PDA

View Full Version : Small request for Nvidia


Pages : [1] 2

Venturi
07-27-06, 07:52 AM
Dear Nvidia

many of us in the community are true enthusiasts. We really like your products.
While many aspects of the products you sell go to some very young customers, some of the other customers are indeed out of school and earaning their own money.

While many video cards are relativley affordable, a proper Quad SLI rig requires a considerable amount of money and time.

Those of us who can afford the higher toys have also made expenditures in ram, cpus, power supplies and the like.

Those efforts usually drives us to optimize our systems and understand what is really fast and stable.

The point: many of the purchasing body that buys the expensive bleeding edge (while also being truely in need of therapy, me included) are running in 64-bit mode.

You know...., 64 bit athlons, x2's, opties, supporting motherboards etc, and:

Windows 64-bit..... imagine?! Huh?

Some of those users are cunsultants, advisors, purchasing agents, architects, and IT gods... that can influence many purchasing decisions.


So while I humbly, respect the thousands of 32 bit users, those of us buying quad sli rigs are mostly TRYING to run in 64-bit mode.

so.... please... please...

can you shift some efforts into providing the quad sli folks with:


DECENT 64-bit DRIVERS!!!


Thank you in advance....

V

PeterJensen
07-27-06, 08:21 AM
:)

squall_leonhart
07-27-06, 07:51 PM
Windows XP 64 bit is not a worthwhile market for drivers,.. becoz it hasn't been openly accepted by the community.

Rytr
07-27-06, 08:08 PM
While Venturi represents a realitively small segment I agree that he needs to be heard. Besides that the point he makes should ring in someones ears.

|MaguS|
07-27-06, 08:12 PM
http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/4919/wambulance8ue.jpg

Slammin
07-27-06, 08:40 PM
Lol!!

jAkUp
07-27-06, 11:09 PM
64 drivers should be available in 1-2 weeks. After playing Call of Juarez and seeing the absolute terrible performance, I am thinking of going back once again to 32 bit.. but this time Windows Server 2003.

GlowStick
07-27-06, 11:50 PM
So while I humbly, respect the thousands of 32 bit users, those of us buying quad sli rigs are mostly TRYING to run in 64-bit mode.
Windows Server 2003 x64 is not good for gaming?

ZOMGWTFBBQ

If there was only some way we could of known, such as Microsoft not makeing Xp Pro x64 bit not avalible to the general pulbic and telling people that its not going to be a 'killer gaming' platform.

Other than that, amainzly it does work just FINE for gaming, but you should expect lesser performance and access to beta features will probly not be there. I dont know where you got the idea that support for x64 would come first, was it the bad support from Ageia or the bad support from Creative? Or the bad support from the printer manufactures?

Im not trying to be malicous, but if you want a gaming rig then build one. I understand that your rig cost alot of money, but no one was suggesting that the parts you chose will be good for gaming.

P.S.
If you do decide to build a gaming rig, dont go with Quad-SLI

Slammin
07-28-06, 06:43 AM
Yeah, XP 64 AND Quad SLI just doesn't ring quite right when you are thinking 'game machine'.

I do think it's pretty interesting that all quad SLI users are also XP 64 users. Kind of says something, probably not too positive, so I'd better leave it at that! :D

nekrosoft13
07-28-06, 08:21 AM
like few people mentioned, X64 its just not that popular when compared to x86. and in most cases slower when it comes to running 32bit code, especially games.

Venturi
07-28-06, 08:29 AM
like few people mentioned, X64 its just not that popular when compared to x86. and in most cases slower when it comes to running 32bit code, especially games.


Interesting, the opposite is quite true with modern games. Have you tried it yourself?

Which game runs slower?

Venturi
07-28-06, 08:36 AM
To me it seemed logical:
64-bit motherboard
64-bit cpu
64-bit OS
and 64 bit apps.

Half Life 2 even installs as 64-bit when steam does the updates. It also packs about 35 FPS more running at over 140fps at 2560x1600.

I run apps that are true 64-bit, and it would be nice to run games on the same box.

It might come to a surprise to some, but a killer professional graphics/opengl workstation, can also have a double life as a killer gaming rig.

Due to my particular situation, windows xp 32 just is not suitable for the storage and ram that is available, and unless you have run both successfully, you wouldn't realize that the server 2003 64-bit is indeed faster and more stable than xp.


With all the ram and storage available at lower and lower prices, and the advent of more smp systems, the limitations old the current 32 bit OSes are more apparent.

For example, xp 32 cant use more than 2T of storage, to do that it requires GPT rather than MBR, this feature is not available on xp.

Xp 32 can't see 16gb of ram, never will and can't use it.

Server 2003 32 bit, needs the PAE extensions on the boot ini, and even then that support is very limited. But the 64-bit uses it natively from the kernel. The ACPI multiprocessor 64-bit kernel is also better at managing other resources

XP can't use (numa) Non Uniform Memory Architecture, which provids a substantial boost over Server 2003. An example would be 9% FPS increase (with NUMA) in doom 3 running timedemo1 usecache. Notice that doom 3 is a 32 bit app running on a 64-bit OS. Try the same test with H2 Lost Coast 64bit and see the difference. The more memory you have the more NUMA makes an inpact. With a gig of ram the difference is less noticeable, but as ram scales the NUMA switch does deliver more performance. Oh, and change the cfg of the games to actually make use of all the ram and resources. The source engine (dx) also benefits fromn the same 64-bit OS.

I did not choose to run on the better OS, I simply lesser choices.
The runner up was Suse 10.1 64-bit, but this is on a cpletely different level and in many ways an even better solution than MS. However that is a different rebuttal.

Games that IMHO run better on 64-bit are the Quake engine (q4, doom3, Prey) and OpenGL games. H2 and source engine. Painkiller, SAM, battlefield, X2, FEAR, and obviously UT2004 64-bit, Far-Cry 64-bit, Riddick 64-bit, not to mention that FarCry 64-bit has half a gigs worth more textures than the 32-bit counterpart.



I'm assuming that the OSes were prepped accordingly:
No errant unnecesarry services, the correct drivers, correct video and mb bioses, PLL clocks, correct harware settings, all the normal HKLM tweaks in memory manager/session manager, L2 Cache definitions, IO holds, paging, remove performance counters, file attribute monikers, page file removal, ram optimizations, disc optimizations, remove ctf.mon, mdm.exe, cgdss, wmi (etc etc. pages worth of the normal stuff, that's why it takes a few hours to get an OS configured correctly)

I'm assuming that the games were prepped accordingly:
As much as eye candy as possible at the largest resolution possible, then game optimizations such as sata r_smp 1, cache, megs, mink, LOD, perf, text attrb, pre-loads, clamp, etc etc.

Et All, opinions are always welcome, this is a community of ideas and enthusiasts, let's try civility in our information exchange. We are here to advise and to receive advice. Information rulez.


Some key words here:
NUMA, kernel, multiprocessor, boot ini, PAE, session manger, paging, L2 Cache, PLL clocks

Thank you.

ViN86
07-28-06, 08:50 AM
You have a problem with people running WinXP x64 as their main operating system and asking for drivers?
obviously you dont know magus. he was JUST KIDDING. haha, it had nothing to do with anything, it was just a post meant to be funny, which i thought it was ;)

dont worry venturi. your post is totally justified. however, i dont think youre going to get a response :(

right now, their focusing on the next windows. many ppl have stopped caring about these previous 64bit windows versions (especially for the gamers). i think you will have to wait until Vista until you get some good 64 bit drivers. then, 64 bit OSes will be mainstreamed and we should see some awesome drivers :D

Venturi
07-28-06, 09:16 AM
I agree,

vista 64 will align many disparities, but I fear a 6 month hazing as vista goes through initiation and many hardware vendors falling short on drivers, exciting yet a tough road ahead.

...but in this one moment in time the 64-bit MS OS is top dog, so why not have a driver that supports it for their top dog card?

tutu
07-28-06, 10:26 AM
i think its strange that people bitch about drivers for a third rate mock operating system.

It's more stable and faster than XP. One problem is that third party applications and drivers are not 100% 64-bit, often they are a mix of 64-bit drivers, 64-bit applications and 32-bit applications, resulting in higher mem usage. I guess they do this to provide hooks/compatibility with other 32-bit programs that require them. For example is Logitech SetPoint, I have a 32-bit setpoint running as well as a 64-bit setpoint executable in my task manager.

Still I would prefer if all companies release dual binaries (perhaps a single package so it contains both the 32-bit and the native 64-binaries and install them depending on what system you are using).

There is a lot of support these days, but more still needs to be done (e.g. webcam drivers).

nvidia will release the damn drivers when they can be damn well bothered and not before.

Nvidia aren't quite that arrogant. They have reason to fear customer disatisifaction, of which there has been much of.

For example there chipset drivers: NAM related BSODS, Ethernet port BSODs, NCQ BSODs. And yet people forget.. VIA weren't that bad (AGP, USB, 686B IDE corruption) and they are dead as far as the enthusiast is concerned! :D

But there latest drivers for x64 still have the SLI Multi GPU popup bug, of which they should be ashamed of waiting to release a new driver that fixes that bug.

Riptide
07-28-06, 05:09 PM
Is XP64 really more stable and quicker than XP32? Having used both I guess I'm not really sure about that.

tutu
07-28-06, 05:21 PM
Is XP64 really more stable and quicker than XP32? Having used both I guess I'm not really sure about that.

It certainly "feels" faster than XP32. It's more stable as its based on the Windows Server 2003 code base.

64-bit isn't really necessary yet, but it doesn't stop us early adopters (nana2)

GlowStick
07-28-06, 05:27 PM
Is XP64 really more stable and quicker than XP32? Having used both I guess I'm not really sure about that.
Faster, no infact in most cases it is slower.
More stable, meh the placebo effect is amazing. However, there is one recreatiable diffrence that I do enjoy. If Internet Explorer(32bit) crashes it does not bring down explorer.exe with it. EG the task bar dosent die and restart. However, you can just use firefox or any other browser to get the same effect on 32bit. But in my case i only use ie for YTMND's and sometimes it dose crash on bad pages.

But the only reason for running x64 is to say your running x64 (unless you have a production app that is 64bit and addresses more than 4gigs of memory such as a database)

Riptide
07-28-06, 05:30 PM
Thanks GlowStick that's kinda what I was thinking. I used X64 for as long as I could stomach all the hassles - and was fairly impressed with it. Just got sick of having to edit files with games like Doom3 ROE in order for them to install. There were tons of little caveats like that. For a while there no StarForce games would work either. Enough annoyances I finally just sold my license and got XP32 instead.

nukem
07-28-06, 05:35 PM
x86_64 NVIDIA Linux drivers work great. You should try it ;) Anyway I have to agree with others, while I dont use Win from what Ive read most of Win XP 64 is still 32bit and it has many problems. All the apps your going to use on it(including most games) are going to be 32bit. So unless your going to use a true 64bit OS such as Linux then screw it.

squall_leonhart
07-28-06, 11:04 PM
Faster, no infact in most cases it is slower.
More stable, meh the placebo effect is amazing. However, there is one recreatiable diffrence that I do enjoy. If Internet Explorer(32bit) crashes it does not bring down explorer.exe with it. EG the task bar dosent die and restart. However, you can just use firefox or any other browser to get the same effect on 32bit. But in my case i only use ie for YTMND's and sometimes it dose crash on bad pages.

But the only reason for running x64 is to say your running x64 (unless you have a production app that is 64bit and addresses more than 4gigs of memory such as a database)

hahahaha
m running 32bit and my explorer doesn't close when ie crashes :D
its becoz the 64bit version automatically has the load folder windows in a separate process enabled.

where as 32bit version you have to enable it yourself


to enable these settings

In system mechanic 5, enable 'launch windows desktop as a separate process' in the performance section of the windows tweaks panel.
or look here http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/950/

then enable launch folder windows in a separate process in the windows Folder options. in control panel

Slammin
07-28-06, 11:34 PM
Give it a rest, you foul mouthed, litttle boy.

I did used to at least, take you somewhat serious, but reading your posts as of lately have really turned me off.

Quit polluting threads with your crap attitude. Really makes for a bad thread read after running into one of your responses.

Not sure how you get away with with language and personal attacks, but it does set a bad tone all-around. Either quit it, or maybe some wise mod will offer you a vacation from the forum.

Really, don't mind me, and maybe I'm the one that needs the vacation! :D

edit:

I would have actually posted this response to one of your other threads where you actually were very quite foul mouthed and ignorant, but I'm in a hurry, and this one will do.

squall_leonhart
07-29-06, 12:18 AM
yes well.. my moods have been bipolar lately... im in a good mood atm,

sorry for taking out my anger and frustration on you guys.

jAkUp
07-29-06, 12:26 AM
Faster, no infact in most cases it is slower.
More stable, meh the placebo effect is amazing. However, there is one recreatiable diffrence that I do enjoy. If Internet Explorer(32bit) crashes it does not bring down explorer.exe with it. EG the task bar dosent die and restart. However, you can just use firefox or any other browser to get the same effect on 32bit. But in my case i only use ie for YTMND's and sometimes it dose crash on bad pages.

But the only reason for running x64 is to say your running x64 (unless you have a production app that is 64bit and addresses more than 4gigs of memory such as a database)

Actually, it is slightly faster in the Windows enviornment, I am unsure if that is because it is Server 2003 code, or because of the x64 instructions though...

squall_leonhart
07-29-06, 01:45 AM
Server 2003 and XP share similar code, there are just some updated files and services, some more optimised handling of memory and stuff in 2003.