32 vs 64 bit gaming Increase my fps?

[chex89]

Hello,

That darn 32 vs 64. I currently have a 32 bit computer with the specs of...
---4Gb Ram---Nvida 8700 512mb---Core 2 Duo T9300 2.50Ghz---

Would/could i get better fps or even a quicker computer by installing Vista as 64bit?

I read somewhere that all 4gb is being used but its just not adressed by windows? or something to that effect

Thanks Much!

 

[archie123]

its not , 32bit cant utilise 4 gig its a limitation of the OS (cue the PAE posts ) , that said the extra 500mb a 64 bit install could use wont improve your performance one bit mate , however a 64 bit game on a 64 bit machine is differant altogether , for example Crysis in 64 bit mode runs a good 15 fps faster on my rig than the 32bit one and you may even find your operating system whizzes along alot smoother

 

[CalebDK]

If you up to 64 bit then your prolly going to want to get more RAM to go along with it, I just got paid yesterday and bought vista home premium x64 and another 4 GB of RAM so I'll have a total of 8GB.

Of course you should first check out some of the specs of your hardware, does your motherboard support x64? does your vid card support it? something you need to know before you rush into getting it and then find out you cant use it.

 

[chex89]

Its a laptop. 4 is max.

 

[luke904]

technically vista 32 should be able to use 4 gigs because 32 bit OS's can address 2^32 bytes or 4.29 GB but for some reason windows wont let you use it

and yes 64 bit will increase fps in MODERN games that actually support 64 bit (instead of running in 32 bit compatibility mode)

vista such a hog that 3 gigs really isnt enough

 

[archie123]

technically vista 32 should be able to use 4 gigs because 32 bit OS's can address 2^32 bytes or 4.29 GB but for some reason windows wont let you use it

and yes 64 bit will increase fps in MODERN games that actually support 64 bit (instead of running in 32 bit compatibility mode)

vista such a hog that 3 gigs really isnt enough

it cant use 4gb of ram , its a limitation of any 32 bit operating system , you need 32 bits off addres bus to utilise 4092mb of ram , thats all ok if you want a computer that is JUST ram , but if you want a GPU and maybe erm...........a soundcard then your screwed

also 3 gig should be ok and vista isnt a memory hog , i ran and gamed on Vista before any service packs with only 2 gig of ram , sure now i have 4 the os zipps along a bit nicer but thats it , and the differance between 3 and 4 ingame is negligable

 

[fieseler]

I would say yes, install a x64 O/S. there are more & more x64 apps becoming available, like winrar, perform a lot better in a native x64 environment. also i notice on my pc that crysis runs smoother.

Your 32 bit O/S can only use 4gb, that includes video card ram as well. So if you have the 4870x2, your o/s is only going to see 2gb of ram because the card has 2gb on it.

So even for us gamers, 64 bit is going to become necessery when we need bigger & better gfx cards because 2gb of ram just wont cut it in a year or two. And if game companies want to advance beyond the current generation & make bigger, better looking games, they are going to have no choice but to switch to a native x64 version

 

[luke904]

technically vista 32 should be able to use 4 gigs because 32 bit OS's can address 2^32 bytes or 4.29 GB but for some reason windows wont let you use it

and yes 64 bit will increase fps in MODERN games that actually support 64 bit (instead of running in 32 bit compatibility mode)

vista such a hog that 3 gigs really isnt enough

it cant use 4gb of ram , its a limitation of any 32 bit operating system , you need 32 bits off addres bus to utilise 4092mb of ram , thats all ok if you want a computer that is JUST ram , but if you want a GPU and maybe erm...........a soundcard then your screwed

also 3 gig should be ok and vista isnt a memory hog , i ran and gamed on Vista before any service packs with only 2 gig of ram , sure now i have 4 the os zipps along a bit nicer but thats it , and the differance between 3 and 4 ingame is negligable

ahh thank you for clearing that up, i never really knew why they couldn't use 4

and vista is a huge hog, my sisters laptop has 4gigs of ram and it uses 1.5 at idle (ive disabled ALOT of crap too), if thats not hogging ram i dont know what is

i'd be so bold to say the computers at my school (2.8 P4, 1gig ram, 32 bit win xp) are faster than that POS with an awesome 2.1 athlon X2

but this is not a debate site so if you want to debate it more email me at [email protected]

i admit that 3 gigs should be enough though for vista gaming

 

[archie123]

do your research Luke , vista doesnt hog memory , the more you have the more it will use to help th os run faster , it will be released by the the os as and when its needed

 

[Crispy2007]

do your research Luke , vista doesnt hog memory , the more you have the more it will use to help th os run faster , it will be released by the the os as and when its needed

If you have 2 gig off RAM with vista, will use 1600-1800mb with no open programs, and if you have 4gb off RAM it will use 2200mb off RAM so the more ram you have the more RAM will be wasted on windows.

But yes you will get better gaming performance.

 

[Element]

If you have 2 gig off RAM with vista, will use 1600-1800mb with no open programs, and if you have 4gb off RAM it will use 2200mb off RAM so the more ram you have the more RAM will be wasted on windows.

But yes you will get better gaming performance.

By your logic since I have 8gigs of ram Vista64 should be using 4 gigs of that, however on my system its at 1.5gigs used with my remote access client, docking program and anti-virus running. Please don't make generalized assumption based statements like this that are completely false.

To the OP, upgrading to 64 bit will help with game performance but nothing can replace upgrading physical hardware, aka more RAM, better video card.

 

[Crispy2007]

If you have 2 gig off RAM with vista, will use 1600-1800mb with no open programs, and if you have 4gb off RAM it will use 2200mb off RAM so the more ram you have the more RAM will be wasted on windows.

But yes you will get better gaming performance.

By your logic since I have 8gigs of ram Vista64 should be using 4 gigs of that, however on my system its at 1.5gigs used with my remote access client, docking program and anti-virus running. Please don't make generalized assumption based statements like this that are completely false.

To the OP, upgrading to 64 bit will help with game performance but nothing can replace upgrading physical hardware, aka more RAM, better video card.

How can be false when I have had 4gb off RAM, and all so have 2gb atm and I have seen the differences between the two.

 

[Element]

Because you are running too much on start up probably, or your sharing system memory someplace. To make a generalized statement that vista will use more the more you have is in fact false.

 

[stoneys-nutz]

Hello,

That darn 32 vs 64. I currently have a 32 bit computer with the specs of...
---4Gb Ram---Nvida 8700 512mb---Core 2 Duo T9300 2.50Ghz---

Would/could i get better fps or even a quicker computer by installing Vista as 64bit?

I read somewhere that all 4gb is being used but its just not adressed by windows? or something to that effect

Thanks Much!

To get back to the original question,
you would utilise the Gig of ram not being used at the moment, but as to better FPS and a faster PC ?, you may see a slight increase in both, but to be honest it would not be worth the extra cost, imo.
If your going in for the numbers game then you will end up in a never ending cycle of upgrades.
If your PC is ruuning fine and your happy with your gaming experience then save your money.
If it aint broken dont fix it.

 

[archie123]

Because you are running too much on start up probably, or your sharing system memory someplace. To make a generalized statement that vista will use more the more you have is in fact false.

nope its not false , Vista will cache more , i have 3142mb of memory currently cached , if i had 2 gigs of ram i couldnt have that much cached could i? so more ram , more set aside for system cache.

when i had 2 gigs of ram i was using 28% of that for Vista , now i have 4 gigs and im still using 28% (on a clean boot with only Eset running) The rest is set aside for cache

obviously this is up to a point , if i had 16gb of ram the same wouldnt apply

 

[Element]

Ok if I am understanding what you are saying then what I have here is impossible.

This is again my system running with my remote access client/dock program and antivirus system all running in the background. 8Gigs of ram and you can see the usage. So please inform me as to why I can see this, but yet your stating that if I have 4gigs of ram vista will use 2 of it?

 

[stew2]

Element your pc's only been on for 2 minutes. Give vista a bit longer like 15 minutes and then check again.

 

[Element]

Element your pc's only been on for 2 minutes. Give vista a bit longer like 15 minutes and then check again.

Sure thing.

Keep in mind I also now have my FTP server open so there is 1 more process running than the first SS was taken. And as you requested the system uptime is now at 38mins during this SS and the current usage is under 1.5gigs.

 

[stew2]

OK this link explains the performance tab better than i can: Task Manager's Performance tab more useful in Windows Vista

Heres mine:

View attachment 13839

But hay im going to anyway lol. On the left hand side under Physical Memory this lists the total ram you have installed. Vista will always try and fill the cache so the amount of free ram will always be a smaller number than the cached value. This DOES depend on what you have installed on your pc but in most cases the values will look similar to mine and Elements above.

On the right under System there is the value Page File. The first number is whats in use and the second is the total amount. The first value is your OS plus any currently running programmes it does NOT take notice of what is cached. The second value is your installed ram plus your virtual memory.

For Elements pc you can see that his OS and currently running programmes take up 1548mb of ram so he could have the same setup with only 2 gigs of ram installed on his pc.

For my pc i could run my setup with 1 gig of ram installed as im only using 950mb. Everybodys pc will be different as it depends on what Services you have running and what applications you have running.

 

[Element]

If you have 2 gig off RAM with vista, will use 1600-1800mb with no open programs, and if you have 4gb off RAM it will use 2200mb off RAM so the more ram you have the more RAM will be wasted on windows.

But yes you will get better gaming performance.

This is what I originally quoted and said was false, and I still believe what I said is accurate. Just because the memory is cached doesn't mean its not available for use when I say open up Photoshop/Illustrator and then WoW and CS:S all at the same time. The above quote refers memory usage, to the best of my knowledge caching and usage are two different things. And your link seems to support what my brain thinks.

The Physical Memory table, shown in Figure D, contains three entries measured in megabytes (MB). Of course, the Total entry shows the amount of RAM installed in the system. The Cached entry indicates the amount of physical memory used recently for system resources. This memory will remain in the cache in case the system resources are needed again, but it's available should other operations need it. The Free entry indicates the amount of memory that is currently not being used or does not contain useful information.