WinXP-64bit vs Vista 32 or 64bit...?

[Icarus2]

No, what Icarus2 posted is true - technically.

 

It's not a general rule for pure memory-calculations, though, as some 32bit OS and mainboard-configs allow more RAM to be used, regardless of VRAM installed. They make a difference between RAM and VRAM, thus making more RAM available than above calculation would permit.

This costs calculation time and depending on ServicePack with XP the SWAP-file will be massively used. It also causes a lot of memory paging errors during high-load, which additionally decreases performance.

 

So, yes, your observation is true. But you won't benefit from it as much as on a 64bit OS for example.

 

I agree. My computer assigns excactly as you mention. I also watch my RAM usage and have never used over 2 GB of RAM on any sim or video game to date. (my system will not allow more than 2.5G due to SLI 8800 ultra's)

 

The reason people don't know this is because no one tells them when they buy a computer with 32bit that they only can use 2G RAM with SLI G VRAM. Most encourage you to buy 8G if the Mobo has the slots. Sad.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Icarus2

[Feuerfalke]

I agree. The reason people don't know this is because no one tells them when they buy a computer with 32bit that they only can use 2G RAM with SLI G VRAM. They encourage you to buy 8G if the Mobo has the slots. Sad.

 

True.

 

It always makes me wonder, how many people just waste their money on expensive hardware, that is either not supported or is simply overkill for the games they play and will cost half the money 3 weeks later.

 

Best example is the young ego-shooter-fan who pays 2500 Euros for a PC to play CounterStrike with it.... just because he'll get 200FPS instead of 180 with a 500 Euros PC...

 

But it's also interesting what the industry invents to support this. Most funny thing is about TFTs. Because they are too slow in going from full white to full black and back, they simply redefined it to "grey-to-grey", which means anything from 60 to 95% of the desired black or white value. And customers praise the new generations and pose with 2ms TN-Displays.... :doh:

 

Sorry, back to topic. :blush:

[Icarus2]

True.

 

It always makes me wonder, how many people just waste their money on expensive hardware, that is either not supported or is simply overkill for the games they play and will cost half the money 3 weeks later.

 

Best example is the young ego-shooter-fan who pays 2500 Euros for a PC to play CounterStrike with it.... just because he'll get 200FPS instead of 180 with a 500 Euros PC...

 

But it's also interesting what the industry invents to support this. Most funny thing is about TFTs. Because they are too slow in going from full white to full black and back, they simply redefined it to "grey-to-grey", which means anything from 60 to 95% of the desired black or white value. And customers praise the new generations and pose with 2ms TN-Displays.... :doh:

 

Sorry, back to topic. :blush:

 

At the time I bought my comp, 64 driver support was weak so I bought 32 bit. I did get 4 GB RAM in anticipation for future 64bit uograde when driver support got better. Now its better, I'm waiting for software that uses more than 2G to make the move. I don't want to rock the boat if i don't have to.

[159th_Viper]

Just Installed Vista Ultimate 64-bit on seperate Hard Drive and ran a quick benchmark with the Benchmark Track provided by ED (JimMack) and compared with XP, results as follows:

 

 

E8600 at stock (3.33GHz)

 

XP

 

VISTA

 

 

 

Luvin' Vista :D

[redtail]

Yeah out of all the flightsims and games I have, DCS BS is the only one that runs better/faster on vista :)

 

So I have a dual-boot setup.........XP pro/Vista64

6GB ram DDR2