Vista 32 or 64 bit edition?

[Albuquerque]

Sure, but if the Opteron servers were so much vastly faster than the 32-bit systems, the speed improvements from going 64-bit are not apparent.

Agreed.

The logical / rational test would be to take two 64-bit capable dual-core systems (a Core 2 Duo and an Opteron or Athlon FX or something) and bench them with a 32-bit OS installed and a 64-bit OS installed. Then compare as follows:

32 bit: Intel vs AMD
64 bit: Intel vs AMD

Intel: 32 bit vs 64 bit
AMD: 32 bit vs 64 bit

Tada. Now you have a direct and logical comparison between 32 bit and 64 bit on each platform. You can now say what 64 bit actually netted you, if anything. The benches that were run in your previous threads are P4C's and P4E's against Athlon XP's and Opterons which we all know will result in the AMD camp winning. It's no contest.

 

[Rangers]

For a layman (me) looking to upgrade to Vista, with a S754 3000+, which version should I go with?

I understand the 32-bit has a 4GB mem limit, which could very well come into play for me in the next 5 years.


But I heard lots of smaller programs may have problems on the 64-bit version. And there's a ton of small programs that would be a pain to not have, things like Nero burning rom, or even tiny mp3-splitter programs that I use.

In general I'm almost certain to get the 64-bit version, it seems more futuristic and there's no way I'm subjecting to a 4GB RAM limit.

 

[pcchen]

Since your computer is not a new one, and I don't think you are going to use more than 4GB memory (you probably will have a new computer when you need to worry about the 4GB limit), I think it's better to just stay with 32 bits Vista, and upgrade to 64 bits Vista when you buy a new computer. Or, just keep using Windows XP for now

 

[ERP]

The only performance improvements you are going to see gointo 64 bit are a result of either the increased register count, the ability of an application to directly address more than 2 GB's of data or the fact the OS can address more than 4GB.

There is a cost associated with 64 bit apps, because pointers are 64 bit, structures are larger and less cache friendly.

Unless you have a need to adress large amounts of memory, I'd skip 64bit OS' for now the driver support is just not there yet.

 

[KimB]

But it won't be long before 64-bit becomes very helpful. Already 2GB is really required for optimal playing of many games. I expect to see at least one or two of next-year's games require 64-bit and 4GB of memory for the highest quality settings.

 

[Albuquerque]

All true, but 32-bit operating systems are not limited to 4GB of ram. Windows XP is, but that's beside the point.

Server 2003 Standard (32-bit!) can access 8gb of ram, Datacenter (32-bit!) can access 128GB of ram. It does this by way of Physical Address Extension (PAE) and is already enabled on your computer if you are running a multiprocessor kernel and on XP SP2 or Server 2003 SP1.

PAE does have drawbacks too, such as page tables being twice the normal size. Also, both NT5 operating systems still limit individual 32-bit apps to a max of 2GB of working space (or 3GB if you supply the /3GB switch in the Boot.INI). Vista 32-bit does not have the 2GB-per-appspace limit, but still must use PAE to address more than 4GB of ram.

As such, if your ONLY concern is with accessing more than 4GB of ram, 64-bit still isn't necessary.

 

[KimB]

Yeah, but 32-bit home systems just aren't typically capable of allocating more than 2GB to a single program, and PAE does degrade performance.

I somewhat doubt that programmers will go through the hoops required to support greater than 2GB of addressing space on those (very) few home systems that will need it.

 

[Albuquerque]

Yeah, but 32-bit home systems just aren't typically capable of allocating more than 2GB to a single program, and PAE does degrade performance.

I somewhat doubt that programmers will go through the hoops required to support greater than 2GB of addressing space on those (very) few home systems that will need it.

In the same breath, 32-bit home systems aren't what we're talking about are we? The average Joe and Jane Doe aren't going to be getting 2GB of ram standard for quite a bit longer; 4GB is even further out. By the time they worry about seeing apps that are capable of using more than 2gb simultaneously, we'll probably be at another OS. And even in your own example, while not "typical", there are certainly programs out there which are capable.

Also, part of the problem is the OS that has been used at home (and at the office)... All the NT5 operating systems (2000, XP, 2003) have the issue with the 2GB (or 3GB) maximum alloc for a single VDM. Vista no longer has this issue, which means future apps with bigger memory requirements will have the foundation to work with.

Finally, about performance: If you noticed, I made sure to specifically mention that if you are currently running XP SP2 on a machine with more than one logical or physical processor, PAE is already enabled on your box. Sucks? Yeah. But the performance penalty is actually not as bad as you might make it out to be -- it's likely you're already seeing that penalty and not even knowing it.

 

[KimB]

Well, my perspective is basically just that today there are games that really need more than 1GB of RAM in order to play well. So I have a hard time believing that needing more than 2GB won't come very soon.

 

[Albuquerque]

Well, my perspective is basically just that today there are games that really need more than 1GB of RAM in order to play well. So I have a hard time believing that needing more than 2GB won't come very soon.

Ok, so then let's think about this: When it comes time that an app will benefit from more than 2GB of ram, what do you think the developer will do? Spend a few (relatively speaking) man hours to implement support for 3GB or sit back and watch everyone bitch?

On a game that requires that kind of horsepower, the small bit of extra code to obtain support for 2GB+ memory space is pretty insignificant.

 

[KimB]

Except that the difference between requiring more than 2GB and only requiring 2GB might be nothing more than a texture detail setting. So they could just say that X texture setting is recommended only for 64-bit machines with >2GB of RAM.

 

[Albuquerque]

I don't see how that's any more efficient -- you'll need two executables at that point. One for 64-bit users, and one for 32-bit users. Why? If, in your example, the only difference is texture quality then this is the WORST possible reason to do such a thing.

Now, one of the things that Crytek mentioned when they revealed their 64-bit patch for Farcry was support for much larger datasets -- ie, making levels ginormous. And in using those much larger datasets, you may also need access to more memory. You may also need access to more CPU registers for doing heavy lifting at the same time. There are several reasons why a move to 64-bit makes sense.

However, and this is the point I've been making all along, if your only reason to move to a 64-bit platform is for extra memory support, you're probably not making the right decision. There will be a time when it makes better sense, but for now and the forseeable future, it simply isn't necessary.

If you have need for 64-bit for other reasons, that's a different discussion.

 

[ERP]

Given we've had 64 bit capable home CPU's for close to 5 years and there still isn't a really usable 64 bit OS, generally not because of the OS' but because of support (and yes I've run 64 bit Linux recently), I don't see a game requiring >2Gb's in the near term.

Developers will not develop for none existent markets.

We tried to move to 64 bit windows a year or so ago for development because some of our internal tools could use the additional address space, and couldn't because various critical pieces of software had issues.

Hopefully Vista will start to change that, but as of right now we're not there. I figure I'll install the 64 bit version in a year or so assuming the support finally stats to turn up.

 

[KimB]

Given we've had 64 bit capable home CPU's for close to 5 years and there still isn't a really usable 64 bit OS, generally not because of the OS' but because of support (and yes I've run 64 bit Linux recently), I don't see a game requiring >2Gb's in the near term.

Huh? I've been running 64-bit Linux for years and haven't had any significant issues. Granted, I haven't done much more than write my own software using a small number of cross-platform scientific libraries and play a few games (NWN, Doom3, UT2004, zSNES, fceu), but that really is overstating the issues with 64-bit platforms.

Now Windows, I would agree with you. I don't think Windows XP 64-bit is very good in terms of support.

 

[Geo]

I thought you get both when you purchase retail Vista? So you could install 32-bit now, and then reinstall as 64-bit say a year from now when driver/app support is (presumably) a lot better. Using the same install disc(s) and reg key both times. Isn't that right?

 

[BRiT]

I thought you get both when you purchase retail Vista? So you could install 32-bit now, and then reinstall as 64-bit say a year from now when driver/app support is (presumably) a lot better. Using the same install disc(s) and reg key both times. Isn't that right?

The media has both version on it, but the product key will only allow activation once. I 'm not sure it allows switching from 32bit to 64bit -- I doubt they'd be that lienient.

 

[Geo]

We have different definitions of "lenient" then. The only reason I wouldn't put 64-bit on immediately is because their partners have made it too painful to contemplate. And, really, it makes zero sense for them to ship the media combined that way if they don't mean to let you switch back and forth as necessary *on the same machine*. It would make much more sense to make them different skus if that was the case.

Having looked at MS site, I can't see it addressed anywhere tho.

 

[ERP]

Huh? I've been running 64-bit Linux for years and haven't had any significant issues. Granted, I haven't done much more than write my own software using a small number of cross-platform scientific libraries and play a few games (NWN, Doom3, UT2004, zSNES, fceu), but that really is overstating the issues with 64-bit platforms.

Now Windows, I would agree with you. I don't think Windows XP 64-bit is very good in terms of support.

Depends what your trying to do with it.
I was largely interested in Media applications, where it becomes an issue with Linux is where you only have precompiled libs/executables. The Flash player plugin for Firefox isn't available as a 64 bit library. Now you can build/obtain a 32 bit version of Firefox, run it under 64 bit linux and make it work.
I also had issues with the audio drivers for my particular hardware.
YMMV but I had a lot less issues with the 32 bit version.

I also installed both 64 and 32 bit versions of the vista RC's with much the same experience, 64 bit wasn't worth the hassle.

 

[nutball]

I also installed both 64 and 32 bit versions of the vista RC's with much the same experience, 64 bit wasn't worth the hassle.

Yeah I ran Windows XP 64-bit for a short while on a machine at work... when I discovered that I couldn't use my office printer due to lack of drivers I switched back to 32-bit

Correct me if I'm wrong though, but my impression is that with Vista MS has much more control over the drivers than it did previously (stemming from their need to control which drivers run to prevent their lovely DRM mechanisms being circumvented)? If this is the case MS could, if it so wished, put much more pressure on the driver writers to get 64-bit drivers working (ie. "no you can't have a WHQL on your 32-bit driver until your 64-bit driver works too"). Or am I misinterpreting some Internet paranoia here?

 

[ERP]

Yeah I ran Windows XP 64-bit for a short while on a machine at work... when I discovered that I couldn't use my office printer due to lack of drivers I switched back to 32-bit

Correct me if I'm wrong though, but my impression is that with Vista MS has much more control over the drivers than it did previously (stemming from their need to control which drivers run to prevent their lovely DRM mechanisms being circumvented)? If this is the case MS could, if it so wished, put much more pressure on the driver writers to get 64-bit drivers working (ie. "no you can't have a WHQL on your 32-bit driver until your 64-bit driver works too"). Or am I misinterpreting some Internet paranoia here?

AFAIK and I haven't been paying much attention, you can only install signed 64 bit drivers, but the same restriction doesn't exist on 32 bit versions.
Just shipping the 64 bit version with every 32 copy will give IHV's an incentive to support 64 bit.