|
| | | Vista Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/11/2008 11:34:28 PM
Posts: 11, Visits: 25 |
| So I am finally going to purchase a copy of Vista Ultimate, however the big debate for me has been whether to go with 64bit or 32bit. I work in the IT industry so I am familiar with all the concepts and what not, my worry is more about Vista being able to handle 32bit apps well in a native 64bit OS. I've read various things about how 64bit has come a long way since it first was released and that people are having very few problems any more.
So what is the opinion of 64bit around here? Generally at home I tend to game mostly and work on my network engineering stuff, besides the normal surf the web, email, etc etc.
I'm not worried about if my system can handle Vista or not. Here are the base system specs:
Athlon 64 X2 5000 BE @ 3.0ghz
GeForce 8800 GTS 320 - Which might turn into an AMD Radeon 3870 x2 if I don't do SLI
Asus M2N SLI deluxe
4GB RAM
|
| |
| | | | 
Lead Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: Today @ 3:04:33 PM
Posts: 1,859, Visits: 1,637 |
| I don't use 64-bit myself, primarily due to the almost total lack of drivers and support when it first came out. But since then, it has matured dramatically.
With 64-bit, you'll have full access to all 4GB of your memory.
64-bit also provides a built-in 32-bit emulator, so you'll still be able to run 32-bit SW.
If I were to install fresh today, I'd go for the 64-bit version.
See the link below for some more info:
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5709
ASUS A832nSLI-Deluxe, AMD 64X2 4400 OC 2.4GHz, 3GB OCZ,
Running: XP Pro, Vista Ultimate 32-bit, Vista Business, Ubuntu 7.10, Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
 |
| |
| | | | Vista Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/11/2008 11:34:28 PM
Posts: 11, Visits: 25 |
| So looking at the gaming side of it, since 64bit is going to be emulating the 32bit side of things, are games like UT3, CoD4, BF2, etc, taking a big hit in performance?
Also, thanks for the link to that site, that is something I've been looking for for a while now. |
| |
| | | |
Lead Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: Today @ 3:04:33 PM
Posts: 1,859, Visits: 1,637 |
| Gamers are probably going to flame me BIG TIME for this, but the awful fact is that gaming takes a performance hit in Vista, period. I've been reading gaming reviews ever since Vista came out, and I don't recall a single review in which Vista performed significantly better than XP, given equivalent hardware.
There were rumours that directX 10 was going to be the big leap forward in game performance.
[sigh]
Then, we were told we need SLI, and two high-end cards to get really good performance under Vista.
[sigh]
Then, we were told we needed three video cards, with one of them being a Physix (spelling?) card.
[sigh]
And only a few days ago, I saw a review that had four (!) video cards -- on one motherboard.
[sigh]
Now, we're being told that DirectX 10.1 is going to do that. And we have to wait for Vista SP 1 (which supposedly includes native support for DirectX 10.1) and the associated video cards to see this big leap in performance.
[sigh]
One source I've been reading for a long time is the HardOCP website. They do a LOT of testing of new HW and SW in gaming environments. A recent test they did actually showed a loss of performance when they compared directx 10 cards against directx 9!
There are other gaming sites as well. Suggest you Google for them and check out some Vista gaming performance reviews before you drop too much money on a new gaming rig.
ASUS A832nSLI-Deluxe, AMD 64X2 4400 OC 2.4GHz, 3GB OCZ,
Running: XP Pro, Vista Ultimate 32-bit, Vista Business, Ubuntu 7.10, Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
|
| |
| | | | Vista Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/11/2008 11:34:28 PM
Posts: 11, Visits: 25 |
| WAW8 (1/31/2008)
Gamers are probably going to flame me BIG TIME for this, but the awful fact is that gaming takes a performance hit in Vista, period. I've been reading gaming reviews ever since Vista came out, and I don't recall a single review in which Vista performed significantly better than XP, given equivalent hardware.
There were rumours that directX 10 was going to be the big leap forward in game performance.
[sigh]
Then, we were told we need SLI, and two high-end cards to get really good performance under Vista.
[sigh]
Then, we were told we needed three video cards, with one of them being a Physix (spelling?) card.
[sigh]
And only a few days ago, I saw a review that had four (!) video cards -- on one motherboard.
[sigh]
Now, we're being told that DirectX 10.1 is going to do that. And we have to wait for Vista SP 1 (which supposedly includes native support for DirectX 10.1) and the associated video cards to see this big leap in performance.
[sigh]
One source I've been reading for a long time is the HardOCP website. They do a LOT of testing of new HW and SW in gaming environments. A recent test they did actually showed a loss of performance when they compared directx 10 cards against directx 9!
There are other gaming sites as well. Suggest you Google for them and check out some Vista gaming performance reviews before you drop too much money on a new gaming rig.
The machine is already built, been so for a few months now. The real upgrade part is to Vista at this point. I frequent the various review sites quite a bit and know of the hit, however I'm not one of those gamers that needs to have 100+ frames a second and then when I get a 10% hit in vista ( making it 90 fps ) get pissed. Why? Because as long as it's 45+ for the most part I am happy. The human eye/brain can interpret anything faster than 30 ( I think ), plus once you factor in refresh rate of your monitor ( which depends on the monitor ) you get limited by that as well, so I am not worried about it. The real question is how bad 64bit is going to hinder 32bit games or if at all? |
| |
| | | |
Lead Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: Today @ 3:04:33 PM
Posts: 1,859, Visits: 1,637 |
| I thought I saw a post on this thread responding to the 64-bit game question, but it's not here now ...
Anyway, the big question is whether or not a game will even run under 64-bit Vista. We've been getting postings about command and conquer not running under 64-bit. We've also been getting postings about ATI driver corruption under 64-bit.
So, if gaming is your focus of the move, you need to research the games to ensure they even work under 64-bit Vista.
ASUS A832nSLI-Deluxe, AMD 64X2 4400 OC 2.4GHz, 3GB OCZ,
Running: XP Pro, Vista Ultimate 32-bit, Vista Business, Ubuntu 7.10, Ubuntu 8.04 LTS
|
| |
| | | | Vista Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/4/2008 10:52:11 AM
Posts: 21, Visits: 26 |
| | Basically 64Bit Vista Ultimate has been trouble free for me since day 1, Been running since March of 2007, all my programs and games perform flawless with 64Bit...no issues whatsoever...my game list consists of Bioshock, Crysis, Medieval 2, HL2 episode 1and 2, World of conflict , StarTrek Legacy ...No hardware issues of any kind...Specs are as follows: Intel Q6600 Quadcore, MSI P65 Sli MB, 4Gig Corasir DDR2, Foxconn 8800GTX 768Mb, 400Gig Sata 3, 320Gig Sata 3, 2-Lightscribe DVD Burners, Azutech 7.1 Prelude Soundcard, 600Watt PS, 22" Samsung LCD, Vista Ultimate 64Bit.... |
| |
| | | | 
Forum Moderator
Group: Vista Forum Moderator
Last Login: 6/23/2008 8:26:49 PM
Posts: 39, Visits: 79 |
| | Your system will handle Vista nicely. As for 64-bit, I run it and have run into a few programs that won't run under 64 bit. Those are very minor problems, as the programs aren't that special. But, 64 bit Vista runs 32 bit apps just fine. I love it! And if you have a huge need for a 32 bit application that won't run under 64, you can always try a virtual machine with 32 bit Vista.
--
Dustin Harper
|
| |
| | | | |
|