SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - I'm ready, bring them on! (Upcoming PC titles)

Posted: Oct 09 2008 08:38 pm

there isnt any games that could utilize 8 GB of RAM though as far as I know. Also when you are running x64 and you use 32 bit programs it is actually having to run in emulation mode called WOW64, which actually can make it slower than running it in x86 native environment.

I mean AMD came out with the x64 instruction in 2003 and still developers for the most part refuse to use it because x64 is compatable with x86.

Every processor comes with the x64 instructions these days including Intel.

I want x64 to be more popular and I thought it would with the release with Vista x64

Posted: Oct 09 2008 08:51 pm

But the 8GB will still be recognized, right?

Posted: Oct 09 2008 09:02 pm

Nope, it will only see 3.2 GB.

Because in 32-bit 4GB is the max it can utilize. However, that is the max for the enitire system. So, .8 of it is used by the FSB, North Bride, Southbridge, PCI slots, PCI-E Slots, etc.

Ermac wrote:

Also when you are running x64 and you use 32 bit programs it is actually having to run in emulation mode called WOW64, which actually can make it slower than running it in x86 native environment.

It's even better than that, in most cases. Emulators kill performance, since the object code has to be translated/interpreted on the fly. But all 64-bit x86 processors are capable of running 32-bit object code natively (no translation/interpretation required). So all that's needed is an interface library that maps calls to 32-bit system services to the corresponding 64-bit ones. The application code runs natively, at full speed; so do any system services requested by the application. The only added overhead is in translating the system calls, which is (in most cases) minimal.

And since the system services are actually running in 64bits, in a few cases they run faster than the same system API in 32bits (where the additional registers make a difference, or where the larger VMA is a significant advantage, eg memory-mapped files). The net is that it's usually about a wash; any performance problems in 64bit are usually the result of immature drivers.

The only situation where this breaks is if the game installs custom device drivers (e.g. for copy protection). Since device drivers typically need to interface directly with the OS (instead of going through the normal application system call interface), 32-bit device drivers are not supported in 64-bit OSes.

I have been meaning to run an expirement, and perhaps I shall when I get home tonight. I just ran a 3DMark06 on my XP 32 install, I'll install and run one on my Vista x64, and post the results.

XP x32 Results = http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=8375538

(Though, it is widely known that in Vista vs XP, 3DMarks are always a bit lower. We
ll see if the RAM makes any difference.)

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Knyte wrote:

Nope, it will only see 3.2 GB.

Because in 32-bit 4GB is the max it can utilize. However, that is the max for the enitire system. So, .8 of it is used by the FSB, North Bride, Southbridge, PCI slots, PCI-E Slots, etc.

This is 100% dependent on the hardware. I have seen anywhere from 3.0GB - 3.8GB. So it is worth putting 4GB in, but NOT worth putting anything over 4GB for a 32bit OS.

Knyte wrote:

The net is that it's usually about a wash; any performance problems in 64bit are usually the result of immature drivers.

This is the main problem that I have seen. But it is a real problem that needs to be considered. Hardware manufacturers need to fix this before I will ever go to a 64 bit OS. And don't get me wrong, it is ok now, but it isn't where it should be. This is the main reason I asked why you chose to go with a 64 bit OS.

I suppose one major thing to question is if you do more than game on the system.

If you just want to play... then fuck it, who cares.

But for me I use a PC for a lot more and many applications that run well on a 32 bit OS get jammed up by bad programming for a 64 bit OS. It isn't even MS's fault. But it is the way it works.

Posted: Oct 10 2008 10:29 am

I find the 'x64' abbreviation fucking annoying. The 'x' in x86 makes sense. The 'x' in x64 doesn't. Calling it x86-64 is much more descriptive of what it actually is.

Anyway, I've been using a 64-bit system for somewhat over a year now and had almost no problems. The only complaint that I have is that Adobe still hasn't released a 64-bit version of its Flash plugin for my OS, so I have to run a wrapper to use the 32-bit version with a 64-bit Firefox and the damn wrapper just keeps crashing after a while. Every open-source project out there has had 64-bit binaries for years, so it's not like it's difficult; Adobe just doesn't care. Fucking vendor lock-in.