question about 64 bit processors

[estimablesir]

I just purchased a dual core 64 bit processor, is there anything I should know before I venture forth into the dual core/64 bit processing world? Will most of my games work in x64 or am I going to have to dual boot windows 32? I figured I would ask here, since there are a lot of 64 bit users and gamers here (there better be considering how many people awaited the 64 bit version of DT)

[vatras90]

I just purchased a dual core 64 bit processor, is there anything I should know before I venture forth into the dual core/64 bit processing world? Will most of my games work in x64 or am I going to have to dual boot windows 32? I figured I would ask here, since there are a lot of 64 bit users and gamers here (there better be considering how many people awaited the 64 bit version of DT)

Starforce games are unable to install.

[rjcali]

Starforce games are unable to install.

Well, certain starforce games can't install under 64 bit (splinter cell chaos theory) but for example, I have The suffering 2, popt2t, i ninja, bet on soldier, codename panzers etc installed and working fine under 64 bit

[estimablesir]

wonderful, splinter cell... the only starforce game I have. I can't believe there's no 64 bit support for starforce yet.

[NetSoerfer]

Well, if you're using your computer mainly to play games, you probably won't need XP x64. Some quotes from Microsoft:

The initial target audience for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is anyone who is running into performance and memory limits on their 32-bit systems, for example, developers, media artists, CAD/CAM, scientific workstations and enthusiasts who are running the most demanding applications, and who require the capabilities of the Professional Edition of Windows XP.

If you are not among the targeted audience, why use x64 with its disadvantages (like poor driver availability, software compatibility issues etc)? Microsoft themselves claim the top 5 reasons for upgrading to XP x64 to be:

• High performance platform for the next generation of applications
  Games are not next generation applications as meant in this statement. They are not natively programmed for x64, so you won't have any noticeable performance benefit from XP x64.
• Large memory support
  If you don't have more than 2GB of RAM, this doesn't affect you at all either.
• Flexibility
  They mean x32 compatibility. Which is proven to be poor every day by the many problems discussed in these forums.
• Multiprocessing and Multicore
  Already supported in Windows XP. Windows 2000, too. Windows NT even, if I recall correctly.
• Same programming model (as in x86)
  For most gamers not really an issue.

I like living on the bleeding edge too, so I can understand your frustration at having to stick with the 'old' x86 architecture. But taking both advantages and disadvantages into account, I'd always stick to XP x86 as long as I didn't specifically need some x64 feature. Think about it, is it really worth the hassle?


I don't say XP x64 is bad. Or that it shouldn't be used. And again, I can understand the urge to have the latest and greatest versions. But sometimes, it's just not worth it, and I'm trying to help you decide whether it is for you.

[clemento]

I have had Win 64 for some four months now and have had very few problems with games, generally it's the older games where the protection system installs drivers that cause the problem.

So far the only games I have that I cannot run are :-

GTR
Beyond Good & Evil (Both due to old copy protections)

Battlefield Vietnam

I appreciate that there is a problem with Splinter Cell Chaos Theory but in general all new games are not a problem, even with starforce

For example GT Legends, X3:Reunion & Worms Mayhem all work find

[lazlo]

I've had x64 on disc for a while now, while i've been toying with the idea of installing it.

Most of the motherboard drivers i needed have just come out of beta from gigabyte so i've stayed with xp pro.

After reading Netsoerfer's post and being mostly a gamer i'll stick with the 32 bit version.

Change for change's sake is rarely change for the good.

[estimablesir]

actually i was more interested in the dual core capability my processor has, not for games, but for video compression. x264 takes like 11 hours to encode one movie, but you can run multithreaded jobs with it, so I hope to cut that time down. It's actually kind of frustrating, until games have full support for dual core, I probably won't see much difference in performance. Actually, I think I had better performance with my 3.2 ghz pentium 4 compared to the 2.0 ghz dual core 64 bit processor I bought from AMD. I heard quake 4 was recently patched to be optimized for dual core processors, but I have yet to try it.

[bojo]

okay windows x64 is pretty easy to run.

and so far ive found that most stuff does run, found one thing about x64 though (games)

i dunt play them much but, civ4, can only work on a cd, seems to pass the copy protection (im not told to insert the disc), but it just crashes. shame cause my dvd-rom scares me a lil, it spins so fast and loud :S hahaha

as long as you have mainstream stuff u should be okay.

i have

abit n-18 sli (onboard sound and lan, dont use that lan but)
1gigram
3.2ghz(dual core) em64t cpu
6600GT
some old pci lan card
dvt100t tv tuner.

ive only had problems with teh tv tvuner, as i needed to find unofficial drivers for it (seems the company dusnt wanna acknowledge 64bit exists lol).

all my stuff was really nvidia, and they seem to update x64 drivers.

ohh and in gaming wise. far cry with the x64 updates and ecu. is bloody awesome. aside from the visual the AI seem smarter too.

if you have doubts. get the trial version, if one exists?.

and dual boot that and win32. ive got win32 (10gig) win64(10gig) and a D: (180gig) partitions set up. so everything installs into D.

[Jito463]

@estimablesir
Well, I will admit this, encoding is the one area where the P4 still has the advantage, and that's only because of raw clock speed. However, if your encoder is multi-threaded, it should get a huge performance boost from running two cores.

@Netsoerfer

They mean x32 (x86) compatibility. Which is proven to be poor every day by the many problems discussed in these forums.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. I don't know of any 32-bit software that won't work under x64 unless it uses a 16-bit installer or relies on 32-bit drivers. As for performance, I notice no slowdown using any of my 32-bit apps, though admittedly there's no performance gain either. However, I have found x64 to be a little more stable even than XP was, and it was fairly stable already.

Having said all that, I do agree it's not for everyone. The lack of driver support for many devices is definitely a turn-off. I have all the drivers I need for my hardware, but I also have to consider the availability of drivers when I buy new hardware, which is a bit of a drag. For example, I've been thinking for a while about getting a flight-stick for playing BF2 (flying helis and jets), but I have to research before buying to make sure it's going to be compatible with my OS. I can't just go out any buy any old stick I want from off the shelf. That limits my choices considerably.

[NetSoerfer]

I'd have to disagree with this statement. I don't know of any 32-bit software that won't work under x64 unless it uses a 16-bit installer or relies on 32-bit drivers. [...] I have found x64 to be a little more stable even than XP was, and it was fairly stable already.

You're right about the compatibility part, I'm usually generalizing a little too much because I want to deliver the point of what I'm saying without having to type pages of text.

XP x86 is a pretty stable OS for me too, I think the main reason for better stability with XP x64 is that you cannot install old drivers that aren't exclusively written for x64. With good drivers, I guess XP x86 is just as stable as x64. Probably.