Why is there such a big difference between 32bit and 64bit when gaming?

I had windows 7 32bit and when emulating a wii game, fps was at 20, 64bit windows 7, jumped to 40fps.

Gaming in general as well. Crysis lowest at 1280x800 25fps. 64bit increased fps to 35fps.

In general, i tested about 6-7 different games and average fps increase from 32bit to 64 bit was about 7fps.

All drivers same, same processes running.

Why? i thought you don't see a significant increase when gaming?

 

Hmm 64bit shouldn't change anything for these games. Maybe you just had alot of bloatware and processes running before and when you did a clean install for the 64bit version your computer got all nice and clean.

 

Also depends on if there is a 64bit executable which could be optimized for 64-bit. But it does seem a little extreme. I agree with L4d Gr00pie, probably a fresh install and other factors holding back your 32-bit.

 

...and perhaps more RAM (4 vs 3.25) began to be utilized.

 

I can't test these theories. I have ZERO 64 bit games so far. If developers are too lazy to remove mouse smoothing from their console ports to PC, I'm guessing porting the game to 64 Bit is well beyond their lazy limits.

And of course Steam the morons at Valve is still 32 Bit. So even if the game is available in 64, Steam says FU gamer, you don't need 64 Bit.

 

Because 64bit tastes good and is good for you.

 

64-bit is twice as good as 32-bit...

 

I don't get what's so good about 64 bit games. I mean, the Atari Jaguar was 64 bit too, and it was crap.
jk

 

Valve needs to stop coming up with excuses and just release a 64 bit Steam and allow gamers to choose to download 64 bit version of the games if it's available. That's all Valve is, a giant pit of excuses, like why Source is still DX9...

Once more games release 64 Bit, I'll be saying GTFO Steam, Valve you suck and just buy the retail version of the games.

 

Half-Life 2 has a native 64-bit version.

 

damn man your post is making me to shift to 64bit win 7,such an increase in fps is unbelievable.

 

Yeah, that seems bit too high on 64bit. Here's some benches for Win 7, Vista, Xp for both 32 and 64 bit gaming:

Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP

 

ARMA 2 is the absolute worst game to bench with. Poorly optimized and you could spend 3 grand on a box and barely run it. I would bench with something like COD MW2, Empire Total Wars, Farcry2 etc... At first I believe xp64 smoked them all by a long shot. Now Win7 64 and Vista 64 are supposed to be almost the same. Xp still owns most of the time. It's a shame we pay for these operating systems and they get slower and slower and slower.

StevenX

 

Interesting OS Graph. It's good he compared them all using DX9. But yeah I've read that DX9 games run better on XP than Vista.

 

It's simple really - 64bit architecture isn't just about moving to 64bits, it's also an improvement over x86 on other factors than addressable memory. So even running 32-bit games on a (good) 64-bit system is liable to yield better performance.

 

@nthony tell that to Valve, they have a million and one excuses to not support 64 bit.

And I know they attempted to provide some support for HL2 but it runs like garbage, further proof how lame Valve can be. I don't even think Steam is all that great, I notice performance differences if I run a game with Steam overlay on and if I exit out of Steam.

 

There are benefits to running 64bit native, but it isn't just a simple recompile and *poof*, you're done. Especially with gaming, there are a lot of performance tweaks and such that may not translate directly.

Valve is also doing something no other company is doing... using a single (Source) engine across MANY games. So if they can get 64bit running properly on the engine, all of their games should benefit and upgrade at the same time.

I can't say I'm happy about things not moving to 64bit faster, but as a programmer, I understand how much work they're doing, as well as trying to make new products that actually keep the money flowing. Going to 64bit doesn't drive many new sales. A new game does. If you're the CEO, where are you going to allocate your programming resources?

 

Alright, that's enough trolling for one thread. We get the point - you don't like Valve or Steam. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, then by all means post it, if you don't, you're better off not posting.

 

Well, perhaps, but i assume it is mostly the placebo effect. If an application ever uses as much as the full x64 bandwidth cap, i think we'll be using x256 by then, all i'm saying is we shouldn't be getting a performance increase, since speed is not increased, just overall instruction throughput, and yet i know of no applications that suck up the full x64 memory spectrum/bandwidth.

 

64bit is not just more memory or bandwidth. The x86-64 ISA includes a number of enhancements over the x86 ISA, not the least of which is a lot more registers. A good compiler and programming can make much more efficient use of those, which can make a 64bit program perform much faster even if it's not bandwidth limited on 32bit.

 

so any concluding answers anyone? is it really bloatware cuz my benchmarks are on fresh installs of 64/32bit of windows 7

 

Well, you've answered yourself. It isn't bloatware since you've benchmarked on fresh installs.

 

Technically its 2^32 times better (about 4 billion X)

 

I thought every company does this, it doesn't make sense coding a whole new engine for every new game, the most they ever do is tweaking the engine a bit here and there, or adding some new features, but the engine remains the same. It's only when there's too big a graphics technology advancement that the whole engine requires a design revamp that companies come up with new game engines.

 

Unreal Tournament doesn't get the benefits from UT3's engine enhancements. Every new game gets an updated version of the engine, but it doesn't help the old games. The Source Engine is different.

 

Hmm... So they updates the engine of their previous games as well, but I can see quite a lot of limitations in adding new features to their engine in such a design.

 

Does Windows limit the programs you can run on it theoretically? Design an engine properly, and you can have both to a large degree, with limited breaking of previous games.

 

Oh, I thought it's adding totally new implementations to old games, eg. moving dx11 tesselation to older games (which would have a lot limitations). It's more or less like backward compatibility then, adding new features to the engine in another module and not changing the previous implementation, and sometimes deciding to improve the previous implementations if they overlap with your newer implementations. While what other companies does is simply overwriting the past implementations. There are pros/cons to both sides though, for the backward compatible engine that could be shared amongst games, you get an a lot more bloated game engine, like what windows is. But an OS is different from a game engine, it's a lot of trouble reinstalling/changing OS, but it's a lot easier to just have a lot of different versions of the game DLL for different games.

On a second thought, there are still limitations to such implementation, for other engines for example, the developer could choose to add features of their own, as well as tweaking the engine to suit their own need, like all those heavily tweaked unreal engine games, having a universal game engine control means that the developers have to follow your engine specifications closely so that their games don't break after each engine update, that's a rather big limitation.

 

They don't push all (namely game-breaking) updates to all Source games. Global updates (such as localization or bug fixes) might apply to all, but certain enhanced features such as HDR or DX11 features will get published in an update, as evidenced by the existence of two versions of Source, the original and the updated Source SDK 2007 (or "Orange Box" upgrade)

 

Valve has been very clear on why their games are not cutting edge.

Steam has a feature that polls your system for it's hardware.

They found that something ridiculous like 80% of their userbase was playing in XP, or in 32bit, or with a DX9 card, or some combination of the 3.

It does not make any sense for them, fiscally, to invest into tech that not many of their users could play. They focus their energies into making pretty cool games instead.

PS I'm not sure that their games would really benefit from 64 bit. They are meant to be played with 2 gigs of ram, more ram would do nothing.

 

well i have hp dv5 with same 9600m gt and my fps on win 7 ultimate 32 bit are 36 at 1280x800 at low settings which are the same as of yours on 7 64bit so i see no difference between 32bit vs 64 bit.
maybe something was wrong on your 32 bit win 7.