32-bit or 64-bit Vista better for gaming - DEAD - DEAD

After hearing about the drops in fps of systems with 64-bit vista is it better to opt for the 32-bit version of vista if you're a gamer and planning to play games such as sc2 and D3? I just purchased a dv5t and opted for 32-bit vista, don't know if it was the right decision though... my system specs are

- Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium with Service Pack 1 (32-bit)
- Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor T9400 (2.53 GHz)
- 15.4" diagonal WSXGA+ High-Definition HP BrightView Widescreen Display (1680 x 1050)
- 3GB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
- 512MB NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT
- FREE Upgrade to 250GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
- Webcam + Fingerprint Reader
- HP Color Matching Keyboard
- Intel(R) WiFi Link 5100AGN and Bluetooth(TM)
- No Modem
- SuperMulti 8X DVD+/-R/RW with Double Layer Support
- HP Integrated HDTV Hybrid Tuner
- High Capacity 6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery
- Microsoft(R) Works 9.0
- HP Home & Home Office Store in-box envelope

So did i make the right decision???

 

Pretty much the same, but 64bit lets you use 4gb of ram. This is more of a desktop thing, in a notebook I think it would make no difference.

Some games have different .exe's for 32 & 64bit so far I have seen none that really do beter in 64bit. and even in 64bit windows you can still run the 32bit exe.

Unless you have 4gb of ram I say there is no real reason/need to go to 64bit. Some old stuff may not work in 64bit if your like me and hold onto really old games/programs.

I use 64bit Vista on my laptop & desktop currently but PPJoy is one of said programs that wont work in 64bit that I really wish I could use.

I also have 4gb of ram on both machines tho.

 

I have tried both and Vista 64 runs better for gaming, I would also suggest you get 4 GB's of Ram to utilize all 4 Gigs.

 

64 bit has practically no software issues (only very few, if using deep rooted system service class softwares, such as old antivirus versions, etc). After a month of 64 bit usage (and I am a advanced computer user, install tons of crap/stuff), there has only been two things that does not work (Webcam Max driver issue, and virtual joystick driver for pj64)

90% of the issues are hardware driver, software virtual driver issues. The other 10% are installer screaming "OMG< NOT 32 BIT PC< MUST BE 16 BIT <<< ABORT ABORT"

So, imo, 64 bit is perfectly fine. If I were you, I would downgrade to T9300, and upgrade the HD/

 

So are you saying if i get 4 gb of ram 64 bit will be worth it? I thought that you had to have much more than 4 gb of ram to really take advantage of 64 bit, like 8 gb or even 16 gb. By the time 64 bit really becomes mainstream wouldn't a 64 bit machine with only 4gb be obsolete? Would a 4 gb machine with vista 64 give me that much more significant a performance boost than the system above?

 

LOL... made me giggle.. +rep

 

Another NBR member had suggested using "virtual machine," to solve compatability problems--Is this an effective method?

 

As 32 can only see 3-3.5Gb of your ram no matter how much you install, x64 is a must for 4Gb and up. Also x64 makes use of the 64 bit functionality of processors, which can make a difference to RTS or other CPU intensive tasks. I can also vouch that x64 has virtually no driver issues now, I think legacy hardware has issues, but that shouldn't affect anyone who has a Vista machine unless you have to use specialist hardware for some reason.

 

Im just saying if you had 4gb of ram and used a 32 bit OS so some of it would go to waste like .8gb or so. Most people get about 3.2gb of ram in 32bit.

Im not saying it would perform better, thats a different story, there is not much you can do on a laptop to use up all 4gb of ram, and so 3gb will perform the same. The only thing I can think of that has ever used up all my ram is a ram preview in adobe after effects when editing video.

In a high end desktop playing games with ultra high settings, texture data starts to eat a ton of ram and thus 4gb may actually do better than 3gb, but on a laptop you will not be gaming at a high enough setting to use more than 3gb of ram.

So if you take what you said literaly, your right you have no "advantage" in 64bit when it comes to performance in a laptop since 3gb = 4gb

64bit is not mainstream yet and its hard to say when it will be so time will only tell if 4gb is obsolete by that time.

Graphics cards right now are not fast enough to make you play at settings high enough to use more than 4gb of ram, and any program in windows is not going to use that much.

You do not get better performance just having more ram, its just storage, the more you have of it the better incase you need it all because the alternative is page file, where data has to come off your hard drive instead and thats slower. Vista does have a smart ram managment so the more ram you have the more of the ram it tries to use to speed up your system, by precaching common programs you use and things like that.

So somebody may possibly be able to say, 4gb>3gb due to that but in my real life experience using 64bit vista with 2, 3, and 4 gb of ram back to back it performs the same and it never pre cached enough stuff to show any difference (less than half my ram used in all 3 setups)

 

Not unless its a really easy to run program, if its like a 3dgame or something its not going to work too well. Its also annoying as hell i tried it and it was a pain to set it all up and after about 2 weeks of it I uninstalled it all and just said oh well I have to live without this program.

In the case of myself and one of the above posters where we needed a 3djoystick app to install into windows itself a emulation layer wont help us because windows itself needs the driver.

 

Ok well would you say that the rest of my system is bottle necking my processor? Since the t9400 is a 64 bit processor will i be able to reap all its power in gaming with only 3 gbs of ram and 32 bit vista?

 

Yeah because like I said very few games have a 64bit exe that uses the 64bit cpu extension and so far none of them that I have seen even reap any higher frame rates.

99% of any games or programs you use in 64bit windows are still 32bit programs and using the 32bit cpu extensions.

AMD actually has a larger boost in 64bit than Intel does, intels 64bit power is not really all that nice.

 

Vicious I just got the x305 q701 but when I first got it I pick vista32 instead of 64 because I heard that it's more efficiant for games. something about processing 32 characters as opposed to 64 characters or whatever.

Go over your posts and seeing that on my x205 Gears of War would skip some frames because of loading textures and I only had 2 mb on that machine. If I went with vista 64 on my x305 would it run even smoother, not that it doesn't right now, but I hear since I chose 32 I ain't utilizing all 4 mb.

 

I've heard a lot of problems with games and 64bit Vista... So my next purchase will be 32bit... It's probably going to be years before 64bit becomes mainstream... I mean, come on, I remember people going on about 64bit since 2004.

 

I would have thought so, I'm sure 32 bit users will be safe from mass 64-bit changeovers for at least a few more years.

 

Well, theoretically 64bit should be more efficient for code programmed for it. Also, 64bit will become mainstream more quickly than you'd think, mainly due to the fact that memory requirements increase drastically year over year, and 3GB is pretty much max useable (2^32 = 4GB, 1GB has space reserved for system, so 3GB left).

Vista runs fine with 1GB RAM, but really needs at least 2GB, and with a max of 3GB only, there's not much headroom.

I am really surprised that Microsoft didn't make Vista 64bit only since they were already on the path to forcing an upgrade to new hardware. This would have forced all device drivers and new software to be coded for 64bit (although 32bit should work just fine).

You can bet Windows 7 will be 64bit only.

 

Lot's of problems playing games in VISTA 64, please!
I have both played some current and old games so far in Vista 64 bit with absolutely NO problems at all.
some games that I have played the last couple of weeks:
COD4
Gears of War
Orange Box
Bioshock
Halo
Halo 2
Assassins Creed
DMC 4
CounterStrike
Crysis
I was able to play these games on my system on high and very high settings, maybe it's because I have Sli but everything runs very,very smoothly in Vista 64

 

Gears of War thats one I keep meaning to check out and keep forgetting about it.

 

Very good game, well worth checking out.

 

Hey Ikas, i've been asking this question to alot of vista 64 owners (and also since ur a 9262 owner... its a plus ) but when you play online (I see you play COD4 and CS) do you use the wireless? or do you plug it in with an ethernet cable? And if you do use wireless, do you happen to get random lag spikes? I'm having this issue (thread in this forum) and want to make sure that it is a nam3|ess issue. Thanks in advance

 

For online play I use the ethernet cable since it's right next to my desk, never tried the wireless option other than surfing.Will give a shot when I get home.

 

thanks Ikas... if you can.. COD 4 and CS (1.6 or source... shouldn't matter) So long as your gaming online where you can tell if lag happens (like for example... for me... playing WoW... can't tell at all.. I just see latency jump here and there... but for FPS... I see ppl skip or I skip... and my net graph for cs goes crazy for a few seconds)