Help my friend Jason with his vid card troubles

[jarablue]

My buddy is debating on using 64bit vista instead of 32bit. Currently are there issues with SLI and 64bit vista? Also for gaming 32bit would be better I am thinking. For 64 bit nv is having troubles with SLI if I remember correctly. Can you guys sum it up in here why 32bit is better then 64bit for gaming espicially with SLI? Thanks. I am giving him this link. Post away gents!

 

[jarablue]

Anyone?

 

[peta328]

I would go with the 32-bit version because I hear there is issues with the 64-bit version of vista, And unless your friend is running 64-bit programs there isn't really a need to run a 64-bit operating system so I would say go with the 32-bit version.

 

[digital_exhaust]

Ok..I'll agree with peta.. Unless Jason has a specific reason to use Vista 64bit, such as software that requires it, I personally see no reason to use it... right now. I am not aware of the SLI issues with x64 versions of Vista, they may exist.. I don't use SLI so I can't comment.. but there are beta forceware drivers available, rather they work or not, I don't know..

64bit OS's are the future, and if Jason is an early adopter and has the knowledge to deal with the problems that he will likely encounter running a brand new 64bit OS and associated software.. then by all means he should go for it.. but if 100% stability with SLI and all the games and software he wants to run is a priority for him right now.. then the truth is, he should stick with XP for a bit and wait for NVIDIA's drivers to mature a bit..

And that, right there, is nothing more than my opinion...

p.s.... I absolutely love Vista.. have no plans of returning to XP...ever, so don't think anything I said was anti-Vista.. because that's not the case at all...

 

[heatlesssun]

Yeah, there's really no reason to go 64-bit right now as the drivers just aren't there. In fact, I've not seen a lot of good things about nVidia Vista drivers, 32bit or 64bit, but that will soon change I'm sure.

I'm running Vista Ultimate 32bit on an old Athlon 64 3400+ Socket 754 system and a Toshiba R25-S3503 right now. I've got issues, mainly driver related that I'm still sorting through.

Put a VisionTek X1950 Pro AGP in the Athlon rig, swapped out the memory, and I can actually play F.E.A.R. on the box at 1280x1024, near max settings and 2AA. Not super smooth but very playable.

I like Vista and would be 100% on it if not compatibility problems with some apps I use and the nagging driver issues, but should be there in the next six months when I build my Vista gaming rig.

But I'm probably going to keep the sig rig on XP probably for the rest of its life simply because I do business software development, and XP is going to be around for a LONG time come. I know where I work it will be years before they roll out Vista if at all, as Vista will only have a two year life span before its successor comes out it by the end of 2009 from what I hear now.

 

[turtletrax]

Running Vista 64 on tow machines for about 2 months now. All without driver issues other than the Nvidia bugs that are being ironed out.

Microsoft mandated that if you were making any driver at all you had to supply 32 bit and 64 bit drivers so you should be fine. The one really large reason to go 64bit is memory adressing issues with 32bit. Going with 4GB is right around the corner (I am already on my main rig) and it is a waste to have only 3GB accessable.

Unless you are getting Vista Ultimate (that includes 32 and 64) I would recommend going the 64bit route for the future as 32bit is going the way of the Dodo.

 

[FlyinBrian]

I also have been using vista 64. People need to learn not to believe everything you hear. The truth is I cant notice a difference between the two but I wanted to put my money toward helping push 64 bit program development. So with the next windows release 32 bit wont be an option, hopefully. I think the only reason microsft did it this time was because so many people still use 32 bit processors.

 

[heatlesssun]

There's no doubt that 64 bit is the future but 32 bit is the hear and now, and very few retail machines, even high end ones, are coming with a 64 bit version of Vista, so 32 bit stuff for now is going to be a bit better supported because of the larger user base.

I think that 32 bit is just a little more practical at the moment.

 

[furyagain]

I installed vista 64bit to my main rig. for two months now..
may be i only have a single 8800GTX..
i havn't got any problem at all..
all the games that i play works nice
small list of game that i played on my system

halflife 1,2
quake3-4
vanguard
battlefield 2142
testdrive unlimited
lord of the ring online beta
supreme commander demo
company of heros (demo)
unreal tournament 2004

vista 64bit is really stable.
my system only have 2gb memory
and the only games that i had some issue is vanguard ( use like 1.3gb of memory.
and push the total memory usage to like over 92% and may crash the system..
need to keep flushing the game
it is more like the actual game 's problem..
( not playing that anymore)...

 

[furyagain]

any problem relate to vista 64bit will all be fixed soon...( it will,, if there is any)
so i agree... unless you getting the vista ulimate (which come with both 32 and 64bit..(retail box version)
he will have to buy another window again.. when he want to go 64bit..

just go 64bit now..

 

[MoM$CooKin]

I was so impressed by all the helpful responses I had to make sure virtual beers get handed out all around...Anywho, installed vista ultimate 32 bit even though I have 64 bit CPU and will see how the graphics peg out now that I am not running 2 cards via SLI as before over XP Pro....More to follow...

Burp...

 

[StealthyFish]

I was so impressed by all the helpful responses I had to make sure virtual beers get handed out all around...Anywho, installed vista ultimate 32 bit even though I have 64 bit CPU and will see how the graphics peg out now that I am not running 2 cards via SLI as before over XP Pro....More to follow...

Burp...

Doesn't matter if you have a 64-bit CPU if your running a 32-bit OS. it supports it anyway.

I still would have to say to stay with XP until microsoft works Vista out. Seriously, I've seen Vista idle with around 550 Mb of RAM. Wtf eats up 500MB of RAM at idle? If you've got the RAM, do it. but if you don't, XP is an alternative that won't eat up RAM (atleast, until Crysis is released).

 

[digital_exhaust]

Seriously, I've seen Vista idle with around 550 Mb of RAM. Wtf eats up 500MB of RAM at idle?

It's not "eating up" any ram.. It's using it. Unlike XP, Vista actually uses the hardware you've paid for, rather than just letting it sit there. Superfetch is doing it's job.

And most of all, understand that just because it's showing that memory as used does not mean it's "permanently" used up, and will never be used for anything ever again.. as soon as you need that memory, it gets freed up.

It's all party of how Vista works, it helps Vista feel "snappier" than XP.. and it's a good thing.

 

[ThermoNuke]

Doesn't matter if you have a 64-bit CPU if your running a 32-bit OS. it supports it anyway.

I still would have to say to stay with XP until microsoft works Vista out. Seriously, I've seen Vista idle with around 550 Mb of RAM. Wtf eats up 500MB of RAM at idle? If you've got the RAM, do it. but if you don't, XP is an alternative that won't eat up RAM (atleast, until Crysis is released).

Before you stand by your comment be sure to go look and see how SuperFetch works in vista. Vista does not follow the traditional rules of ram usage. In vista, the more ram it uses the better.

SuperFetch does more than caching. Windows Vista runs a SuperFetch service that analyzes your application behavior and usage patterns, meaning that it tracks which applications you request the most. A good example would be your activity as you start the PC in the morning: You launch Outlook to fetch email, a messenger, a web browser and probably additional applications such as a development environment. If you do this repeatedly and ideally in the same order, SuperFetch will recognize this and then proactively populate these applications into all available main memory the next time you start the PC. You should only wait for a few minutes before you commence work to give the SuperFetch service the time to "superfetch" your applications.

The result is simple and impressive: As you return from your coffee run and launch your applications, they are available much quicker, as they already populate your main memory. Similar to conventional Windows caching, SuperFetch will not touch its cached data unless there is an application that requires main memory space. Windows will not prioritize the SuperFetch feature over memory requests by applications, as this would cause the memory management to swap data onto the swap file, which of course would slow down the whole system considerably.

*http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01...alyzed/page2.html#superfetch_the_uumlbercache

In short, Vista's increased ram usage is probably the best thing to happen to windows. It's also very important to remember that Vista was designed to dump all that cache memory once a program, a game for example, demands priority.


Edit: And damn. Someone beat me to the post.

 

[jacuzz1]

I started off with 32 bit and now have gone 64 bit so that i can fully utilize my 4 gig of system memory.