory but it doesn't make sense on computers.

And sure, different hardware specs can have a slight effect on this, but again, SF4 shows this is not always the case...and very few titles actually deliver more on the PC than they do on the console...other than higher resolutions. And if the base textures are higher-res, then there would be no need for AA in most instances, however, we know that this is NOT the case.

Which again proves that consoles are the limiting factor in 64-bit being adapted on Windows for gaming purposes. Console first, Windows second.

I think this is why ECH has taken this tact...programming laziness and time constraints aren't good enough excuses...no matter how you look at it, it's still just an excuse. There's jsut really no need for 64-bit programs, IMHO, but 64-bit OS, yes, to me, there definately is a need.

There's that word "need" again. Do we "need" 1 MiB of memory (and no, that isn't a typo)? Do we "need" processors faster than Intel 486? That word has no weight in this discussion. People buy new hardware that is inherently faster than the old due to Moore's Law. The software industry responds by putting those extra resources to work. This subject of "need" and how it relates to the gaming industry is a 100 page master's degree paper I won't delve in to here. Technology marches forward and games are not the exception.

Do they "need" to be 64-bit today? No. Do they "need" to be 64-bit in five years? There's an excellent chance a few will. Will people complain about not being able to play their 64-bit game on an x86 operating system? Of course. Is history repeating itself? Without a doubt (16-bit -> 32-bit). It is just a matter of time before x86-64 exclusive games come out. It just so happens that 16-bit was more limiting to developers than 32-bit at the time 32-bit was launched. That doesn't mean developers won't eventually scold 32-bit as they did 16-bit for being inadequate for what they are trying to achieve.

 

[cadaveca]

I wrote upa big explanation here, but then accidentally closed teh Window..damn touchpad! lol.

Anyway, you are right, but...please read the thread title...the reason your points are not relevant is that they deal with APPs, but the thread is about OS. Two very different things. Consoles show that developer's are far from exploiting 32-bit to the fullest...and will still be doing so for a few years now, as next-gen consoles are a few years out yet.

SF4 example is perfect, as it didn't take them anything extra on pc...so as far as I am concerned, the same is true for any other title...I'm personally of the beleif that "stability testing for different hardware configs on pc" is just a way for developers to get a couple extra months of pay. Unified drivers prevent this from being the developer's concern, and release of drivers for launch of titles further bolsters this point. Performance scaling, sure, might need some work, and scaling the game's graphics might require some testing, but stability is up to the hardware maker.

 

[MilkyWay]

90% of computer errors are caused by the user

100% of problems are human made, if its not programmed properly in the first place its a humans fault not the programs. Its humans who make the hardware so if it fails its a humans fault. If a human isnt using it properly its their fault.

So on and so fourth.

64bit, all it does to me is address memory/data differently and it also has different instruction sets, overall 64x programs may be slightly faster but that may just be due to more efficient coding.
Half life 2 which the 64bit version was superior or Far Cry has a 64 bit patch that increases graphics settings then no 64bit isnt really effecting gaming.

Some programs are not compatible with 64bit but they do have 32bit versions available and most if not all 64bit os are 32bit compatible. Patches and updates are released and all new software is 64bit and 32bit. The problem is not 64bit per say its the programs and operating systems, a lot of games or programs that wont work on Vista/7 have problems with both 32/64bit its just general os incompatibilities.

EDIT: There isnt a need right now for 64bit operating systems but there will be and there isnt really a point in staying 32bit when so many programs are moving or have both 32bit and 64bit versions. You might stay 32bit because you have older 16bit programs or your pc cant handle a modern OS but apart from that...

 

[DreamSeller]

got the new sims 3 expansion pack few days ago gonna play that for the next weeks

 

[3870x2]

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...

it is intersting to note that i play all my games 1920x1200 very high settings, yet I only have 2g ram, and 32 bit win XP. When the need arises for a game to address a high amount of memory, we will see it, that is atleast a couple of years off, maybe even 4 or 5 years off.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Anyway, you are right, but...please read the thread title...the reason your points are not relevant is that they deal with APPs, but the thread is about OS. Two very different things. Consoles show that developer's are far from exploiting 32-bit to the fullest...and will still be doing so for a few years now, as next-gen consoles are a few years out yet.

"Gamer" implies games which are a category of applications. "64-bit OS" refers to the operating system. Both are relevant and it is ignorant to say they are not strongly tied.

Define "exploiting 32-bit." Does that mean restricting everything you create to fit into a 32-bit binary or does that mean they couldn't possibly benefit from 64-bit? The answer doesn't matter because both are not true. 32-bit has been fully exploited (hit the wall causing instability) by developers pushing the envelope (messy memory management or not).

SF4 example is perfect, as it didn't take them anything extra on pc...so as far as I am concerned, the same is true for any other title...I'm personally of the beleif that "stability testing for different hardware configs on pc" is just a way for developers to get a couple extra months of pay. Unified drivers prevent this from being the developer's concern, and release of drivers for launch of titles further bolsters this point. Performance scaling, sure, might need some work, and scaling the game's graphics might require some testing, but stability is up to the hardware maker.

Um, hardware manufacturer's aren't puppets to the software developers. Hardware manufacturer's rarely lift a finger unless the developer can prove the problem they are experiencing is in fact related to a flaw in the manufacturer's driver (i.e. AMD cards do it, NVIDIA does not). Hardware manufacturers, excepting video cards, are rarely updated. Moreover, you hit all kinds of unexpected problems going from one system to another (discontinued processor instructions, different driver models and how they handle work streams, different hard drive performance and capcity, different memory performance and capacity, and the list is practically endless). Back before the Internet, patches didn't exist. They had to get it right the first time because a do-over would cost thousands of dollars in a recall.

I'll just say that last paragraph is extremely biased, untrue, and leave it at that.

 

[cadaveca]

nV is the perfect example of how it IS true. They PAY THE WAGES of many people working at development houses.


Dirt 2 received special driver release too...

I mean, you are very right, but as I said, as far as I am concerned for a reason.

Exploiting? Consoles do a very good job of providing a great gaming experience, and pcs have far more power. GTA4 and Crysis are just 2 titles that take advantage of this fact(although crysis does a poor job of it), so as far as I am concerned, PCs have alot of potential growth left that is not properly exploited.


I mean, I understand the constraints involved, but almost all of them are financial, not function, when it comes to PC gaming.

I mean really..Batman was so hyped...but was a piss-poor title in my eyes...no different than Assasin's Creed...beat every boss, except the last one, in basically the same fashion, did the same things over and over and over...I mean, sure, it was a good game, but bored me all ot death...if it wasn't for my son wanting to see the end, I would have never finished it.

I don't buy the hype...whether it be about development, or actual gameplay.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

so for some 32 bit is enough others its 64 bit i can honestly say 99% of my games run faster in a 64bit OS then they every did in 32bit thats why i stay in 64bit hell half my games would crash or hang in 32 bit when having to page to the HDD because lets face it

Anti virus apps
steam
system process
etc etc
and un tweaked vista at start up using 1.5gigs of ram now if you have only 3.2gigs of ram total add in your 1gig gpu and ur down to 2.2 gigs usable ram so that leaves you a whopping 700mbs of ram to use for said game and im sad to say almost all games after 2006 use more then 700mbs of ram

examples

Oblvion, Fear, hell with mods even Morrowind from 2003 can exceed 500mbs of ram point is when you start using the HDD page file things slow down games crash etc

so ill stick to 64bit because there NO reason to use 32bit hell even Baldurs gate from 1998 will run on 64bit Vista so you tell me why i should stick to a 32bit os when it limits my hardware from being at its full potential regardless of if a game needs 64bit or not in my experience with over 50 pc games ive had a better more stable playing experience on a 64bit OS then i ever did on a 32bit os

 

[TheLaughingMan]

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.

Will that may be true for the "add" command, I have already address instructions being extended. I wast talking of more complex instructions such as Address Swap., Clone, etc. Those instructions greatly benefit from the additional space, but this is really not that important, merely an observation.

Example from circuits class programming 16-bit controllers in Assembly. You can use 2 instructions to copy a number from location A then ADD it to B (which writes over B's location with new value). Those were 8-bit chains (4 -bits for command, 4 for addy.). Of you can use 1 command to do the entire thing, I think it was ADDLOC (8-bit command, 8-bits for both addy.).

 

[Mussels]

I wrote upa big explanation here, but then accidentally closed teh Window..damn touchpad! lol.

Anyway, you are right, but...please read the thread title...the reason your points are not relevant is that they deal with APPs, but the thread is about OS. Two very different things. Consoles show that developer's are far from exploiting 32-bit to the fullest...and will still be doing so for a few years now, as next-gen consoles are a few years out yet.

exactly!


The thing is, these games may sit around 2GB on 'normal' settings. But when we crank up the AA and run them at 1080p (or above) with every setting maxed out (or higher, forcing via CCC/NVCP) - we're going to breach that 2GB limit.

32bit app + 64 bit OS = best choice atm.

There is no viable reason to stay with a 32 bit OS, but there is compelling reasons to go x64 - and you lose NOTHING in compatibility.

it is intersting to note that i play all my games 1920x1200 very high settings, yet I only have 2g ram, and 32 bit win XP. When the need arises for a game to address a high amount of memory, we will see it, that is atleast a couple of years off, maybe even 4 or 5 years off.

It must be the games you play. i've been experiencing this for years.

Supreme commander and stalker come to mind first. Hear all the reports of those games being all buggy and crashy? if you modded them to be large address aware (or waited for them to get patched to support it, both did) and ran on a 64 bit OS they suddenly became crash free.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

exactly my point mussels i had the same issues with Crysis when it was first released game would crash with only 2gbs ram install on my xp box bumped to 4gigs helped but it would crash eventually after jumping to a 64 bit os i had no issues with 32bit or 64bit games.

 

[Mussels]

i guess the main problem is that people get crashes due to these memory limits (its always a crash to desktop with an error box) and blame the game, or blame windows, or blame OC'ing, or whatever.

Because the error box doesn't outright say "you ran out of address space!" they just don't click what the true cause is.


I beleive modern warfare 2 may be one of the ones with this problem, as neither me nor my friends/family have had the game crash once. we've all got 4GB+ ram and x64 OS's - and yet we see reports of how buggy/crashy this game is, when we run the same hardware as these other people.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There is no viable reason to stay with a 32 bit OS, but there is compelling reasons to go x64 - and you lose NOTHING in compatibility.

You are correct, especially with XP Mode in Windows 7 Professional and up. The only games that wouldn't run on there are games that can't run on modern processors due to instruction set differences.

Supreme commander and stalker come to mind first. Hear all the reports of those games being all buggy and crashy? if you modded them to be large address aware (or waited for them to get patched to support it, both did) and ran on a 64 bit OS they suddenly became crash free.

I can confirm this. I had all kinds of problems with Supreme Commander (CTD on 8 player maps) before the patch and afterwards, not a problem. I waited to play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. until after it was well patched. I never had problems with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

What is compelling to me as a PC Gamer is that support for 64-bit hasn't clearly shown mass adaption for new PC game titles. With that comes at least one reason why it's not being done and that's because for the most part it's not needed.

I've been watching this for sometime now wondering when would this ever change and with 128bit capabilities around the corner it appears to me that the shelf life has drawn to a close. Now don't get it wrong, it's your choice to use it or not. But as I've said before, if more often then not you are not using that aspect of a 64-bit OS (either you are unaware of it or simply didn't find any practical daily use for a 64bit OS) it's clear that it's importance isn't what it's cracked up to be for your needs. Having it for the sake of having it in cases like this become moot.

So in conclusion, PC gamers in general need to see mass adaption for it's use. Where it's plainly clear why developers are using it over 32bit other then stability, etc. Sadly, this has never surfaced and if it continues in this direction never will.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

What is compelling to me as a PC Gamer is that support for 64-bit hasn't clearly shown mass adaption for new PC game titles. With that comes at least one reason why it's not being done and that's because for the most part it's not needed.

I've been watching this for sometime now wondering when would this ever change and with 128bit capabilities around the corner it appears to me that the shelf life has drawn to a close. Now don't get it wrong, it's your choice to use it or not. But as I've said before, if more often then not you are not using that aspect of a 64-bit OS (either you are unaware of it or simply didn't find any practical daily use for a 64bit OS) it's clear that it's importance isn't what it's cracked up to be for your needs. Having it for the sake of having it in cases like this become moot.

So in conclusion, PC gamers in general need to see mass adaption for it's use. Where it's plainly clear why developers are using it over 32bit other then stability, etc. Sadly, this has never surfaced and if it continues in this direction never will.

Games themselves don't need to be 64bit to see an improvement over 32bit, I think that's what you are missing here, I cannot explain it better than Mussels or Ford.

Just because the game is 32bit does not mean you should limit yourself to 32bit..
If your playing a game that is best suited for all of the resources That 32bit allows, what does that leave for your OS or needed background operations.

If your using a 64bit OS you can easily operate a 32bit game to it's fullest + your OS + any other Background services That make Pc's a simple platform to use.

I do have games that totally tax 32bit systems but not 64bit.
That is enough reason for me to have a 64bit OS

Have you ever played Prince of Persia on Win2000, IT SUCKS
Now play it on WinXp plays quite Nice

Prince of Persia is 16bit but plays Vastly better on a 32bit OS
The same is true for so many other games as it's the same for32/64

 

[EastCoasthandle]

Games themselves don't need to be 64bit to see an improvement over 32bit, I think that's what you are missing here, I cannot explain it better than Mussels or Ford.

Just because the game is 32bit does not mean you should limit yourself to 32bit..
If your playing a game that is best suited for all of the resources That 32bit allows, what does that leave for your OS or needed background operations.

If your using a 64bit OS you can easily operate a 32bit game to it's fullest + your OS + any other Background services That make Pc's a simple platform to use.

I do have games that totally tax 32bit systems but not 64bit.
That is enough reason for me to have a 64bit OS

Have you ever played Prince of Persia on Win2000, IT SUCKS
Now play it on WinXp plays quite Nice

Prince of Persia is 16bit but plays Vastly better on a 32bit OS
The same is true for so many other games as it's the same for32/64

This in as much has been said isn't relevant to this thread. While you say to me that I am not seeing your point of view becomes clear that you have eluded to and are not seeing the point of this thread. This thread was created in the discussion of 64-bit OS for PC gamers. Attempting to infer to something else isn't necessary because how one uses the PC has been clarified. In this case those who use it to game more so then anything else.

Now, having said that if one is a PC Gamer and primarily uses their PC to play games and has come to the realization that more often then not using a 32bit. Becomes clear that using 64bit is moot (Albiet I've used the example slightly different in the past this is just as clear). Also, everything else regarding how you compare previous OS etc is also moot based on the topic at hand.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

What is compelling to me as a PC Gamer is that support for 64-bit hasn't clearly shown mass adaption for new PC game titles. With that comes at least one reason why it's not being done and that's because for the most part it's not needed.

There it is again! Define "needed."


I have 6 GiB of RAM. Regardless of what the game is doing, I need an 64-bit operating system to utilize that extra 2 GiB thusly, x64 is qualified as "needed."

 

[cadaveca]

Well then, you didn't need 6GB either, now did ya?

Didn't NEED to go i7, did ya?

Don't really need to play games, even, do ya?

Define "need"?

If life is not possible without it, you need it! Otherwise, you just WANT it!

 

[Deleted member 67555]

This in as much has been said isn't relevant to this thread. While you say to me that I am not seeing your point of view becomes clear that you have eluded to and are not seeing the point of this thread. This thread was created in the discussion of 64-bit OS for PC gamers. Attempting to infer to something else isn't necessary because how one uses the PC has been clarified. In this case those who use it to game more so then anything else.

Now, having said that if one is a PC Gamer and primarily uses their PC to play games and has come to the realization that more often then not using a 32bit. Becomes clear that using 64bit is moot (Albiet I've used the example slightly different in the past this is just as clear). Also, everything else regarding how you compare previous OS etc is also moot based on the topic at hand.

Ok and @ that point...
Why would you not Just simply buy an Xbox, Why use a computer and be limited by games that are mostly designed for a 32bit console...

And I still think you are missing the fact that Newer games can consume every resource that a 32bit OS has, yes due to poorly optimized programs, leaving you the game player with less of an experience due to OS limitations as compared to a 64bit OS which simply has the resources to cope with a 32bit program running with all the possible resources on it's own without having to share those resources with the OS