32 Bit OS or 64 Bit OS

[nkjellman]

Which OS would be the best one to run GTA IV, and the ammount of bits?

 

Im asking because many may be wondering about this. Im also asking because Im adding a new hard drive to my PC. Im currently on Windows 7 Professonal 32 Bit, and on the new HD Im thinking about using it to put Windows 7 Professonal 64 bit to see if Ill get more out of my PC. Ill still have Windows 7 Professonal 32 bit to boot off of because I know that a 64 bit OS can have compatibiliy issues with other programs. Just a little question. How much better is performance for GTA IV/EFLC on Windows 7 64 bit rather than Windows 7 32 bit?

 

So what are your thoughts?

Edited May 10, 2011 by nkjellman

[YankeesPwnMets]

Windows XP 64 Bit is extremely unstable. I've tried it before. Even Vista 64 would be a better choice then that.

 

64 bit uses more spaces because of the x86 emulator it includes, so if you install 64 bit but have less then 4GB of RAM, you won't see much more from it. What 64 bit has a HUGE advantage of 32 bit is that most rootkits are not compatible with 64 bit yet, so 64 bit will partly protect you from the worst infections.

 

In a few years though, most viruses will probably be 100% 64 bit compatible. If 128 bit comes out one day though, malware developers will have a new issue again.

Edited May 11, 2011 by YankeesPwnMets

[nightwalker83]

I'm running GTA IV on Vista 32bit atm and it works! I tried playing EFLC under Vista 32bit but it kept freezing on one of the cut-scenes. However, when playing EFLC under Windows 7 64bit, the speed increased dramatically and EFLC no longer froze during the cut-scenes.

[nkjellman]

Luckaly Ill have two HD's, one for 32 bit, and one for 64, so I can get the most out of my PC. Ill aculy have 3 in as I have another HD and if I boot from it Ill boot up XP pro 32 bit. Its a good thing because for most programs those OS's are the most reliable.

 

However I wonder if the same graphics bugs are present on different bit versions of the OS.

 

But for my new HD Im leaning tward 7 64 bit, and thats the one I was thinking about doing before I saw the current results for this poll. But Im definitly not puting on XP 64 bit as it sounds horrably optimized. XP 64 bit Im gussing sounds like it was the first 64 bit OS out there so they had a harder time optimizing it. If I remember correctly eather 98 32 bit or ME/2000 32 bit had issues too.

 

Also one other thing Im wondering is what bit is the Xbox 360 OS, and the PS3 OS.

Edited May 11, 2011 by nkjellman

[Jigglyass]

 

Luckaly Ill have two HD's, one for 32 bit, and one for 64, so I can get the most out of my PC. Ill aculy have 3 in as I have another HD and if I boot from it Ill boot up XP pro 32 bit. Its a good thing because for most programs those OS's are the most reliable.

 

However I wonder if the same graphics bugs are present on different bit versions of the OS.

 

But for my new HD Im leaning tward 7 64 bit, and thats the one I was thinking about doing before I saw the current results for this poll. But Im definitly not puting on XP 64 bit as it sounds horrably optimized. XP 64 bit Im gussing sounds like it was the first 64 bit OS out there so they had a harder time optimizing it. If I remember correctly eather 98 32 bit or ME/2000 32 bit had issues too.

 

Also one other thing Im wondering is what bit is the Xbox 360 OS, and the PS3 OS.

x32, Xenon, PS3 cell supports 64 bit but its not utilized as the memory amount in the console does not make x64 worthwhile. Furthermore, x32 has more compatibility.

 

Edited May 11, 2011 by JigglyAss

[.Olbricht.]

I thought 64bit only had the benefit of being able to handle larger amounts of RAM?

[monster875.]

i've tried IV and EFLC on Windows Vista Home Basic 32-bit and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit and the games r 100% stable on both

[AZAZEL]

I fail to see the need for a poll. I assume you're looking for answers, and not statistics?

[nkjellman]

I fail to see the need for a poll. I assume you're looking for answers, and not statistics?

Its just so peoples oppinions are graphed and easier to compare.

[YankeesPwnMets]

If you have less then 4GB of RAM, then there is absolutely NO gaming benefits from running 64 bit. Just stick with 32bit and put your storage stuff on your other HDD

[nkjellman]

If you have less then 4GB of RAM, then there is absolutely NO gaming benefits from running 64 bit. Just stick with 32bit and put your storage stuff on your other HDD

I have 4GB of RAM.

[AZAZEL]

I fail to see the need for a poll. I assume you're looking for answers, and not statistics?

Its just so peoples oppinions are graphed and easier to compare.

But to what end? What possible benefit would you get from knowing what the majority makes of this technical question? Why not have someone who actually knows what they're talking about set you right?

[nkjellman]

I fail to see the need for a poll. I assume you're looking for answers, and not statistics?

Its just so peoples oppinions are graphed and easier to compare.

But to what end? What possible benefit would you get from knowing what the majority makes of this technical question? Why not have someone who actually knows what they're talking about set you right?

Becasue this way I have both to base it off of. What if two people post two different suggestions? This way I can visuly see which one Id have the best shot at, and others who are wondering the same thing would too.

[YankeesPwnMets]

If you have less then 4GB of RAM, then there is absolutely NO gaming benefits from running 64 bit. Just stick with 32bit and put your storage stuff on your other HDD

I have 4GB of RAM.

If you have 4GB of RAM and your running 32 bit, your just wasted money on that RAM because your system can't even use all 4GB of RAM. I would just suggest you take the new HDD, back up the stuff you need on it, and install 64 bit Windows 7 over your 32 bit system.

[nkjellman]

 

If you have less then 4GB of RAM, then there is absolutely NO gaming benefits from running 64 bit. Just stick with 32bit and put your storage stuff on your other HDD

I have 4GB of RAM.

If you have 4GB of RAM and your running 32 bit, your just wasted money on that RAM because your system can't even use all 4GB of RAM. I would just suggest you take the new HDD, back up the stuff you need on it, and install 64 bit Windows 7 over your 32 bit system.

I did 32bit because it had the most compatibility. Im adding a new HD and on it Ill install Windows 7 64 bit. Heck, I hope I can get good performance on GTA IV. May even be able to max it out with my Nvidia 460 GTX, and my Pentium 4 Quad Core Prossessor.

Edited May 12, 2011 by nkjellman

[BumpInTheNight]

At this point there is virtually no reason not to yah just go 64bit, I mean its the same price and MS even provides the ability to use an activation key for their OSes with either the 32 or 64bit editions regardless of which media you originally bought/acquired. Unless you have some truly archaic apps that just can't function even with compatibility flags enabled just go 64bit to avoid any potential bottle necks and just get with the program.

 

 

If you have less then 4GB of RAM, then there is absolutely NO gaming benefits from running 64 bit. Just stick with 32bit and put your storage stuff on your other HDD

Almost, keep in mind that memory from all devices gets mapped into that 4.3GB limitation such as video ram and other caches. So while I'd say the chances are less there is still the realistic problem of having enough vram on your card(s) that even with 3GB of onboard (odd number but just go with it) could still be cut short because the total exceeds that 4.3 limit. In those cases your system ram is counted last and it'll get snipped to fit.

 

[nkjellman]

I'm installing Windows 7 Ultamate 64bit on my new HD. I'll tell you how it works out.

[nkjellman]

Sorry for dubble post.

Clean OS install of Windows 7 Ultamate 64 bit.

 

GTA IV 1.0.7.0 patch wont install for some reason.

 

EFLC 1.1.2.0 installed just fine. Lagging ofcourse on both games GTA IV 1.0.0.0 (cant update), and EFLC 1.1.2.0. If I put EFLC at lowist settings it runs smoth and hangs every 2 to 3 seconds. Does not seem different from before. But now I dont have any mods, no game booster, and no command lines. The game runs no different than before with out those aids, so Id assume there wont be a change with the aids, from before with the aids. The one improvement I noticed is the texture pop ins occur less.

 

But I noticed that the game installed to program files (x86), which is where 32 bit programs go. Also I noticed the shader folders are win 32, which makes me think that the game is running in 32 bit mode.

[diablo440]

 

Windows XP 64 Bit is extremely unstable. I've tried it before. Even Vista 64 would be a better choice then that.

 

64 bit uses more spaces because of the x86 emulator it includes, so if you install 64 bit but have less then 4GB of RAM, you won't see much more from it. What 64 bit has a HUGE advantage of 32 bit is that most rootkits are not compatible with 64 bit yet, so 64 bit will partly protect you from the worst infections.

 

In a few years though, most viruses will probably be 100% 64 bit compatible. If 128 bit comes out one day though, malware developers will have a new issue again. 

funny last I checked TDL4 rootkit was bypassing patch-guard/64-bit kernel protection..

 

There are many ways to do it, and driver signing can be disabled from any admin or SYSTEM process..

 

Windows 7 has Thread-Locking fixed so it's faster

 

New locking mechanism

 

Windows 7 includes a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources. This permits Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty. On systems with only a few processors, however, the old kernel dispatcher lock was not overburdened, so this new mechanism provides no noticeable improvement in threading performance on desktops and small servers.

 

The new improved processor affinity discussed in the sidebar does not show up in the performance results. On runs with SMT disabled, this was expected because the benchmarks use all resources available; no Turbo Mode boost is possible. When we ran the four-thread Viewperf benchmark with SMT enabled (giving the benchmark eight processing pipelines), the results were essentially unchanged. That is, the differences were immaterial, which suggests that Turbo Mode works best in narrowly constrained settings, rather than the typical threaded applications we tested. Despite several requests, Microsoft would not comment on these results.

 

The Cinebench benchmark is a ratio that measures how much faster the multiple threads are than running the benchmark with one thread; it's a true measure of how the threading scales when measured by rendering performance. Cinebench showed negligible differences in performance across the three operating systems -- both with SMT disabled and with SMT enabled. However, unlike with Viewperf, the results for all three Windows were distinctly better with SMT enabled; i.e., Cinebench rendering ran nearly 20 percent faster on eight threads (SMT on) than four (SMT off), regardless of the version of Windows. This divergence between the two benchmarks regarding SMT's benefit underscores the need for testing its effect on your existing applications before deciding whether to enable it.

 

I do realize most people will ignore this post, but if you want to cut through the BS as to why 7 is better this is your post..

Edited May 15, 2011 by diablo440

[Jigglyass]

 

Windows XP 64 Bit is extremely unstable. I've tried it before. Even Vista 64 would be a better choice then that.

 

64 bit uses more spaces because of the x86 emulator it includes, so if you install 64 bit but have less then 4GB of RAM, you won't see much more from it. What 64 bit has a HUGE advantage of 32 bit is that most rootkits are not compatible with 64 bit yet, so 64 bit will partly protect you from the worst infections.

 

In a few years though, most viruses will probably be 100% 64 bit compatible. If 128 bit comes out one day though, malware developers will have a new issue again. 

funny last I checked TDL4 rootkit was bypassing patch-guard/64-bit kernel protection..

 

There are many ways to do it, and driver signing can be disabled from any admin or SYSTEM process..

 

Windows 7 has Thread-Locking fixed so it's faster

 

New locking mechanism

 

Windows 7 includes a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources. This permits Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty. On systems with only a few processors, however, the old kernel dispatcher lock was not overburdened, so this new mechanism provides no noticeable improvement in threading performance on desktops and small servers.

 

The new improved processor affinity discussed in the sidebar does not show up in the performance results. On runs with SMT disabled, this was expected because the benchmarks use all resources available; no Turbo Mode boost is possible. When we ran the four-thread Viewperf benchmark with SMT enabled (giving the benchmark eight processing pipelines), the results were essentially unchanged. That is, the differences were immaterial, which suggests that Turbo Mode works best in narrowly constrained settings, rather than the typical threaded applications we tested. Despite several requests, Microsoft would not comment on these results.

 

The Cinebench benchmark is a ratio that measures how much faster the multiple threads are than running the benchmark with one thread; it's a true measure of how the threading scales when measured by rendering performance. Cinebench showed negligible differences in performance across the three operating systems -- both with SMT disabled and with SMT enabled. However, unlike with Viewperf, the results for all three Windows were distinctly better with SMT enabled; i.e., Cinebench rendering ran nearly 20 percent faster on eight threads (SMT on) than four (SMT off), regardless of the version of Windows. This divergence between the two benchmarks regarding SMT's benefit underscores the need for testing its effect on your existing applications before deciding whether to enable it.

 

I do realize most people will ignore this post, but if you want to cut through the BS as to why 7 is better this is your post..

Synthetic benchmarks are not a n example of a gain.

In real world scenario, there is no difference between x64 XP and x64 7, not considering features.

 

Also, PC world as a source, rubbish.

[mkey82]

I actually had better real world results on both Vista and 7 in some games, compared to 32 bit XP. I don't have any experience with 64 bit XP, though.

[diablo440]

Windows XP 64 Bit is extremely unstable. I've tried it before. Even Vista 64 would be a better choice then that.

 

64 bit uses more spaces because of the x86 emulator it includes, so if you install 64 bit but have less then 4GB of RAM, you won't see much more from it. What 64 bit has a HUGE advantage of 32 bit is that most rootkits are not compatible with 64 bit yet, so 64 bit will partly protect you from the worst infections.

 

In a few years though, most viruses will probably be 100% 64 bit compatible. If 128 bit comes out one day though, malware developers will have a new issue again. 

funny last I checked TDL4 rootkit was bypassing patch-guard/64-bit kernel protection..

 

There are many ways to do it, and driver signing can be disabled from any admin or SYSTEM process..

 

Windows 7 has Thread-Locking fixed so it's faster

 

New locking mechanism

 

Windows 7 includes a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources. This permits Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty. On systems with only a few processors, however, the old kernel dispatcher lock was not overburdened, so this new mechanism provides no noticeable improvement in threading performance on desktops and small servers.

 

The new improved processor affinity discussed in the sidebar does not show up in the performance results. On runs with SMT disabled, this was expected because the benchmarks use all resources available; no Turbo Mode boost is possible. When we ran the four-thread Viewperf benchmark with SMT enabled (giving the benchmark eight processing pipelines), the results were essentially unchanged. That is, the differences were immaterial, which suggests that Turbo Mode works best in narrowly constrained settings, rather than the typical threaded applications we tested. Despite several requests, Microsoft would not comment on these results.

 

The Cinebench benchmark is a ratio that measures how much faster the multiple threads are than running the benchmark with one thread; it's a true measure of how the threading scales when measured by rendering performance. Cinebench showed negligible differences in performance across the three operating systems -- both with SMT disabled and with SMT enabled. However, unlike with Viewperf, the results for all three Windows were distinctly better with SMT enabled; i.e., Cinebench rendering ran nearly 20 percent faster on eight threads (SMT on) than four (SMT off), regardless of the version of Windows. This divergence between the two benchmarks regarding SMT's benefit underscores the need for testing its effect on your existing applications before deciding whether to enable it.

 

I do realize most people will ignore this post, but if you want to cut through the BS as to why 7 is better this is your post..

Synthetic benchmarks are not a n example of a gain.

In real world scenario, there is no difference between x64 XP and x64 7, not considering features.

 

Also, PC world as a source, rubbish.

What benchmark? 7 has better multi-threading is all

One of the oldest computer magazines on the planet, rubbish? I smell a forum troll..

[McGTA4]

Windows 7 x64 are great for GTA 4 and other games

[xDodox]

 

Windows 7 x64 are great for GTA 4 and other games

Yep, thats true!!! Best OS atm.

[Jigglyass]

Windows XP 64 Bit is extremely unstable. I've tried it before. Even Vista 64 would be a better choice then that.

 

64 bit uses more spaces because of the x86 emulator it includes, so if you install 64 bit but have less then 4GB of RAM, you won't see much more from it. What 64 bit has a HUGE advantage of 32 bit is that most rootkits are not compatible with 64 bit yet, so 64 bit will partly protect you from the worst infections.

 

In a few years though, most viruses will probably be 100% 64 bit compatible. If 128 bit comes out one day though, malware developers will have a new issue again. 

funny last I checked TDL4 rootkit was bypassing patch-guard/64-bit kernel protection..

 

There are many ways to do it, and driver signing can be disabled from any admin or SYSTEM process..

 

Windows 7 has Thread-Locking fixed so it's faster

 

New locking mechanism

 

Windows 7 includes a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources. This permits Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty. On systems with only a few processors, however, the old kernel dispatcher lock was not overburdened, so this new mechanism provides no noticeable improvement in threading performance on desktops and small servers.

 

The new improved processor affinity discussed in the sidebar does not show up in the performance results. On runs with SMT disabled, this was expected because the benchmarks use all resources available; no Turbo Mode boost is possible. When we ran the four-thread Viewperf benchmark with SMT enabled (giving the benchmark eight processing pipelines), the results were essentially unchanged. That is, the differences were immaterial, which suggests that Turbo Mode works best in narrowly constrained settings, rather than the typical threaded applications we tested. Despite several requests, Microsoft would not comment on these results.

 

The Cinebench benchmark is a ratio that measures how much faster the multiple threads are than running the benchmark with one thread; it's a true measure of how the threading scales when measured by rendering performance. Cinebench showed negligible differences in performance across the three operating systems -- both with SMT disabled and with SMT enabled. However, unlike with Viewperf, the results for all three Windows were distinctly better with SMT enabled; i.e., Cinebench rendering ran nearly 20 percent faster on eight threads (SMT on) than four (SMT off), regardless of the version of Windows. This divergence between the two benchmarks regarding SMT's benefit underscores the need for testing its effect on your existing applications before deciding whether to enable it.

 

I do realize most people will ignore this post, but if you want to cut through the BS as to why 7 is better this is your post..

Synthetic benchmarks are not a n example of a gain.

In real world scenario, there is no difference between x64 XP and x64 7, not considering features.

 

Also, PC world as a source, rubbish.

What benchmark? 7 has better multi-threading is all

One of the oldest computer magazines on the planet, rubbish? I smell a forum troll..

Troll? They have a history of taking bribes and giving products a better tag than they deserve.

[diablo440]

Troll? They have a history of taking bribes and giving products a better tag than they deserve.

this isn't a rating though, it's just a random credible source I picked since it's only revealing features.

 

you don't think cnet and others are commercially influenced?

[Jigglyass]

Troll? They have a history of taking bribes and giving products a better tag than they deserve.

this isn't a rating though, it's just a random credible source I picked since it's only revealing features.

 

you don't think cnet and others are commercially influenced?

I never suggested those sources.