Introduction
Five and a half years ago, AMD launched its Athlon 64 processor lineup, extolling the benefits of 64-bit computing and what it’d mean for the future. It didn’t take Intel long to follow suit on the desktop. From there, the infrastructure—the operating systems and drivers—began falling into place to support more 64-bit software.
Today, 64-bit compatibility is almost a given. In fact, in the business space, where 64-bit computing has always been seen to have the most promise, applications have emerged that will only run in 64-bit. Even Small Business Server 2008, a relatively entry-level operating environment for businesses with up to 75 users, is now 64-bit-only due to its inclusion of Exchange Server 2007.
Why did Microsoft make the executive decision to launch its latest messaging platform exclusively in 64-bit trim? According to a blog post by Chris Mitchell in Microsoft’s Exchange Performance Engineering Team, the application uses 64-bit addressing to get its virtual hands on more system memory, preventing repeated trips back and forth to disk. In Chris’ example, an older version of Exchange might have access to 900 MB of a 32-bit server’s 4 GB ceiling. In a 4,000-user enterprise, that's 225 KB of RAM per user—not nearly enough for all of the messages, rules, calendar entries, and contacts in a typical mailbox. Moving to 64-bit and upgrading servers to 10s of gigabytes (Chris’ recommendation in that same 4,000-user business is 24 GB) softens the load on storage.
But desktops aren’t nearly as hard-up for memory, right? We expected 64-bit computing to trickle down from the enterprise, but gamers want to know: where is the benefit from this technology today?
Going To 64-Bit: Because You Can…
Enthusiasts running Socket AM2/AM2+ platforms commonly go with 2 GB or 4 GB memory kits. After all, even though DDR2 memory is cheap, 4 GB is still the enthusiast norm—8 GB is closer to workstation-class.
But when you buy a Core i7-based machine and step up to a triple-channel arrangement, it just doesn’t make sense to slide back the other direction and populate with three 1 GB modules. And so now you’re looking at 6 GB and a forced move to 64-bit computing if you want to actually use all of that memory.
…Or Because You Have To
Oh that’s right—I almost forgot. In case you've been living under a rock since AMD started preaching its 64-bit message, the fundamental limit on how much RAM a 32-bit operating system can see is 4 GB (2^32). Anything more simply won’t show up as installed memory.
Once you factor in device addressing, the magic number actually drops below 4 GB. That’s why it’s common for 32-bit systems with 4 GB to report 3 GB plus change in the Windows Device Manager. It’s not a Windows problem, though. Rather, that’s just how x86 architecture works.
Workarounds for reclaiming that lost memory have been introduced, of course. Intel’s Physical Address Extensions enabled 36-bit physical address tables, which did help in server environments by upping maximum memory size to 64 GB. However, according to a presentation given by Chuck Walbourn, software design engineer in Microsoft’s XNA Developer Connection at Gamefest 2008, PAE never really worked the way it should in with desktop operating systems, which would have needed to map the 4 GB virtual address space into the greater physical space. Drivers were the main problem, he said. They had application compatibility problems, assuming they always had 32-bits with which to work, not 36.
In addition to the 32-bit physical address lines, you’re also limited to 32-bits of virtual address space. Because one bit is reserved for shared kernel memory (used by all processes and the operating system), individual applications only have access to a maximum of 2 GB of private address space. Suddenly, you’re facing limitations that just might have a more profound impact on a desktop machine. Could taking the 64-bit plunge today actually make a significant difference in your gaming experience? That’s what we’ve set out to explore.
- Next page More Memory, Please
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Best offers
- how much ram can vista take
- shared system memory
- 64bit games
- is am2 and am2 the same socket
- physical address extension
- how do i know what do i have 64bit or 32bit
- can not load desktop
- how i can upgrade vista from 32bit to 64bit
- 64bit gaming
- device manager not working
- 64bit or 32bit for gamers
- vista 32 bit maximum memory
- virtual physical address
- windows xp dont see 4 gb of memory
- do i have 32bit or 64bit vista
The other problem is I dont want to go buy another OS for this (Ms or otherwise). If they would run games on a linux platform I'd be happy to buy a 64bit game.
But only if that game was DRM free and didn't want me to go on-line to activate it. I've got better things to do these days as most of the games suck.
Did you write the article before you did the benches? Otherwise it might have tempered the hyperbole about the switch to 64bit. It comes across as this is really really important and will save gaming as we know it but the benches at the moment say otherwise.
I dont expect this to change radically for a while yet. Maybe 2010/2011 will be the time of 64bit?
Dont get me wrong I'm all for the full migration to 64bit but some folks need to catch a little perspective maybe?
Did you write the article before you did the benches? Otherwise it might have tempered the hyperbole about the switch to 64bit. It comes across as this is really really important and will save gaming as we know it but the benches at the moment say otherwise. I dont expect this to change radically for a while yet. Maybe 2010/2011 will be the time of 64bit?
Dont get me wrong I'm all for the full migration to 64bit but some folks need to catch a little perspective maybe?
Wow. Looks like 3gb and 64 bit doesn't go so well...
Like the article stated moving to win64 isn't going to be faster. Once games start to use the extra memory there will be a qualitative difference in the gameplay. For example the extra foliage on the win64 FarCry.
Hopefully there will be a killer game sooner or later that will look crappy in win32 but the win64 version will have so much better physics and other details thanks to the extra ram that ppl will want to upgrade just to play it.... Like when I upgraded my PC to play GL_Quake in the 90s. This time it's an OS rather than hardware upgrade though.
Once games require systems of 6 or 8 gig of ram to run they'll also need the requisite number-crunching power to process that much data. Even the top-of-the range systems today don't have that much power as they're struggling with games like Crysis still. To render several gig of particles, textures and objects is going to require a reciprocal increase in hardware performance IMO.
Did you write the article before you did the benches? Otherwise it might have tempered the hyperbole about the switch to 64bit. It comes across as this is really really important and will save gaming as we know it but the benches at the moment say otherwise. I dont expect this to change radically for a while yet. Maybe 2010/2011 will be the time of 64bit?Dont get me wrong I'm all for the full migration to 64bit but some folks need to catch a little perspective maybe?
indeed 64-bit needs a bit more time. alot of people still use 32 bit however and dont plan to move to 64bit any time soon this is why programmers choose not to script 32-bit af of now because that group is to large. however in the upcomming two years as when windows 7 will launch people will more steadly migrate to 64bit operating systems and by 2011 2012 64bit should be the standard programmers code for. dont worry to much about it this means AMD was way ahead with its first 64-bit cpu's
One thing you should be taking in to account here is game architechture. No doubt most of those games, if not all use DirectX, therefore the main limitation will be due to the common framework.
So what if some games claim to have some 64bit optimisations, that doesn't mean the company was actually any good at implementing them, nor tested them effectively enough to know if they make that much of a difference.
64bit gaming is currently pointless, a bit like this test.
in gaming 64 bit might not offer such an increase, but other apps such as winrar 7 zip etc u see a huge performance increase. extracting 7gb on 32 xp takes 40 mins, on visa 64 the same file took me 14 mins!
What I find odd about this article is that it starts off great and then goes so wildly of course.
The author discusses all the benefits of 64-bit computing. We are told these include increased content (visual details for example) and better stability for long sessions/ RAM heavy games.
Then the article goes completely tits up (THG style) and starts discussing FPS differences between 32-bit and 64-bit. Did I miss something or has lost the plot somewhere along the way...
The 64-bit extensions AMD introduced are a kludge on-top of a kludge on-top of a... , etc., etc.!! They are purely about addressing more RAM (vs. greater performance from wider data pathways/ bigger register banks in a "from scratch" 64-bit Instruction Set Architecture). It is a known fact that the C2D CPUs can only "glob" x86 instructions and not x64 bit instructions - so they may in fact run 64-bit code slightly slower.
@andrazz you also can only compare Vista 32-bit vs. Vista 64-bit and Windows XP 32-bit vs. Windows XP 64-bit!! Any other comparisons will apples vs. oranges...
Bob
Seems to me that the benchmarks were all about graphics. Games that do a lot of processing, like many strategy games, were not addressed. It's these games where I would expect the extra memory to provide better performance, with faster 'turns' (for turn based games), or less of a slowdown when RTS games have huge numbers of things to track. You will not see more frames per second, but you will have faster/better gameplay.
Although the benchmarks show 32 Vs 64bit is more or less the same thing, when i changed to XP 64bit just to get the old far cry 64 patch i had a whopping jump in speed. Not to mention the nice extras in-game.
Now I'm using Vista 64bit, Q6600/4gig ram/8800gtx, the 64bit games do seem faster than their 32bit counterpart to me at least.
Perhaps just because the OS has the extra Ram allocation to free up HDD Paging. Either way it does the job.
Would there be any benchmarks coming between a normal 32bit game vs the /LAA 32bit game?
You mentioned it in depth and how to do it etc, but didnt show anything that would show the difference in performance between them.
Would be nice to see if enabling that setting will increase any FPS or if it is just used for stability.
The real reason for the lack of 64bit support is the complete lack of a requirement for it on games that have ported from consoles (i.e. most AAA titles).. If you have developed a game to live in the restraints of 512MB in an Xbox 360, 2GB when you port to Windows is a relative luxury that is far beyond the game engine will require. Not until we see either the next generation of consoles – or games being developed for the home PC rather then just a simple port – will we see the need for more memory.
The real reason for the lack of 64bit support is the complete lack of a requirement for it on games that have ported from consoles (i.e. most AAA titles).. If you have developed a game to live in the restraints of 512MB in an Xbox 360, 2GB when you port to Windows is a relative luxury that is far beyond the game engine will require. Not until we see either the next generation of consoles – or games being developed for the home PC rather then just a simple port – will we see the need for more memory.
yes please keep GTA as a benchmark! It has raised the bar with regards to system requirements etc etc and would be good for future kit to be measured on it...
Just a thought but wouldn't it be nice to see a "cache level" option so that all/most of the levels in a game could be pre-loaded into RAM on a large RAM system. For a long gaming session it would be nice to avoid all the level loading stuff (without buying an SSD)!! Thinking of HL2 here...!! How much RAM would be needed for it to be useful?? Too much I guess for newer games?? Globbing a few levels together might help... Just wonder how hard it would in developing the game - probably not to much if they have a 64-bit port...
Bob
32 bit v.s. 64 bit comparison results cannot be realized via game play comparison.
The best benchmarks will be scientific A.K.A., math libraries Like BLAS and FFT. Other area will be databases and GIMPs.
Also seeing that there are newer registers in the 64 bit world, explicitly using those registers will give a benefit w.r.t. speed and I am not sure if newer compilers (64 bit) are using those in an otimum way.
Colin
*If I'm not mistaken*
In a 32bit environment, video ram counts against the >4 GB wall. Running two 1GB video cards will drop your available ram to >2GB. I can imagine this bottle-necking gaming rigs running Vista. I cannot imagine trying to save 200$ on a new rig, by skimping on the OS and ram...
Well, I dont know about anyone else, but I do other things on my computer than gaming. I also like to have 47 windows open, on a regular basis, spread out on 3 monitors.
Quad-core and 64 bit IS a requirement, and with the absurdly low prices of ram and computer gear in general, why do people insist on being cyber-luddites?
Enjoy,
S*D
to bobwya : that was here when the first systems with 1 MB+ ram came out.
it called ramdrive. did sort of hdd apartition in the RAM. it could be interesting to see it these days or maybe something similar is out already
at least it is posible to run without virtual memory if you have 4GB+ ram.
i found only video editing tools demanding some virtual memo so far.