| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 88819 | 2008-04-10 05:16:00 | XP or Vista for Gaming | GeneralKanos (13592) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 657700 | 2008-04-14 21:39:00 | Ah, but the page file is *not* affecting that limit overall. Ive just restarted my familys PC now with the following SWAP file config: C: - Initial 768MB, Max = 2048MB F: - Initial 4000MB, Max = 4096MB Plus the additional 512MB memory, plus the 128MB Graphics card = Well over 4GB. Yes, its limited to 4096MB Per-pagefile, not all-up. Now why has it let me do this? Because windows reserves 4GB of private address-space (Which can include SWAP) per-application. And yeah, its not hard to make *any* app reach that limit.. Fire up Goldwave, tell it to store recordings in memory (not HDD) and just hit the Rec button, and Im sure it'll do it. So, with this in mind, please, tell me how many people that you know personally (And havent just read of online) who own 2 Cards that are 1GB each or bigger, or 3x cards that are 768MB each? They're the people who will potentially need a 64-bit OS due to less than 2GB of RAM being available to the OS, especially if they're running Vista. Yeah sure, I mean its possible, but lets be realistic here. For the 1 in a million person out there who has $ coming out their ears and can afford 3x 1GB graphics cards, a 64-bit OS is the way to go. You can apparently even make Supreme Commander reach those upper-application limits even if you play around with it, so end of the day the whole argument kinda goes to custard coz lets face it, the issue is that any 32-bit application cant address that much memory and right now there just aren't enough games out there that ARE 64-bit that will require that kind of system resources. There's no performance advantage of being able to address the additional memory from within Supreme Commander based on those benchmarks you just offered, so you're only delaying the inevitable by a few minutes longer... So, even IF you get yourself 3x 768MB Graphics Cards, 8GB Memory & run a 64-bit Vista OS, you're still going to run into problems with Supreme Commander. THIS is why there is (For now at least) no real reason to run a 64-bit OS for the better majority of the population, including the examples you've given. Chilli, I never said everyone should use 64bit, you are now being pedantic. While I probably wont have 2 1GB cards, there are plenty of Americans that will. Okay, the virtual memory only effects the application, thats a given and x64 will not help the 2gb application limit, however as I said, given that graphic cards now have considerable memory onboard, this is now starting to and will only increase the impact on how much system RAM you can have under 32bit. Why do you think review sites use 64bit O/S when testing new SLI config such as TRI & Quad?. I'm not here to convince you, you need 64bit. I am saying I will be using it for my upgrade, mostly because I will have >4GB RAM (VM's), secondly, I may get a 2nd graphics card, thirdly, it is a very stable platform. |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 657701 | 2008-04-14 22:06:00 | Lets say you have 2x 768MB Cards = 1536MB You have 2GB Memory installed = 2048 Total = 3584 Now, you're running XP because you're wanting to squeeze out every bit of performance. As a pretty serious gamer you better believe it. Maybe 10% better gaming performance for about the same IQ, thats a clear win to XP for me. You can keep your usless desktop wigets lol When I installed Vista duel boot, I gayed it down with the more manly Windows Classic look :) |
Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 657702 | 2008-04-14 22:11:00 | <snip> ... I'm not here to convince you, you need 64bit. I am saying I will be using it for my upgrade, mostly because I will have >4GB RAM (VM's), secondly, I may get a 2nd graphics card, thirdly, it is a very stable platform. I'll drink to that. I'm running 64-bit Vista for similar reasons. I use virtual machines and the extra memory access is indispensible. Provided you do your homework on hardware and software compatibility it's great. For anybody considering this, my experience (and compatible stuff) is here: mywitsend.co.nz |
Vallis (8886) | ||
| 657703 | 2008-04-14 22:21:00 | XP. If it aint broke.... | rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 657704 | 2008-04-14 22:36:00 | XP. If it aint broke.... I agree. If you don't need to replace your machine, stick with XP at least until the first fix of Windows 7 comes out in about 2011. Vista's good if you have the right hardware, but I think MS have learned a few lessons that should (?) result in a better effort next time. |
Vallis (8886) | ||
| 657705 | 2008-04-15 01:26:00 | Yes but specifically in this instance as the poster asked about, again, 32-bit XP would be the choice to go with. The way of the future for sure, and I'm not ruling that out, but yeah... |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 657706 | 2008-04-15 01:45:00 | As a pretty serious gamer you better believe it. Maybe 10% better gaming performance for about the same IQ, thats a clear win to XP for me. You can keep your usless desktop wigets lol When I installed Vista duel boot, I gayed it down with the more manly Windows Classic look :) Battleneter, the only query I have with your statement is, there are bound to be gamers out there right now with systems more powerful than yours right?, there probably always will be. If you have a system with Dual 1Gb cards, 4GB RAM etc, it will undoubtly be more powerful than most even on Vista x64, right? If the above is so, WTF is the problem with a 10% hit when you are already way above the rest anyway, your statement for the fastest PC makes no sense! Whats is the hit when you are already 20-25% faster than most? What am I missing? |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 657707 | 2008-04-15 03:13:00 | Because why invest the extra $$ on the hardware if you cant use it? Why not just run 64-bit XP? ;) | Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 657708 | 2008-04-15 03:20:00 | So Im looking back at this, you seem to be arguing in circles. First you're saying you should use 64-bit Vista to get the best performance and that way you can run Supreme Commander at max EVERYTHING, but then you go and say its fine to take a 20% hit? Why not just stick with a 32-bit OS and turn *down* the detail levels a little etc, then you wont hit the memory issue, even if you have 2x 1GB Graphics Cards, you can still run Supreme Commander with 1GB Ram! I dunno what you're missing, but its not making much sense here :-/ |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 657709 | 2008-04-15 05:10:00 | Battleneter, the only query I have with your statement is, there are bound to be gamers out there right now with systems more powerful than yours right?, there probably always will be. If you have a system with Dual 1Gb cards, 4GB RAM etc, it will undoubtly be more powerful than most even on Vista x64, right? If the above is so, WTF is the problem with a 10% hit when you are already way above the rest anyway, your statement for the fastest PC makes no sense! Whats is the hit when you are already 20-25% faster than most? What am I missing? Sure I have a decent gaming rig, but far from the best with a single OC 8800GT and C2D at 3.3gig. Maybe 1% of gamers out of "ALL" PC gamers are running somthing tangibly better with Crossfire or SLi. Would you feel better if I said 99% of gamers are better off running XP over Vista for gaming? I guess thats probably the more accurate statement. |
Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||