Advantages of 64bit version?

[menendezdiego]

Hey guys.

 

I have Win7-64bit, and have been playing with the 32 bit version, and all seems great. She's very smooth.

 

What advantages, if any, would playing in 64bit have. Have any of you noticed a difference?

 

Also, exactly which icon is the 64bit version, I have been using the one with the numbers (86 I think, not sure as I'm not on the PC)

 

I know if I do 64 I'll have to update track-ir, is there anything else I should look into? Will I have to reconfigure the settings/controls?

 

Many thanks, Diego

[EtherealN]

The icons without numbers are the 64-bit ones. DCS:A-10C is programmed for 64-bit mainly. (It is getting difficult to store everything the simulator needs within the 2GB adress space allowed by 32-bit processes.)

 

Advantages of 64-bit are mainly in adress space - the simulator will be able to store more data in RAM and vRAM, meaning that you are less likely to read from HDD during flight or have to start paging to swap which might have a negative impact on performance.

 

As regards TrackIR, just updating to the newest version with 64-bit support (details on the Naturalpoint site) should be enough. Both versions use the same mappings and settings, so switching version should only be a question of clicking the other icon and, if required, updating to a newer version of the TrackIR software.

[graywo1fg]

because 64 is higher than 32.... :P

[menendezdiego]

ha thanks for the response guys, looks like I've been using 64 bit all along, and track-ir seems to be working fine :)

 

Thanks again, Diego

 

P.S. I should be ashamed for asking...my dad is an engineer for HP (works on servers)

[EtherealN]

:P

 

Well, to illustrate: hard theoretical limit of address space for 32-bit applications: 4GB (though that requires a sort of "trick" that if used can confuse some applications).

Theoretical limit for 64bit is up in the petabytes though... So there won't be adress space limitations for quite a while with 64-bit applications. :P (Though OSes and to some extent current processors do have semi-artificial limits that lie below the "true" limits of the 64-bit model itself.)

[Mar]

I am pretty sure that x86 refers to 32 bit programming, but I'm not as tech savvy as I'd like to be so someone that knows what they're doing will have to confirm. I do know that using 64 bit as opposed to 32 allows more memory to be utilized at once, reducing stutters caused by swapping files from hard drive to RAM when the RAM is full. There's not much difference other than that.

 

Edit: Slow typing heheh.

[menendezdiego]

lol so gents, x86 is 32 or 64 ;) lol

[EtherealN]

x86 is 32bit

[nomdeplume]

x86 is a reference to the 8086 processor family, which was followed by the 80286, 808386, 808486... Normally we drop the 80 at the start, and just called them the 386 and 486. The 586 was when Intel decided to re-brand and was referred to as the Pentium instead of the 80586, although they still report as such so software can identify what the heck it is. Most modern processors identify as 80686, but I'm not sure when that started; maybe the first "Core" line?

 

x86 and x64 is something of a misnomer. x86 refers to the architecture, but "x64" is really just x86 CPUs which support the AMD 64-bit extensions (most Linux distributions have binaries for i386, AMD64, and possibly i686).

 

Anyway, the short version is: programs for "x86" will run on any modern PC processor. "x64" programs will only run on systems where the processor supports AMD's 64-bit extensions AND the OS supports them as well (i.e. "is a 64-bit OS"). Such operating systems nearly always include x86 libraries and can run 32-bit code without any performance hit (since it is an x86 processor). However as mentioned before, 64-bit code has access to a much larger memory space, which can improve performance for programs which need it.

[El_Roto]

...and 64 bit comes with cake. ;)

[fragged]

...and 64 bit comes with cake. ;)

 

The cake is a lie! The added memory space isn't!

[dunadan]

Until recently, I was running the A-10 32 bit version, due to TrackIR support (I could not get 64 bit TrackIR to recognize my device). I have Win 7 64 bit.

 

I was having quite a few issues with crashes in A-10 - mostly video crashes, several times a mission the screen would blank out for 10 - 15 seconds, then recover, and occasionally I would hard CTD.

 

Once I resolved my TrackIR 64 bit issue (key was uninstall TrackIR, reboot, then reinstall TrackIR), I also switched over to A-10 64 bit.

 

Since then, I have had somewhat faster load times and smoother frame rates, but by far the best improvement has been a much more stable A-10, I don't think I've crashed since moving to 64 bit. The software, that is. I've crashed my A-10 plenty!

 

Also, TrackIR 64 bit seems to be noticably smoother and more dependable in head tracking . . . so my recommendation would be to give it a go, especially if you are having any stability issues in A-10.

[Damage]

I'm running Win7 Pro 32 bit. Why? I got a great deal from a colleague on the software when it first came out. :smilewink:

 

In Beta 1, 2 and 3 I was able to run the Sim smoothly on Medium settings with no problems or stuttering and average FPS around 30. If I bumped up the settings to "High" my FPS would drop to 15-20. After installing Beta 4 I started getting crashes in certain missions that contained a large number of objects within the game. Troubleshooting revealed that I was running out of memory. Looking at the task manager, as soon as my free memory went to "0" the sim would crash. I basically had to back down to Low settings to get most missions to run.

 

Frustrated and not happy about going through the process of installing a new operating system along with all my programs and drivers, I was almost ready to pull the trigger on a copy of Win7 64, until....

 

I found the bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA 3072 solution here on the forum and gave it a try. I'm no wiz bang computer genius but from what I understand is that this frees up about 1GB of memory. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1084420&postcount=8 BINGO! I could now run any mission at medium settings with no crashes.

 

When the Official release came out I uninstalled the Beta from my disk drive and put the new install onto my SSD. I'm now running the Sim on medium settings with FPS averaging about 60 - 70 at altitude and 30-ish when I'm down in the weeds in with multiple objects and scenery or airports in near proximity.

 

My load times from desktop to the Start menu are about 15 seconds.

My load times from the start menu to the Options are about 7 seconds.

Once in the Sim, everything runs really smooth with no stuttering.

 

I've heard several reports from guys with faster system specs and 64 bit that their performance is not so great. With so many different possibilities for system configurations/specifications there are a lot of variables for sure.

 

If I had to build a new system tomorrow I'd go with the 64 bit and 8 GB of RAM... but for now I can live comfortably with my lowly 32 bit install. :thumbup:

[a1adin]

so for those who have played both 32 bit and 64 bit version on win 7/64 bit, how much faster the fps with the 64 bit compared to 32 bit?

is it very noticeable or barely?

[Kuky]

for me while back when I tried 32bit vs 64bit it was noticeable faster... but that was during 1st or 2nd beta... things might have changed since then

[StrongHarm]

64bit is absolutely faster and more efficient than 32bit. It refers to the way the CPU talks to the rest of the hardware. If you have a 64bit processor, it can *can* communicate with a 32bit application, but that's like heading to a distant destination and avoiding the highways. Let me explain;

 

We'll equate 64/32bit architecture to counting on your fingers. Your brain is the CPU (of course), your fingers are the memory, and the paper you're writing on is the application.

- With 32bit: You look at the piece of paper and get your problem: 2+2. Your brain sees 2, so you put up 2 fingers. Your brain sees another 2 so you put up 2 more fingers. Your brain counts your fingers and sees 4.. so you write it on the paper.

- With 64bit: You see 2+2 and you also see 2+1.. you do both problems the same as above with 32bit, but you use a hand to do each problem at the same time, glancing from hand to hand rapidly then writing the two answers down at the same time with each hand.

 

The difference is 32bit wide information flowing between the CPU and other hardware, or 64bit wide info flowing between the CPU and other hardware. Another way to look at it is a highway; 4lane is 32bit and 8lane is 64bit.. but in this highway there are intersections and streetlights. Your CPU has wait states and interrupt requests it has to deal with. So with the 32bit architecture, you have 2lanes north and 2lanes south, with traffic merging all the time.. it's a traffic jam. With 64bit you have 4lanes north and 4lanes south, but the traffic merges more smoothly. You can imagine that with the 8lane highway, the amount of cars is exponential, PLUS you have a curb lane to manage incoming traffic. 64bit is the same; exponentially more data flowing 64bits wide, and as a result much more system resources to manage waits and interrupts more efficiently.

 

Windows 64 makes everything you do faster, but if you also have a 64bit app that's running on Windows64, you're clearing traffic with sirens while counting on your fingers and toes :)

Edited April 11, 2011 by StrongHarm

[Nate--IRL--]

Any time I've tested FPS between the 32bit - 64bit versions, they were identical.

 

Nate

[jctrnacty]

Bigger , better , faster, more.........

[asparagin]

I have the impression some seem to confuse X64 with quantum computing. ;)

 

Anyway, as a coincidence, I read this today:

 

http://www.destructoid.com/brad-wardell-on-the-future-of-stardock-and-gaming-198539.phtml

 

It's about what Stardock think about incorporating X64 in games. Might interest you.

[Heli Shed]

Any time I've tested FPS between the 32bit - 64bit versions, they were identical.

 

Nate

 

certainly not the case here. 64 bit is ALWAYS faster, for obvious reasons.

 

'T'

[sobek]

http://www.destructoid.com/brad-wardell-on-the-future-of-stardock-and-gaming-198539.phtml

 

It's about what Stardock think about incorporating X64 in games. Might interest you.

 

64-bit in a nutshell. Although thinking only of texture sizes is a bit limited. There are other fields than graphics that are held back by memory shortage too.

[Steel Jaw]

IMHO if 64 bit is not running DCS A10C better than 32 bit than there is a major issue with your pc.

[Kuky]

Any time I've tested FPS between the 32bit - 64bit versions, they were identical.

 

Nate

 

I think you're probably GPU limited so you don't see benefit of 64bit vs 32bit... what's your CPU/GPU again?

[636_Castle]

I just tested myself, 32/64. Maxed out settings w/ mirrors, sitting on the runway at Batumi. 52 FPS constant on both 32 and 64 bit.

 

Just as Wags said in the FAQ, x64 only allows the software to access more memory, which certainly won't boost processing speed. It'll just allow more of it, if you have hardware that allows it. :)

 

Besides, from what I've seen, DCS usually only takes up no more than 1.5GB of RAM at any given time anyway, so it's not like more RAM idling in the background is going to help you that much.

 

I think any performance increases are placebo effects and/or coincidence.

Edited April 12, 2011 by 636_Castle

[Focha]

There is a big improvement with Win 7 64 bit for sure. No more stability issues, no more crashes, even with the .6 version.

 

Is there any limit for VRAM in 32 bit like there is with RAM (max 3Gb RAM I guess)? And if so what is that limit?