32-bit vs 64-bit in games.

For the most part, it's near impossible to compare gameplay performance in 32-bit or 64-bit, since, often, you'd need a couple of rigs, side by side running the same game, same version (just 32-bit and 64-bit), with the same version of drivers (eg. for video) and the same hardware config.

obviously there's a few problems with this... unless you're part of a testing facility, you likely don't have access to identical rigs, nor the copies of windows needed to perform such a task. Additionally, there are few, if any 64-bit enabled games that such tests can be performed on.

I'd like to submit findings of a test I'm currently planning (I'm doing the necessary installations as I type), for performance differences between 32-bit and 64-bit.

I recently found out that Unreal Tournament 2004 has a 64-bit patch, and since I have a working copy of UT2004, I thought I'd give it a try. the 32-bit version will still be running under my Vista x64, but it will obviously be running in 32-bit mode. this may, or may not degrade performance.

Here's the short-list of difference between 32 and 64 bit modes:

Recommended Hardware:

32-bit

Windows 98/ME/2000/XP
1.2 GHz CPU Pentium III or AMD Athlon
DirectX 9.0b compatible 64 MB NVIDIA or ATI with hardware T&L
DirectX 9.0b compatible sound card
8x CD/6x DVD drive

64-bit

Windows® XP, Windows® XP Professional x64 Edition
AMD Athlon™ 64 processor 3400+ (2.4Ghz) or equivalent
128MB DirectX 9.0 compatible graphics card
Sound Blaster® Audigy series recommended
24X DVD or 24X CD-ROM

Other notes:

The Win64 version includes both a Direct3D9 and OpenGL renderer. The Direct3D 8 renderer (the default on win32) is not available, nor is the Pixomatic software renderer.

I'll, of course, be testing it using my m15x, under Vista Business x64.

The game is currently installing, I'll be updating to the newest version before doing any testing.

Stay tuned.

 

After struggling with my Photobucket account for over an hour... I finally can post the results!

here's a comparison between the 32-bit and 64-bit results:



32-bit is on top, 64-bit on the bottom.

Tests were run directly after eachother, and to switch between 32-bit and 64-bit I renamed the 64-bit exec file to the 32-bit exec's name (since umark is not directly compatible with the 64-bit version)

Here's a Delta of the two comparisons:



where it's the difference in going from the 32-bit version to the 64-bit version (eg. -6 (neg six) denotes the 64-bit version was 6 FPS slower)



I think the results speak for themselves.

 

I have no idea what your trying to proove?

the 2nd system is obviously alot more powerfull?

 

My guess is that he has copy-pasted the requirements of the games and will be testing both under his m15x
EDIT: nice attempt but games are not the prime reason to upgrade to x64. Overall system performance is the major concern for me and x64 is more responsive.

 

How about running 3dmark in both 64 bit and 32 bit flavors?

 

This is the PC Mark for both: Vista 32Bit: 3799 , Vista 64Bit: 4097 on same machine. I have not been able to run 3dmark under both.

 

3DMark doesn't come in a 64-bit flavour... at least, I've never seen one.

What I'm trying to prove: Games are the biggest reason a lot of people don't want to upgrade to 64-bit. "Games run better on 32-bit" blah blah blah. I want to tell them they're wrong.

At least, that's been the biggest complaint so far.

I wanted definitive proof, that I could verify by doing myself, to show that 3D applications of equal intensity, when running in 64-bit native mode, will run a lot better than their 32-bit counterparts.

I don't want to use 3D Mark because I only have access to a 32-bit version (if a 64-bit version even exists), PLUS, 3D Mark STILL does CPU tests. I want this to be a 32-bit CPU VS. 64-bit CPU graphics performance delta. all other things being equal.

The benchmarks are both run on my m15x running Vista Business 64-bit edition. 2.5 Ghz Core2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 8700M GT. No changes are made to the system or the benchmarking between the two results, except the necessary changes made to switch the game from 32-bit to 64-bit modes.

 

As stated above 3dmark does not run in native 64 bit mode, but you can still run the same 32bit 3dmark to compare scores. I have done this and they are the almost the same for me. I did a lot more tweaking in Vista 32 so my score was a little higher. Probably could do a lot of the same tweaking in 64 (I used to disable a ton of Vista services to make it more like XP) but I don't want to, I like the way it runs and the features I have on. Games seem to start and run a little smoother but that could be just becuase of the extra memory. It definitely is more stable with the one exception of IE.

 

results posted.

*bump*

 

This is kind of misleading in my opinion.

If a game is designed for 64 bit it will run better (VERY FEW GAMES DO THIS!). However, as vikas said system responsiveness is the major reason to go 64bit for now.

Honestly games should run a lot better at 64 bit however no one has jumped on 64 bit yet as it is not the standard (it's getting there).

 

I meant running 3dMark06 in vista 32 and 64. Sorry for the confusion there.

 

My effort isn't to prove something that people like you and I (64-bit users) already know... which is that 64-bit native applications run better than 32-bit apps...

My effort is to SHOW the masses of "32-bit is better!" persons that 32-bit is actually an old, depreciated, ancestor of, what should be, a great new technology... something we should've adopted years ago.

If people start understanding, that even their precious 32-bit apps run better in 64-bit operating systems, and that 64-bit apps run even better than that... then they might actually be inclined to use 64-bit... and THAT would be my point.

more people using 64-bit means more developers pressured to program applications and such for 64-bit systems to take advantage of the extra power, which means more 64-bit enabled applications and games for everyone to enjoy... which is where I'll benefit from all this.

We understand. the problem is that 3D Mark 06 hasn't been built for 64-bit, so running it in a 64-bit OS, the program is still running as a 32-bit application. 64-bit operating systems, such as Vista 64, and XP x64 Edition, have something called the WOW64 Emulator. Though it's not actually doing any emulating (the name comes from XP x64 Edition for the IA64 CPUs which didn't have native 32-bit mode support), it switches processes to 32-bit mode and allows them to interact with the system as they normally would.

therefore, all 32 bit applications are supported in 64-bit.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOWNSIDE (besides the hassle of it) TO INSTALLING 64-BIT! everything works BETTER and it's also more compatible with FUTURE applications. I have NO IDEA why anyone would want to run a 32-bit OS with 64-bit being so superior....