Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

32-bit vs 64-bit CPU?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    I got blistering performance in Linux with the 64 bit version of UT2004. Unfortunately, Nvidia's 64 bit drivers still need a lot of work done.. Well, at least they released the drivers, ATI haven't yet, and their Linux drivers are utterly useless anyway.

    The main reason games are slower in 64 bit Windows is that they're all compiled in 32 bit mode and are run under emulation, thus are very slow. It's the same in 64 bit Linux, we'll have to wait for either drivers to be release that support 32 bit emulation, or for more games & applications to have 64 bit releases.

    Anyway, all the amd64 processors are fully compatible with 32 bit anyway, and are superior to their athlon xp equivalents.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by [gen2]Imek
      I got blistering performance in Linux with the 64 bit version of UT2004. Unfortunately, Nvidia's 64 bit drivers still need a lot of work done.. Well, at least they released the drivers, ATI haven't yet, and their Linux drivers are utterly useless anyway.
      I agree. Switch off AA/AF and the fps hits the roof. However, when I do that I get a bad caase of the jaggies and it looks terrible!
      Turn on the AA/AF and you get terrible fps.

      Gentoo Linux running KDE, 1xaa 1xaf = 10fps
      Windows XP 64bit, 8xaa, 4xaf = 60fps

      same hardware
      Athlon 64-fx53
      1GB PC3200 registered
      Nvidia 5900 Ultra
      Res: 1600x1200
      detail: All maxed

      Comment


        #18
        Point of this thread

        Is 64-bit gaming far enough along, or coming along quickly enough, that it makes sense to upgrade with a 64-bit cpu NOW, rather than wait and do so in 2-3 years when 64-bit computing is more mature????

        Comment


          #19
          Simple Answer.

          Think of 64bit as a "nice if you can get it"

          When you buy a processor, check the reviews and get the one with the fasted performance in the area you want (eg games) for a price you can afford.
          Don't go 64bit if it doesn't run the games you play faster than the 32bit.
          If you want to go 64bit at the mo, go for the 64/32 Athlons (the FX's). They give startling 32bit performance and good 64bit performance for the future

          All comments are valid.

          To get 64bit to be worth it you need an OS and a game that supports it. So when you get you 64bit processor you need to know if you going to have to buy Windows XP 64bit or dowload a linux distro

          Comment


            #20
            There is no compelling reason to go 64-bits. No 64-bit Windows (I start to wonder if it will ever happen.) Without 64-bit Windows, game developers 64-bit aspirations are moot. You can of course try Linux in 64-bit operation, but that severly limits your gaming ability.

            However, even in 32-bit mode, AMD Athlon 64s are equal to if not better than comparably-priced Pentium 4s in games. If you want, consider the 64-bit part a bonus.

            Comment


              #21
              Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit CPU?

              Originally posted by SwellFello
              Also, I think Epic is gonna be releasing 64-bit versions of its future Unreal games...
              http://tinyurl.com/22qjm

              "Unreal Tournament 2004 and Unreal Engine technology are being developed in the 64-bit environment based on AMD64 technology. In addition to Unreal Tournament 2004, the 64-bit Unreal Engine will also be used to power America’s Army and other future games. "

              Comment


                #22
                Re: 32-bit vs 64-bit CPU?

                Originally posted by SwellFello

                I'd also want to wait and buy an Intel 64-bit cpu...and Microsoft's 64-bit OS isn't even out yet
                intel does have a 64-bit cpu; the Itanium, but its about $2000 (possably more, way more) and i think its used in some high end servers and workstations by HP

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by pyrothekilla200
                  I've heard in lots of places that 64bit CPUs are actually worse for playing games than 32bit CPUs, they give worse frame-rates :down:
                  That's odd, everything I have read says something similar to this

                  http://amdmb.com/article-display.php...D=277&PageID=6

                  But there are lots of places saying 64-bit CPUs run games slower? I sure would like to check them out, got a linkie?

                  Comment


                    #24
                    yes, Intel has a 64-bit cpu, the Itanium, which is essentially a "database/server" cpu...it is not 32-bit compatible

                    Intel has no 32/64 bit compatible chip on the consumer desktop market to compete with AMD's lineup

                    Recently, Intel's CTO said "64-bit computing is just not needed right now or in the near future"

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by cosmicnut
                      The main problem is the OS.

                      1. Linux - true 64 bit but the graphics drivers need a lot of work! With all the usual features switched on UT2004 turns in a miserable 10 FPS. This is the 64bit demo which should at least give 32bit speeds

                      2. Windows XP 64bit - A wierd sort of half breed that exposes 64bit instructions but is basically 32bit windows. It does run native 64bit apps though. Running through this got me an extra 20fps OVER what I had on Windows 2000 with the same hardware.
                      Again, the problem here are drivers. The Nvidia drivers are very good and the creative Audigy ones work but are a little basic and timeout every so often as they are in beta. You have to be carefull with what hardware you have and what drivers work.


                      3. Max OS X - true 64 bit, but compared to PC users with less powerful machines, UT2K4 does not run as fast on my Mac. Don't know wether it is a graphics driver or a port issue (though I assume it's the drivers... )
                      And a Mac probably is not an option to you since it is way too expensive for a (pure) gaming machine...

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by SwellFello
                        yes, Intel has a 64-bit cpu, the Itanium, which is essentially a "database/server" cpu...it is not 32-bit compatible

                        Intel has no 32/64 bit compatible chip on the consumer desktop market to compete with AMD's lineup

                        Recently, Intel's CTO said "64-bit computing is just not needed right now or in the near future"
                        Intel will be tacking on 64-bit extensions to the Pentium 4. I believe such P4s are due out in the fall.

                        My question is, are you looking to upgrade to a new CPU regardless of whether 64-bit is of any advantage today?

                        If you only plan to buy a new processor when 64-bit is actually of some use, then wait a year or two, because it's worthless right now. (Unless you use Linux)

                        If you want to upgrade regardless, then I would recommend the Athlon 64 anyway because it outperforms comparably-priced Intel processors in games.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by User600
                          more memory access isn't the only advantage 64-bit has over 32-bit
                          The FX processors have on-die dual 64-bit memory controllers (128-bits wide total). Currently you must use registered memory with the Socket 940 FX chips, next month AMD comes out with Socket 939 FX chips that will run with regular RAM.

                          A 64-bit AMD chip is faster and cheaper than a comparable Intel chip NOW, and will be ready for 64-bit OS and games as soon as they are available. Then you will really see how the AMD 64's and FX's really perform.

                          Did any one notice than Microsoft waited to announce 64-bit XP until after Intel announced they were readying a 64-bit/32-bit product like AMD's? Intel and Microsoft are so far in bed together it is not even funny.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Sounds like the consensus for a gaming pc upgrade is:

                            Go AMD 64-bit right now, because:

                            1) 64-bit CPUs outperform 32-bit CPUs on 32-bit applications, right now...and are often less expensive than 32-bit CPUs

                            2) The Miscrosoft 64-bit OS will be out soon

                            3) Game developers like EPIC will be releasing 64-bit versions of popular games like UT as early as next year

                            (drawback: will take time for all the drivers to be produced necessary to run 64-bit applications optimally)

                            Comment


                              #29
                              By jove I think the lads got it!

                              I would agree with that!

                              Comment


                                #30
                                My AMD64 3400+ runs flawlessly with all my hardware and software, which is still only 32bit. No bugs, no crashes. It is as fast, if not a little more so, as the comparible Pentium and was half the price. Combine that with my GeforceFX 5900 and 1 gig of Corsair RAM and I can play Farcry at max settings very comfortably. I built this computer for probably $1000 less than I would have if I had bought Intel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X