PDA

View Full Version : Vista x86 or x64?


shivac
10-30-07, 06:39 AM
Please welcome a former ATi fanboy, now rolling on the nvidia wave :)

What's up with the drivers here performance wise?

Vista 64 or 32bit?

Demon_82
10-30-07, 11:23 AM
Personally, I haven't seen great performance gains or looses from my experience in both Vista versions... less than 100 3Dmarks up or down in every test I've tried.

Q
10-30-07, 11:28 AM
Please welcome a former ATi fanboy, now rolling on the nvidia wave :)

What's up with the drivers here performance wise?

Vista 64 or 32bit?

From a PURE gaming perspective, I'd say 32bit if you want the greatest compatability and 64bit if you care about obscure 64bit optimizations and the full use of 4gb of ram. I've got a lot of qualms about Vista myself, but for gaming I don't think that you can go wrong with either unless you have a lot of older DOS or 16bit installer games. In that case you'd need to pick 32.

bigjohns97
10-31-07, 12:52 PM
Right now 32-bit is still feasable but as games get larger and larger memory footprints the 3 gig limit of 32-bit becomes more and more an issue. Vista 32/64 both with take up about 500 megs on an optimized system and even more out of the box add that with bf2 1.5gig footprint and think about how it's going to get worse in the future. This is the main reason I went 64-bit.

In summary got 32-bit for now but be ready to wipe your system when the first 2 gig footprint game comes out. If you want to install and not have to wipe in the near future then 64-bit is what you need.

DRen72
10-31-07, 02:23 PM
I'm curious, can one actually upgrade a 32-bit Vista install to 64-bit without a clean install?

Dr.Nick
10-31-07, 02:38 PM
I'm curious, can one actually upgrade a 32-bit Vista install to 64-bit without a clean install?

Not possible.

I'll agree with the others that 64bit is the way to go. Just the other day I switched the last PC in the house over to vista x64 so no more x86 anything..

Buio
10-31-07, 07:08 PM
If going for Vista now, I for sure suggest the x64 version. Because it has matured and the lack of good x64 drivers is no longer a problem unless you got some less common hardware in which case you should check driver availability before you choose.

Here is a driver test comparing XP/Vista (both x86/x64).
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/page9.asp
Considering all this, wed recommend our readers opt for the 64-bit version of Vista if youve got a 64-bit CPU. It runs just as fast in games with the added advantage that its more secure and can address considerably more memory (4GB max in 32-bit Vista versus 128GB in 64-bit Vista Ultimate).

Tannicus
10-31-07, 08:30 PM
Another vote for x64, especially as more 64 bit games get done and 64 bit applications. Also, not being limited in RAM is a bonus, with x64 you can goes as high as your motherboard can go and all ram is registered.

A key game that I have been waiting on has a 64bit build...Crysis. You can probably find some screenshot comparisons with the 32bit and 64bit on Crysis online.

64 will replace 32 as the standard...though I wait for the day of Quantum processing.

I do love the *obscure* reference, funny stuff.

hirantha
10-31-07, 08:50 PM
aw i bought a 32bit Home premium few days ago and its installed i guess i have to update again early next year for 64bit? :thumbdwn: :headexplode:

Buio
11-01-07, 07:14 AM
aw i bought a 32bit Home premium few days ago and its installed i guess i have to update again early next year for 64bit? :thumbdwn: :headexplode:

The performance for 32-bit games are the same, so you can stick with it for a while. The thing is that x64 feels more futureproof now that things finally has started rolling for it. Also keep an eye on games like Crysis and upcoming games that have native 64-bit support, because they might show better performance and give another reason for why x64 is the best choice.

Also if you don't have the media for Vista x64 I think you can order it free from Microsoft, or for a small shipping charge.

stefan9
11-01-07, 07:18 AM
The performance for 32-bit games are the same, so you can stick with it for a while. The thing is that x64 feels more futureproof now that things finally has started rolling for it. Also keep an eye on games like Crysis and upcoming games that have native 64-bit support, because they might show better performance and give another reason for why x64 is the best choice.

Also if you don't have the media for Vista x64 I think you can order it free from Microsoft, or for a small shipping charge.

It depends whether you bought the retail version or dsp. If you have retail you only pay postage and handling.

Shocky
11-01-07, 02:48 PM
No difference between versions here, there both a good 800-1000pts clear of XP, not really sure it that effects games to but probably does, so I recommend Windows XP, even if you don't have it already. :p

Legend
11-01-07, 02:59 PM
Please welcome a former ATi fanboy, now rolling on the nvidia wave :)

What's up with the drivers here performance wise?

Vista 64 or 32bit?


I just recently stopped dual booting between XP and Vista 64. I am now happily on Vista 64 24/7. It works flawlessly for me and all of my programs and apps work perfect.

Both older and newer games run just as good under Vista 64 for me and some even better. After NV's latest drivers and getting Vista 64 patched up properly their is no way I would ever EVER go back to XP.

K007
11-01-07, 05:30 PM
Just getting games to run smooth and SLI working in Vista is a headache...getting it to run smooth on 64bit is going to be even more of a headache..

I think its best to go 32bit for now..even though we have games that have 64bit support..the driver side is terrrible....

Most likely they will address 32bit first to get it smooth, both SLI/Compatibility before 64bit...so unless you want to have more headaches / sit arround till drivers come, 32bit is probably the best way to go..but i am not saying 64bit sux...its just that drivers are just giving enuf headaches as it is in 32bit...

Legend
11-01-07, 05:47 PM
Just getting games to run smooth and SLI working in Vista is a headache...getting it to run smooth on 64bit is going to be even more of a headache..



SLI perhaps but single GPU your wrong. I just made the complete switch from XP to Vista 64 and could not be happier.

Buio
11-01-07, 05:52 PM
I think its best to go 32bit for now..even though we have games that have 64bit support..the driver side is terrrible....

Oh, so SLI has worse problems in x64? Never heard that, only that its problem overall with the Vista drivers and SLI.

And the driver support for x64 isn't terrible. It was that at release. Now there is a lot of driver supporting Vista x64, even obscure items like the n52 have x64 a good driver. And as my link showed there is no performance to gain by going x86 at least for NVidia users.

Slammin
11-01-07, 07:09 PM
Just getting games to run smooth and SLI working in Vista is a headache...getting it to run smooth on 64bit is going to be even more of a headache..

I think its best to go 32bit for now..even though we have games that have 64bit support..the driver side is terrrible....

Most likely they will address 32bit first to get it smooth, both SLI/Compatibility before 64bit...so unless you want to have more headaches / sit arround till drivers come, 32bit is probably the best way to go..but i am not saying 64bit sux...its just that drivers are just giving enuf headaches as it is in 32bit...


Yeah, that bastard card you have probably has more to do with your Sli problems than anything though. Sorry to even say that because I almost bought one!


edit:

Vista64 - hands down.

K007
11-01-07, 07:46 PM
Yeah, that bastard card you have probably has more to do with your Sli problems than anything though. Sorry to even say that because I almost bought one!


edit:

Vista64 - hands down.


Acutally i love it. The only game it struggles atm is Crysis. The rest is fine.

ikjadoon
11-01-07, 08:46 PM
I was also going to get a 7950GX2, but I found out that you can't use dual-monitors with it since it was technically a SLI configuration.

I've had Vista Ultimate 64-bit since March and have not had a *single* problem with it concerning its 64-"bitness".

Here is my post from another forum:

As you can see my specs, I've got Vista x64 and I can honestly say that I haven't found a single problem with it that was related to it being 64-bit. A minor annoyance should be noted, however: you can't install unsigned drivers, but that is easily bypassed with a tweak, so it doesn't really exist, lol. But, yeah. I've had since mid-March and I love it. Every driver I've ever needed for Vista: there was always a 64-bit version with the 32-bit version. I even found a 64-bit driver for my 3-year old USB PCI add-in card.

So, there aren't too many differences between them (if any), but the 64-bit version does have benefits:

RAM: More than 2.75GB of RAM is allowed in Vista x64. I'm sure you've heard Vista takes a lot of RAM and it isn't a false assumption entirely. Sure, it eats 1GB at the desktop (due to Superfetch), but I know within a year or so that 4GB will be the new 'norm', so to speak. And that won't be possible with Vista 32-bit, which maxes out at 2.75GB.

Security: x64 has a minor caveat in that it doesn't support 16-bit apps natively (or maybe at all). Good thing is that few applications run using 16-bit, but do you know what does? Viruses. (I'll be honest, I read that somewhere, but cannot find the proof on me now. So take that "16-bit virus" comment with a grain of salt.) And you have to write a separate virus for 64-bit, so some "security via obscurity" thing going on as few people actually have 64-bit, but that will change.

Also, x64 has another neat security feature called Address Space Layout Randomizer, or the ASLR. A great definition of what it does:

One of the primary benefits of using an x64-based version of Windows Vista is that these versions provide dramatically improved security functionality when compared to their 32-bit counterparts. Most dramatically, the Windows Vista x64 versions include a new secret security feature called Address Space Layout Randmonizer (ASLR) that helps eliminate remote system attacks for the first time on the Windows platform. This feature (which was first disclosed in this very article) ensures that system files load at random (1 in 256) memory offsets at every system boot, compared to previous Windows versions where system files always loaded to the same offset memory location. Because of this change, most (approximately 99 percent) remote attacks will simply fail on x64-based Vista versions.

It also has hardware support for Data Execution Protection and a PatchGuard. What those do:

Working in tandem with the No Execute (NX) technologies in modern x64 microprocessors from both AMD and Intel, Windows Vista x64 versions, like XP x64, also provide support for hardware-backed Data Execution Protection (DEP), which helps to prevent the buffer overflows that are commonly used in electronic attacks. (32-bit Vista versions utilize a less effective, software-based version of DEP.) Another unique x64 feature, Kernel Patch Protection (sometimes called PatchGuard), prevents malicious software from patching the Windows Vista kernel. PatchGuard, Microsoft says, works by preventing kernel-mode drivers from extending or replacing other kernel services and preventing third-party software from patching any part of the kernel.

As I mentioned before, driver signing can be enabled or disabled; if it is enabled, it only lets you download WHQL-certified drivers, which are usually the better half of all drivers. They are certified by Microsoft to make sure they work and they work well. Most people don't bother with them because they aren't on the cutting-edge: by the time a WHQL driver is released, a completely awesome BETA driver with new features is already out. But, again, this feature can be disabled.

Source... (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp)

So, yeah. And where is my 15-20% performance increase per core on a 64-bit machine, Crytek?!?

~Ibrahim~