PDA

View Full Version : 32-bit versus 64-bit



Seatrout
05-25-2007, 04:35 AM
What exactly differs between drivers developed for windows 32-bit OS compared to 64-bit?

If I go with 64-bit OS will I have "problems" with games? You don't see different versions of games developed for 32-bit and 64-bit...

/Seatrout

LC_STiK
05-28-2007, 10:35 AM
I believe 64bit just affects the OS utilization of the CPU and RAM. It shouldn't negatively affect games. As long as you have a 64bit CPU everything should be good.

Seatrout
05-29-2007, 08:22 AM
OK, thanks for the reply LC STiK!:)

/Setrout

LC_STiK
05-29-2007, 03:55 PM
So, are you building a whole rig here? Just wondering b/c of your ?s about RAM in the other thread.

alexk
05-30-2007, 01:23 AM
If I go with 64-bit OS will I have "problems" with games?

Highly unlikely - WOW64 should take care of all the problems with minimum performance loss (if any):
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64xp&page=4&cookie%5Ftest=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOW64



You don't see different versions of games developed for 32-bit and 64-bit


Actually some manufacturers DO make a 64-bit versions of games. For example:
http://amd64downloads.filecloud.com/hl2.asp
http://amd64downloads.filecloud.com/ut2004.asp
http://amd64downloads.filecloud.com/farcry.asp

LC_STiK
05-30-2007, 07:13 AM
Huh, never heard of them before. Cool enough. It really surprised me when software companies didn't move to 64-bit.

I guess it must have been the lack of a 64-bit intel processor when the A64 was the only one availiable for PCs.

mp666
05-30-2007, 11:39 AM
Huh, never heard of them before. Cool enough. It really surprised me when software companies didn't move to 64-bit.

I guess it must have been the lack of a 64-bit intel processor when the A64 was the only one availiable for PCs.

No, it's that %99 percent of their customers were running 32-bit OSes.

LC_STiK
05-30-2007, 12:03 PM
True enough, makes sense. Does anyone have any guesses when 64-bit will become the standard? It's sort of to bad that Vista has a 32-bit version, well bad as in keeping 32bit systems with XP. If that makes any sense at all.

My prediction:

64-bit will probably be the standard by the time they come out with 128 CPUs for us finally.

Telstar
06-15-2007, 08:17 AM
Besides drivers, i find x64 more ummature than x86. Some applications that run perfectly on vista x86 may not work on x64 (and cause a lot of problems).

Telstar
06-15-2007, 08:17 AM
True enough, makes sense. Does anyone have any guesses when 64-bit will become the standard? It's sort of to bad that Vista has a 32-bit version, well bad as in keeping 32bit systems with XP. If that makes any sense at all.

My prediction:

64-bit will probably be the standard by the time they come out with 128 CPUs for us finally.

MS said that they wont make 32 bit OS anymore, so maybe it is sooner than that :)

ianm2
06-15-2007, 09:02 AM
well I wans't sure about this, but I am using xp 32 bit, I was going to perhaps get a 64 bit os, and after a brief word here, decided against it.

I think??? its still a very minor thing, hardly anyone using 64 bit, and its also the unknown and support from companies, support is still bad enough from some with 32 bit, so I am sticking 32 bit until things get their act together.

I have got vista ultimate now, not paid anywhere near full price, and that's 32 bit, its waiting for my p5b deluxe to materialise, yey, found the best ram for it, too!!

but you never know, it could be crap and I will return to xp, but I do think xp whilst it seems to work fairly ok, is getting rather dated in many ways, sadly from reports of vista, it still doesn't do what I would wish, even more 'do you really want to do this? prompts all over, I want control over what I do, and simplification, not MS deciding what is best and hidiing things, and millions of ways to do one thing.

I saw a very interesting arcticle on Os's, it would be desirable for one thing to do all, better than anything, but sadly, it means windows will get too big, and complicated, many 3rd parties do things better, and it was quite interesting the way it said things would evolve, like just being a platform for 3rd party plug ins and things, its all change, and I don't know which is for the better. I dislike intensely having to do things different in applications, etc., i want some kind of uniformity, integration, not scattered randomness

sadly, by their very nature, pc's and applications are not integrated and uniform, but I do find them a little clumsy, sometimes to a dreadful archaic degree.

I think I mentioned that to overclock/find system info., can be a bit hidden....you can overclock in the bios, with asus overclocking utilties, with nvidia chipset utilities, on my mobo. ditto with finding system info, its scattered everywhere and not easy to find.

I find it all a bit of a big mess. they are just add ons for amatuers and they make life far more difficult and confusing.

I came to the brink of buying a 680i motherboard recently, it was a hugely tough job finding which one to go for, 975, 965, 680, even 590 amd, with a few makers, i just ain't convinced with nvidia, there just isn't any proper techical info, whilst I don't need it, to hear those horror stories with the 680 at the beginning, my nforce 4 has been pretty fine tho', I just don't have confidence in them, the website is a sham.

to put in in perspective, I tink foxconn did the 680 ref. mobo adopted by many graphics card makers, the bios was a disaster at first, but where do you go to get a new bios....nvidia? no such look, you have to go to the 'rebrander', now who does the bios? nvidia? foxconn? they release different bioses for the same board to differenting 'rebranders' at different rates...will the latest for someone work the best...is it the same for all boards, but just an update? its a real real mess. you could have the same board, but have a earlier bios as the goons on the webstie havne't obtained it from nvidia or uploaded it.

intel ain't whiter than white, but they are real pro's, and all the techinical info is there

I had to do a colossal amount of reading, research and thinking just to find what was right for me.

I have a good bit more knowledge than a lot of amateurs, and I look at websites, and think 'how is anyone supposed to make a decent, informed opinion?'

I think they probably think most people are idiots, I gave an example, on the evga website there are 3 variants on the 680i board, with no explanations on the differences, its an absoulte joke...which do you buy? why? then you get one and find its not right...it really does my head in at times

its just drivers and support with 64 bit, its still a little messy I think, best stick with what's industry std. until the new is industry std. for me, anyway.

same with pci express slots...

the moral??? go for the industry std. you can never go far wrong

mp666
06-15-2007, 09:19 AM
MS said that they wont make 32 bit OS anymore, so maybe it is sooner than that :)

Then they took their word back. But I'm sure they want to go 64-bit only at least in the server business. Still, they have to obey the market.

LC_STiK
06-15-2007, 01:38 PM
At least they released 32 and 64 bit hand in hand this time instead of waiting.