![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
XP64 and gaming performance
- Thread starter Zatos
- Start date
so_cal_forever
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,125
I havent noticed any increase in performance from when I gamed on 32-bit to now while gaming on 64-bit.
I tried out the half life 2 64bit version and I saw a huge increase in performance. I was able to run half life 2 at 1600x1200 max settings w/ vsync enabled. I could not get the framerate lower then 60. the framerate was 60 solid never changed.
and btw Im not able to handle half life 2 the way I did in x64 on the regular windows xp. I have to use 1280x1024 and decently high settings without vsync.
and btw Im not able to handle half life 2 the way I did in x64 on the regular windows xp. I have to use 1280x1024 and decently high settings without vsync.
qbert3 said:I tried out the half life 2 64bit version and I saw a huge increase in performance. I was able to run half life 2 at 1600x1200 max settings w/ vsync enabled. I could not get the framerate lower then 60. the framerate was 60 solid never changed.
and btw Im not able to handle half life 2 the way I did in x64 on the regular windows xp. I have to use 1280x1024 and decently high settings without vsync.
So it definitely sounds like a dual-boot kinda thing then. I dunno tho... I think maybe I'm just gonna have to pass and wait for Windows Vista since its not that far away now.
LuminaryJanitor
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,340
AFAIK, you'll see absolutely no benefit whatsoever running a 32-bit game under x64 (in fact, I've been told there's a small performance decrease).
So whether it's worth it or not depends on how many 64-bit games you have. The only ones I've heard of are Far Cry, UT2004 and HL2. I think I also spotted an x64 exe in Chronicles of Riddick, though I've never heard this mentioned... which is strange, since it's the kind of thing marketing executives like to flog to death during the advertising campaign...
So whether it's worth it or not depends on how many 64-bit games you have. The only ones I've heard of are Far Cry, UT2004 and HL2. I think I also spotted an x64 exe in Chronicles of Riddick, though I've never heard this mentioned... which is strange, since it's the kind of thing marketing executives like to flog to death during the advertising campaign...
32bit games under x64 run as fast as XP, some a little bit slower and some a little bit faster, 3dmark 03/05 scores are within margin of error (in my case x64 scores are slightly but consistently higher than XP).
FarCry and Half-life2 do benefit from 64bits but UT2004 and Chronicles of Riddick run and look pretty much the same.
FarCry and Half-life2 do benefit from 64bits but UT2004 and Chronicles of Riddick run and look pretty much the same.
One thing you should be aware of though, is you will prob get owned by the copy protections if you run x64.
There are games that I have that won't run *starforce,* and games that require no-cd patches to run in x64 *old securom* but have no problems in 32 bit.
Give me my fair use back!
There are games that I have that won't run *starforce,* and games that require no-cd patches to run in x64 *old securom* but have no problems in 32 bit.
Give me my fair use back!
From my experience with XP64, any performance increase is offset by how much of a pain in the ass it is to get some applications to run on XP64, if at all. Very few applications are written in 64-bit at this point, so be prepared for that. I run XP64 on my HTPC. Since this doesn't do a whole lot other than act as a file server and media player, it works out fine there. On my main desktop, I use XP32 for Windows because I want it to just work when I need it.
As long as you can get the driver support and your applications work with it, then it will work pretty much the same. I personally don't see any specific reason to run it other than it is available.
As long as you can get the driver support and your applications work with it, then it will work pretty much the same. I personally don't see any specific reason to run it other than it is available.
If you were running 64bit games in an emulation environment on your old 32bit setup then the difference will be night and day!
Otherwise the difference will be slight and even that will be due to the extra registers opened on AMD chips when in 64bit mode, not any inherint advantage of 64bit.
Otherwise the difference will be slight and even that will be due to the extra registers opened on AMD chips when in 64bit mode, not any inherint advantage of 64bit.
FalseGod said:From my experience with XP64, any performance increase is offset by how much of a pain in the ass it is to get some applications to run on XP64, if at all. Very few applications are written in 64-bit at this point, so be prepared for that. I run XP64 on my HTPC. Since this doesn't do a whole lot other than act as a file server and media player, it works out fine there. On my main desktop, I use XP32 for Windows because I want it to just work when I need it.
As long as you can get the driver support and your applications work with it, then it will work pretty much the same. I personally don't see any specific reason to run it other than it is available.
It's based upon a newer version of the Windows Kernel, though I've never noticed any significant differences.
It is still only Windows XP and performance increases are marginal at best. Not worth moving to unless you are already going to need to invest in messing with the OS anyway. I think lots of us had some hope that it would actually make the systems faster, which it really doesn't do. The only other benefit I could see would be in memory capability. From what I remember, I think it can handle more overall system RAM, but most hardware doesn't even reach that point yet, so that's also pointless for now.
FalseGod said:It is still only Windows XP and performance increases are marginal at best. Not worth moving to unless you are already going to need to invest in messing with the OS anyway. I think lots of us had some hope that it would actually make the systems faster, which it really doesn't do. The only other benefit I could see would be in memory capability. From what I remember, I think it can handle more overall system RAM, but most hardware doesn't even reach that point yet, so that's also pointless for now.
Yeah if you want to go over four Gigabytes then 64bit is nice. You can do over four gigabytes in 32bit but it requires some ugly workarounds.