# best OS for gaming ?!



## papashango_cs (Jan 2, 2011)

AMD phenom x4 945 | MSI HD 6850 | 4gb 1333 ddr3 
---------------------------------------------------
hii, im going to format my windows 7 ultimate 32 bit OS, 
i messed up alot of things , thus it needs a format ! 
when i check the properties of my system , it shows 
INSTALLED MEMORY - 4.00gb
usable memory        - 3.25gb
i read somewhere that 32 bit OS recognizes only upto 3.25 gb of ram.
is this so ?
will the 64 bit win 7 use the whole 4gb ?
sole purpose is gaming


----------



## relphelp (Jan 2, 2011)

*According to me You should be using windows 7 ultimate 64 bit becoz it will 

ultilize your 4gb ram n 32 bit windows recognises 3.25 Gb n if you upgrade your 

ram then it will be beneficial in future*


----------



## ico (Jan 2, 2011)

Windows 7 64bit


----------



## motobuntu (Jan 2, 2011)

Windows 7 (x64) is the way to go.


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Jan 2, 2011)

Win 7 64bit. Look no where else


----------



## papashango_cs (Jan 2, 2011)

thankyou 
i'm going in for that !
i'l format the complete hdd


----------



## sasuke (Jan 2, 2011)

Windows 7 64-bit, though you may face incompatibility issues with some softwares and games. but it will utilize all you ram upto 128gb i think


----------



## doomgiver (Jan 4, 2011)

well, you are right about the compatiblity issues.
what about running games on a xp virtual machine on windows 7???


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 4, 2011)

Only very few and old games have compatibility issues with 64bit Windows 7 . And you can fix most of those issues in one or the other way.


----------



## ajai5777 (Jan 4, 2011)

Win 7 64 bit is the way to go if you have 4GB or more ram.I have never experienced any compatibility issues with games.But you may face driver issues if you have older devices specially desi USB products.I have a pixel view tv tuner it was a pain in *** to configure that in win7 64.I couldnt install USB drivers for my iball router etc..


----------



## ico (Jan 4, 2011)

ajai5777 said:


> I couldnt install USB drivers for my iball router etc..


Use Ethernet.


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Jan 4, 2011)

Thats better than usb. Just plug and setup and enjoy.


----------



## ithehappy (Jan 4, 2011)

Well I had this query for a long time in my mind, just wasn't finding enough reason to create a thread, but as it's created I am asking...
It seems the Windows 7 64 bit is a good choice for Gaming as it will use the 4 GB RAM. I am concerned though about that Software compatibility issues, I gotta do 6-7 hours work/day, (some software related Java), so will I have problem with that?
*May I know why 64 bit Windows 7 is advised? Is it only for RAM usability or is there anything related to DX11?*
And is my specs (see siggy) enough good to run a game smoothly (I mean good FPS) in Win 7 64?

Thanks in advance.

PS- I am currently using Windows XP SP3 for my work and gaming, and have dual booted Win 7 32 bit, don't know for why!!! lol


----------



## ico (Jan 4, 2011)

Time to move on. Use 64bit. You will not have any problem.


----------



## ithehappy (Jan 4, 2011)

Thanks ico. Moving on...


----------



## ajai5777 (Jan 5, 2011)

ico said:


> Use Ethernet.





jojothedragon said:


> Thats better than usb. Just plug and setup and enjoy.



My ethernet port was damaged in lightning.(bsnl ).At that time I tried to connect net via USB but couldnt install USB drivers.Then I got my mobo replaced.


----------



## sasuke (Jan 6, 2011)

Battlefield 3 PC receiving “special effort”, won’t run on Windows XP | PC Gamer

hey read this article it says that for BF3 64bit windows 7 OS is recommended


----------



## vav (Jan 6, 2011)

I was also thinking of installing w7 32 bit
but now will go for 64 bit atleast 4 RAM will get detected


----------



## Magmaw (Jan 6, 2011)

Like everyone else says Windows 7 64 is the best you'll get.


----------



## vickybat (Jan 6, 2011)

++1 to windows 7 64bit ultimate


----------



## ithehappy (Jan 7, 2011)

I have finally installed Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. Have another question in mind, Why the games need more RAM for Windows 7 than Windows XP?


----------



## ico (Jan 7, 2011)

Same reason why Windows XP needs more RAM than Windows 98SE.


----------



## sahil72 (Jan 7, 2011)

Windows 7, 64-bit is the best for Games.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 7, 2011)

ithehappy said:


> I have finally installed Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. Have another question in mind, Why the games need more RAM for Windows 7 than Windows XP?



Instead of giving you an indirect reply.. Let me put it this way..

At any given point of time, given the visual settings are same and the DX version is same, the game will take same amount of RAM no matter what OS it is running on. It might be 98, XP, 7. If the game takes 700MB RAM on one Operating system, it will take the same on all the rest of Operating systems.

But the reason for extra requirement of RAM is to leave empty RAM for operating system's background tasks, scheduled tasks, etc. So, as windows 7 requires more ram, the game itself asks for more ram to leave a room for OS whilst running the game.


----------



## dinjo_jo (Jan 7, 2011)

You know i still use Windows XP much faster for me


----------



## sasuke (Jan 7, 2011)

^i think your pc must not be capable to run windows 7, coz 7 is faster and beautiful than xp anytime


----------



## asingh (Jan 7, 2011)

dinjo_jo said:


> You know i still use Windows XP much faster for me



Cannot be. Win7 is much more faster than XP. It is optimized and newer code. The reason we see Win7 using more RAM, cause it allocates it more efficiently. Ready to use objects/tasks are available on the RAM -- thus making the system more snappy and responsive.


----------



## azzu (Jan 7, 2011)

win 7 32-bit or 64-bit on 2gb ram sys ?.
and y ?


----------



## sasuke (Jan 7, 2011)

^install 32-bit 7. for 64-bit to operate effeciently 4gb ram is required.


----------



## ico (Jan 7, 2011)

azzu said:


> win 7 32-bit or 64-bit on 2gb ram sys ?.
> and y ?


Install 64bit, time to move on.

64bit doesn't require 4GB RAM to run 'efficiently.' Just install 64bit. Which processor do you have anyways?


----------



## cute.bandar (Jan 7, 2011)

are there any reliable benchmarks that compare xp and 7 as far is gaming is concerned ?


----------



## ico (Jan 7, 2011)

cute.bandar said:


> are there any reliable benchmarks that compare xp and 7 as far is gaming is concerned ?


You want to play DirectX 9 games, use XP. If you want to play DirectX 11 games + older DirectX games, use Windows 7.


----------



## cute.bandar (Jan 7, 2011)

gotcha


----------



## ico (Jan 7, 2011)

Anyways, you guys seem to complicate things which shouldn't be made "complicated."

Now here is my opinion.

I probably have the weakest Core 2 Duo T5500 laptop with only 1GB RAM and only Intel GMA 950 graphics. Windows XP will be better for me than Windows 7 in gaming and also in running more softwares at once because Windows XP has lower memory footprint than Windows 7 AND it will matter to me cuz I have only 1GB of RAM.

But when you have a capable system, there will be hardly any difference in the gaming performance between both the Operating Systems and Windows 7 might be faster.

In a nutshell, 1GB Windows XP vs 1GB Windows 7. Windows XP wins cuz Windows 7 uses more RAM at stock. 2GB Windows XP vs 2GB Windows 7 - hardly any noticeable difference as far as I am concerned. 3GB RAM or moe - use Windows XP if you still like it. 

Now 32bit vs 64bit scenario. *32bit operating systems can't utilize RAM more than 4GB.* 32bit processors handle 32bit wide integers whereas 64bit processors handle 64bit wide integers. There is hardly any performance difference between 32bit and 64bit tbh.

You have 1GB RAM. Try to limit yourself to Windows 32bit only. You have 2GB RAM, consider Windows 64bit. You have 3GB RAM or more, forget Windows 32bit. You have 4GB RAM, use Windows 64bit.

That is the way how I look at things.

I use Windows 7 32bit and Ubuntu amd64 in my laptop. The latter is my choice because I think it is the time to move on from 32bit Linux.

Last questions.
*What about Windows Vista?* It sucks.
*What about Windows XP x64, I heard it exists?* Has many compatibility issues.
*Any compatibility issues in Windows 7 64bit?* Almost zero as far as my usage is concerned. Runs my 32bit programs seamlessly.
*Enough of crap, just tell me why 64bit?* Time to move on.

*32bit and 64bit drivers are different.*
*Nothing wrong in using 64bit OS in 1GB RAM or even 256MB RAM though.* 

-------------------

*More information.*

x86 is the family instruction sets developed by Intel which they used in their 8bit, 16bit and 32bit processors.

When Intel developed their 64bit processor named Itanium, they wanted to deviate away from x86 to *IA-64* which was significantly different from x86.

*AMD* didn't want to do that, they created *amd64* or *x86-64* which was an extension to x86 and fully backward compatible with 32bit too. (In today's world, x86 refers to 32bit) Intel had to give in and accepted x86-64. Although they called it EM64T and finally Intel 64.

AMD has shipped 64bit processors since 2003 with their Athlon 64. *And basically, amd64 is the reason why you guys can still use Windows 7 32bit or any other 32bit OS on your "64bit" processors seamlessly today.*

In a nutshell, *x86-64 = amd64 = EM64T/Intel 64.*

One question,
*Can I install Ubuntu amd64 on my Intel Core 2 Duo E8400?* Like I said, x86-64 = amd64 = EM64T/Intel 64. So, YES YOU CAN. Ubuntu calls it amd64, it is their decision.


----------



## Piyush (Jan 7, 2011)

^^nicely rapped
those FAQs were good


----------



## ithehappy (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> Instead of giving you an indirect reply.. Let me put it this way..
> 
> At any given point of time, given the visual settings are same and the DX version is same, the game will take same amount of RAM no matter what OS it is running on. It might be 98, XP, 7. If the game takes 700MB RAM on one Operating system, it will take the same on all the rest of Operating systems.
> 
> But the reason for extra requirement of RAM is to leave empty RAM for operating system's background tasks, scheduled tasks, etc. *So, as windows 7 requires more ram, the game itself asks for more ram to leave a room for OS whilst running the game.*



Thanks a lot for your clear cut answer but Can you please re explain the bold part?
If I got it right it means,
Windows 7 64 bit recommends 2 GB RAM, and say a game, COD B OPS for example, needs 2 GB RAM, so I gotta have 2+2 = 4 GB RAM for optimum performance.
If I got it wrong, Please tell me.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

No,No.. It is not the way things work.

Say a game requires 512MB of Ram. If the game is running on a machine with XP, then.. it will need 500MB of ram + amount of ram required for basic Operating system to run the background tasks(Your explorer, Antivirus, Internet connectivity Downloads, etc). 

With that understood, the background tasks(including system services) will take higher amount of RAM if it is on windows 7, than it will be on XP. If the amount required for Background tasks is 512MB in XP, then it might be 768MB or 1GB in Windows 7. So, for this game to run effectively, A windows XP machine requires 768MB of RAM (512MB for game+256MB for system services). But a Windows 7 machine requires 1GB of RAM (512MB for game+512MB for System services).

And if a game states that it requires 2GB ram, then it will take all the odds into account. Which means, that 2GB covers the game+system services. So, to run the game perfectly you just need to have that 2GB of Memory.


----------



## sasuke (Jan 8, 2011)

> In a nutshell, 1GB Windows XP vs 1GB Windows 7. Windows XP wins cuz Windows 7 uses more RAM at stock. 2GB Windows XP vs 2GB Windows 7 - hardly any noticeable difference as far as I am concerned. 3GB RAM or moe - use Windows XP if you still like it.



bro once i had installed windows 7 32 bit wen i was having 2gb RAM the test results from system information gave me 6.3 points in cpu and then i installed windows 7 64 bit, for a few days just to test the system information gave me 6.5 at cpu score, so there is surely some performance difference between the 2 OS.
now i am back on 32 bit and again 6.3 ratings.

ya but 64 bit consumed around 1000-1200mb of RAM, while 32 bit consumed around 700-800mb RAM at idle


----------



## satyamy (Jan 8, 2011)

well everybody is saying Windows 7 64 bit
i'll like to add something
get "Genuine Windows 7 64 bit"


----------



## ajai5777 (Jan 8, 2011)

There is also one thing to be noted.32 bit applications run faster in a 32 bit OS.Even though we have 64 bit proccy and 64 bit OS, most of the softwares and games are still 32bit.


----------



## asingh (Jan 8, 2011)

^^
Why would they run faster..?


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

Because all the 32Bit apps in 64Bit Windows run with a compatibility layer called "Windows on Windows", the same way xp executes 16bit applications. These applications will not have any native support what so ever. And native support is always preferred than compatibility layer.

Just take a look at these benchmarks. You will know..

Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP


----------



## ajai5777 (Jan 8, 2011)

When you run a 32-bit program on a 64-bit version of Windows 7, the program runs in a 32-bit emulation mode, using software to simulate a 32-bit version of Windows 7.That could cause a slight degradation in performance.


----------



## asingh (Jan 8, 2011)

ajai5777 said:


> When you run a 32-bit program on a 64-bit version of Windows 7, the program runs in a 32-bit emulation mode, using software to simulate a 32-bit version of Windows 7.That could cause a slight degradation in performance.



I think that logic is flawed. Yes emulation is happening, but it is quite seamless. You would get clock degradation but not enough to feel it in real world scenarios. It is far more minuscule and minute to having x64 architecture realize greater than ~3.4 GB hardware RAM. If you read this official M$ article you will see that the missing instructions are handled at the micro architecture level. 



vamsi_krishna said:


> Because all the 32Bit apps in 64Bit Windows run with a compatibility layer called "Windows on Windows", the same way xp executes 16bit applications. These applications will not have any native support what so ever. And native support is always preferred than compatibility layer.
> 
> Just take a look at these benchmarks. You will know..
> 
> Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP



Yes, I know about WoW64. 16BIT applications are considered legacy so they will not run on the x64 OS architecture. The compatibility layer vs. native support is quite close since it is happening on the hardware layer. I loked at the link you gave and at most could see a difference of 1-1.5FPS when comparing Win7 32 to Win7 64. Which again shows that this abstraction layer is highly optimized and not a hindrance to performance.


----------



## ithehappy (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> No,No.. It is not the way things work.
> 
> Say a game requires 512MB of Ram. If the game is running on a machine with XP, then.. it will need 500MB of ram + amount of ram required for basic Operating system to run the background tasks(Your explorer, Antivirus, Internet connectivity Downloads, etc).
> 
> ...



Thanks again for re explaining it.

So far what I got from the comments and the above benchmark results, You need to have a 32 bit OS to run the 32 bit applications for optimum performance and same OS to run a DX9 game. As for new 64 bit applications and DX11 games a 64 bit OS will give better results.


----------



## ico (Jan 8, 2011)

asingh said:


> I think that logic is flawed. Yes emulation is happening, but it is quite seamless. You would get clock degradation but not enough to feel it in real world scenarios. It is far more minuscule and minute to having x64 architecture realize greater than ~3.4 GB hardware RAM. If you read this official M$ article you will see that the missing instructions are handled at the micro architecture level.


+100

Quoting from the article,


> Processor hardware. Instruction emulation is performed on the chip. On the x64 processor, instructions are executed natively by the micro-architecture. Therefore, execution speed under WOW64 on x64 is similar to its speed under 32-bit Windows. On the Intel Itanium processor, more software is involved in the emulation, and performance suffers as a result.


*amd64 or x86-64* processors are compatible with x86 instruction set. Hardly any performance difference when you use a 32bit app on Windows 7 64bit.

But Itanium or IA-64 is NOT. Now if you run a 32bit app on Windows 7 64bit running on Itanium, THEN you will get a performance penalty.

Quoting from Wiki,


> Because the full 32-bit instruction set remains implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties.


^^


ithehappy said:


> You need to have a 32 bit OS to run the 32 bit applications for *optimum performance* and same OS to run a DX9 game.


There is hardly any performance difference in running 32bit apps on Windows 7 64bit.  HARDLY. [considering we all use amd64 processors which includes Core i3, i5 and i7 too]


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

asingh said:


> Yes, I know about WoW64. 16BIT applications are considered legacy so they will not run on the x64 OS architecture. The compatibility layer vs. native support is quite close since it is happening on the hardware layer. I loked at the link you gave and at most could see a difference of 1-1.5FPS when comparing Win7 32 to Win7 64. Which again shows that this abstraction layer is highly optimized and not a hindrance to performance.



Yes, if we are living in a world where CPU utilization is minimal you would be correct. But, the difference is negligible in day to day applications, noticeable in few games, and clearly apparent in games which uses insane amount of CPU resources.

*media.bestofmicro.com/8/M/189526/original/image015.png


It might be only 3-4FPS, but there is lag. Apparent Difference is there, And that is my whole point.


----------



## ico (Jan 8, 2011)

Blame Windows for that.

I find Ubuntu amd64 faster on my laptop than Ubuntu 32bit.


----------



## sasuke (Jan 8, 2011)

i have on logic if you have 4gb or more ram install 64bit windows 7 and if 3gb or less ram then install windows 7 32 bit, coz 64 bit costs more than 32 bit but all ram is used.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jan 8, 2011)

ajai5777 said:


> When you run a 32-bit program on a 64-bit version of Windows 7, the program runs in a 32-bit emulation mode, using software to simulate a 32-bit version of Windows 7.That could cause a slight degradation in performance.


Do you realise "Software Emulation" and "Compatibility layer" are NOT exactly the same technology


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

ico said:


> Blame Windows for that.
> 
> I find Ubuntu amd64 faster on my laptop than Ubuntu 32bit.



Yes, and one will find the same difference while using 64bit Windows 7. But the problem is with the game Architecture's Optimization. To run perfectly, 64bit optimization should be executed at engine level, which will be a deadly blow for single core processors. Thats why judging on the market share of the processors, they use to ship with 32bit architecture support. But, we have surpassed that level now, Most of the games now are supporting MutiCore processors, and 64bit architecture.



sasuke said:


> i have on logic if you have 4gb or more ram install 64bit windows 7 and if 3gb or less ram then install windows 7 32 bit, coz 64 bit costs more than 32 bit but all ram is used.



Yes, almost perfect statement. To perfectly run a 64Bit operating system, more than 4GB of System ram is recommend.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> Yes, almost perfect statement. To perfectly run a 64Bit operating system, more than 4GB of System ram is recommend.


No. It's the reverse. To perfectly use 4GB of RAM, use 64bit OS.


----------



## ico (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> Yes, almost perfect statement. To perfectly run a *64Bit operating system,* more than 4GB of System ram is recommend.


To run 64bit Windows 7. 

Windows NT 4.0 ran on even 16 MB RAM and it was 64bit.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

ico said:


> To run 64bit Windows 7.



Yea..what ever, Mr.FancyPants.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jan 8, 2011)

^ You are still WRONG. Windows 7 64 bit runs perfectly in less than 4 GB RAM. Without ANY problem or being limited in any manner as you suggest.
And a 32bit OS can use more than 4 GB RAM if your kernel has PAE enabled. Not sure how Windows does it, but in *nix you can compile a kernel with PAE.
And how the hell it matters if your game gives 51 fps or 53 fps, geez.


----------



## ico (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> Yea..what ever, Mr.FancyPants.


Fact is you hardly have much idea about what have you said above. Whether it is correct or incorrect, it is a different story.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jan 8, 2011)

ico said:


> Windows NT 4.0 ran on even 16 MB RAM and it was 64bit.


IA-64 though 
64 bit processors have a long history tbf.


----------



## ico (Jan 8, 2011)

Liverpool_fan said:


> IA-64 though
> 64 bit processors have a long history tbf.


I think DEC Alpha and some Motorola bandwagon processors.

IA-64 came later.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

Liverpool_fan said:


> ^ You are still WRONG. Windows 7 64 bit runs perfectly in less than 4 GB RAM. Without ANY problem or being limited in any manner as you suggest.
> And a 32bit OS can use more than 4 GB RAM if your kernel has PAE enabled. Not sure how Windows does it, but in *nix you can compile a kernel with PAE.
> And how the hell it matters if your game gives 51 fps or 53 fps, geez.



How can I tell you that It is not about running windows perfectly.. it is about running games that we are talking about. 

Saw that GTA 4 benchmarks? If you have observed it carefully, you will know how much performance gain is there for 6GB RAM. and if you can't figure out that for yourself..

Read this page

I'm telling again, it is not the operating system's performance, we are talking about. We are talking about how well the games can run in that operating system. 

And yea.. 3FPS is a small thing. And I wasn't trying to tell that It runs slow. But I was only trying to make a point that there is LAG(Even a minute)



> Fact is you hardly have much idea about what have you said above. Whether it is correct or incorrect, it is a different story.



If it was about FancyPants, then yes, I don't have much idea about the term. If it is about "64bit operating systems" then, Mr.Admin.. I very much do than you ever had. I would like to say that the only 64bit operating system we were talking about here is windows 7. We are not talking about XP 64bit, ubuntu 64bit. And Nitpicking game, eh?




> Windows NT 4.0 ran on even 16 MB RAM and it was 64bit.



I would like to point out our Very own PS2, which had a 64Bit processor and 32MB ram. Which kicked ass for many years. The only thing we are talking about here is Windows 7. So, save your efforts.


----------



## ico (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> If it was about FancyPants, then yes, I don't have much idea about the term.


Yes, it was. Didn't you see what I had quoted?
Post #56


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> How can I tell you that It is not about running windows perfectly.. it is about running games that we are talking about.
> 
> Saw that GTA 4 benchmarks? If you have observed it carefully, you will know how much performance gain is there for 6GB RAM. and if you can't figure out that for yourself..
> 
> Read this page


That performance gain is due to more Physical Memory available to the system. The OS does not become magically "supreme" by using more than 4 GB RAM.



> And yea.. 3FPS is a small thing. And I wasn't trying to tell that It runs slow. But I was only trying to make a point that there is LAG(Even a minute)


On the other hand, 64bit applications can give you significant advantage in performance in encoding videos.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

Liverpool_fan said:


> That performance gain is due to more Physical Memory available to the system. The OS does not become magically "supreme" by using more than 4 GB RAM.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, 64bit applications can give you significant advantage is performance.




Are you serious? Jump in 6FPS jump just because more available physical RAM?? The difference is like having whole different GPU. Probably you haven't played GTA 4 for long, so let me tell you, the Prominent advantage of having a Grater physical RAM in GTA 4 gives a boost in texture streaming and reduces stutter(highly Helpful while driving fast vehicles..as engine constantly adds and deletes the world data from RAM) no way it helps in increasing the performance once the elements are loaded into the RAM. The performance jump coz of the increase in RAM will hardly be 2FPS or even less.


Ever tried Crysis 64Bit execs? one of the only few games that came with 64bit builds. And the performance gain is not even negligible. Its not about the Architecture of the builds that matters.. but the optimization in engine.


----------



## ico (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> Its not about the Architecture of the builds that matters.. but the optimization in engine.


You are correct on this. 

But the point is, Windows 7 64bit is the best.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jan 8, 2011)

vamsi_krishna said:


> Are you serious? Jump in 6FPS jump just because more available physical RAM?? *The difference is like having whole different GPU*.


Erm? So you want to claim that if you all of the sudden increase your RAM to 6GB, performance will be increased like a "whole different" GPU and yet you mean that is nothing to do with RAM? 



> Ever tried Crysis 64Bit execs? one of the only few games that came with 64bit builds. And the performance gain is not even negligible. Its not about the Architecture of the builds that matters.. but the optimization in engine.


Correct.


----------



## asingh (Jan 8, 2011)

Liverpool_fan said:


> ^ You are still WRONG. Windows 7 64 bit runs perfectly in less than 4 GB RAM. Without ANY problem or being limited in any manner as you suggest.
> And a 32bit OS can use more than 4 GB RAM if your kernel has PAE enabled. Not sure how Windows does it, but in *nix you can compile a kernel with PAE.
> And how the hell it matters if your game gives 51 fps or 53 fps, geez.



Yes, PAE is available to the Windows OS, but they still only enable ~3.4-3.6GB of hardware memory.



vamsi_krishna said:


> Yes, if we are living in a world where CPU utilization is minimal you would be correct. But, the difference is negligible in day to day applications, noticeable in few games, and clearly apparent in games which uses insane amount of CPU resources.
> 
> *media.bestofmicro.com/8/M/189526/original/image015.png
> 
> ...



It is not fair to show this game for optimizations of OS. GTA IV was one of the worst ported games for the PC. It totally did not realize the GPU, and THIS is not a factor to show "CPU dependent" tasks. And since when did we start to speak about the CPUs. Try to understand that this is at the code level of the OS. It has variables in the code lines which can realize instruction / memory sets which are larger than 32BIT binary. It is not about what the CPU is doing, or how much it is being tasked.  Also in the rest of the article -- all the other games 64 vs. 32 bit showed jack difference. You are trying to isolate a singular anomaly and depict it as a factual trend.



vamsi_krishna said:


> Yes, and one will find the same difference while using 64bit Windows 7. But the problem is with the game Architecture's Optimization. To run perfectly, 64bit optimization should be executed at engine level, which will be a deadly blow for single core processors. Thats why judging on the market share of the processors, they use to ship with 32bit architecture support. But, we have surpassed that level now, Most of the games now are supporting MutiCore processors, and 64bit architecture.


It does not matter about the games architecture. It can be in either 32BIT or 64BIT compiled code. If 64BIT compilations make no difference so neither do 32BIT compilations make a comparative difference running on 64BIT...i.e. getting slowed down. 



vamsi_krishna said:


> Saw that GTA 4 benchmarks? If you have observed it carefully, you will know how much performance gain is there for 6GB RAM. and if you can't figure out that for yourself..
> 
> Read this page


Which is again incorrect GTA IV is a poor example. And the corollary that slapping on more RAM (like you mentioned '6 GB') does not hold true. What if GTA IV only uses 1.5GB of RAM. So of course benching with 6GB will show no different --- BUT that does not mean that 6GB is a waste...!



vamsi_krishna said:


> If it was about FancyPants, then yes, I don't have much idea about the term. If it is about "64bit operating systems" then, Mr.Admin.. I very much do than you ever had. I would like to say that the only 64bit operating system we were talking about here is windows 7. We are not talking about XP 64bit, ubuntu 64bit. And Nitpicking game, eh?



Well you article for GTA IV was benched on Vista.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

asingh said:


> It is not fair to show this game for optimizations of OS. GTA IV was one of the worst ported games for the PC. It totally did not realize the GPU, and THIS is not a factor to show "CPU dependent" tasks. And since when did we start to speak about the CPUs. Try to understand that this is at the code level of the OS. It has variables in the code lines which can realize instruction / memory sets which are larger than 32BIT binary. It is not about what the CPU is doing, or how much it is being tasked.  Also in the rest of the article -- all the other games 64 vs. 32 bit showed jack difference. You are trying to isolate a singular anomaly and depict it as a factual trend.



Let me point out that Most of the games these days come under the "Bad Ports category" GTA just glorified the problem because of it's scale. Yes, it is a single case, but rest of the games showed the difference(even though it is slightest), which proves they run a bit.. a very minute bit better in 32bit Operating systems.I'm not trying to Tell any one to switch back to 32bit operating systems.. and neither I will. The whole point was previous games run slightly better on 32bit OS. All we can do is suck the 1-2FPS up and the fact that they have tiny bit of advantage on 32bit OS.. and just move on. We can't do much in this category.



> It does not matter about the games architecture. It can be in either 32BIT or 64BIT compiled code. If 64BIT compilations make no difference so neither do 32BIT compilations make a comparative difference running on 64BIT...i.e. getting slowed down.



How won't they make any difference? they will definitely do. If the optimization is done in engine.



> Which is again incorrect GTA IV is a poor example. And the corollary that slapping on more RAM (like you mentioned '6 GB') does not hold true. What if GTA IV only uses 1.5GB of RAM. So of course benching with 6GB will show no different --- BUT that does not mean that 6GB is a wast


e...!

1.5GB? Seriously Bro? 
My computer is no supercomputer, it is just loaded with 4GB ram and GTA uses almost 98% of it. I don't know what settings you were on. But with benchmarks i monitored.. it almost maxed GPU, CPU, RAM. 



> Well you article for GTA IV was benched on Vista.



Oops.. My bad.


----------



## asingh (Jan 8, 2011)

^^
How did you check how much system RAM was being used by GTA IV..?

1.5GB was just a figurative number, but again what I meant was that games till date do not load the RAM as much.

Regarding optimization, writing 64BIT code is not optimization. It is just making the game current ready.


----------



## vamsi_krishna (Jan 8, 2011)

asingh said:


> ^^
> How did you check how much system RAM was being used by GTA IV..?
> 
> 1.5GB was just a figurative number, but again what I meant was that games till date do not load the RAM as much.
> ...



CPU Usage gadget for windows 7. I alt tabbed the game once(not to monitor anything) and saw it using 85% of the RAM. so, i checked task manager which showed memory usage of almost 98%.


----------



## asingh (Jan 8, 2011)

^^
Ok. Thanks.


----------

