best OS for gaming ?!

vamsi_krishna

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
Because all the 32Bit apps in 64Bit Windows run with a compatibility layer called "Windows on Windows", the same way xp executes 16bit applications. These applications will not have any native support what so ever. And native support is always preferred than compatibility layer.

Just take a look at these benchmarks. You will know..

Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP
 
ajai5777

ajai5777

Youngling
When you run a 32-bit program on a 64-bit version of Windows 7, the program runs in a 32-bit emulation mode, using software to simulate a 32-bit version of Windows 7.That could cause a slight degradation in performance.
 
asingh

asingh

Aspiring Novelist
ajai5777 said:
When you run a 32-bit program on a 64-bit version of Windows 7, the program runs in a 32-bit emulation mode, using software to simulate a 32-bit version of Windows 7.That could cause a slight degradation in performance.
Click to expand...

I think that logic is flawed. Yes emulation is happening, but it is quite seamless. You would get clock degradation but not enough to feel it in real world scenarios. It is far more minuscule and minute to having x64 architecture realize greater than ~3.4 GB hardware RAM. If you read this official M$ article you will see that the missing instructions are handled at the micro architecture level.

vamsi_krishna said:
Because all the 32Bit apps in 64Bit Windows run with a compatibility layer called "Windows on Windows", the same way xp executes 16bit applications. These applications will not have any native support what so ever. And native support is always preferred than compatibility layer.

Just take a look at these benchmarks. You will know..

Gaming Performance Compared: Windows 7 vs Vista vs Windows XP
Click to expand...

Yes, I know about WoW64. 16BIT applications are considered legacy so they will not run on the x64 OS architecture. The compatibility layer vs. native support is quite close since it is happening on the hardware layer. I loked at the link you gave and at most could see a difference of 1-1.5FPS when comparing Win7 32 to Win7 64. Which again shows that this abstraction layer is highly optimized and not a hindrance to performance.
 
ithehappy

ithehappy

Human Spambot
vamsi_krishna said:
No,No.. It is not the way things work.

Say a game requires 512MB of Ram. If the game is running on a machine with XP, then.. it will need 500MB of ram + amount of ram required for basic Operating system to run the background tasks(Your explorer, Antivirus, Internet connectivity Downloads, etc).

With that understood, the background tasks(including system services) will take higher amount of RAM if it is on windows 7, than it will be on XP. If the amount required for Background tasks is 512MB in XP, then it might be 768MB or 1GB in Windows 7. So, for this game to run effectively, A windows XP machine requires 768MB of RAM (512MB for game+256MB for system services). But a Windows 7 machine requires 1GB of RAM (512MB for game+512MB for System services).

And if a game states that it requires 2GB ram, then it will take all the odds into account. Which means, that 2GB covers the game+system services. So, to run the game perfectly you just need to have that 2GB of Memory.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for re explaining it.

So far what I got from the comments and the above benchmark results, You need to have a 32 bit OS to run the 32 bit applications for optimum performance and same OS to run a DX9 game. As for new 64 bit applications and DX11 games a 64 bit OS will give better results.
 
skeletor

skeletor

Chosen of the Omnissiah
asingh said:
I think that logic is flawed. Yes emulation is happening, but it is quite seamless. You would get clock degradation but not enough to feel it in real world scenarios. It is far more minuscule and minute to having x64 architecture realize greater than ~3.4 GB hardware RAM. If you read this official M$ article you will see that the missing instructions are handled at the micro architecture level.
Click to expand...
+100

Quoting from the article,
Processor hardware. Instruction emulation is performed on the chip. On the x64 processor, instructions are executed natively by the micro-architecture. Therefore, execution speed under WOW64 on x64 is similar to its speed under 32-bit Windows. On the Intel Itanium processor, more software is involved in the emulation, and performance suffers as a result.
Click to expand...
amd64 or x86-64 processors are compatible with x86 instruction set. Hardly any performance difference when you use a 32bit app on Windows 7 64bit.

But Itanium or IA-64 is NOT. Now if you run a 32bit app on Windows 7 64bit running on Itanium, THEN you will get a performance penalty.

Quoting from Wiki,
Because the full 32-bit instruction set remains implemented in hardware without any intervening emulation, existing 32-bit x86 executables run with no compatibility or performance penalties.
Click to expand...
^^
ithehappy said:
You need to have a 32 bit OS to run the 32 bit applications for optimum performance and same OS to run a DX9 game.
Click to expand...
There is hardly any performance difference in running 32bit apps on Windows 7 64bit. :) HARDLY. [considering we all use amd64 processors which includes Core i3, i5 and i7 too]
 
vamsi_krishna

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
asingh said:
Yes, I know about WoW64. 16BIT applications are considered legacy so they will not run on the x64 OS architecture. The compatibility layer vs. native support is quite close since it is happening on the hardware layer. I loked at the link you gave and at most could see a difference of 1-1.5FPS when comparing Win7 32 to Win7 64. Which again shows that this abstraction layer is highly optimized and not a hindrance to performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, if we are living in a world where CPU utilization is minimal you would be correct. But, the difference is negligible in day to day applications, noticeable in few games, and clearly apparent in games which uses insane amount of CPU resources.

*media.bestofmicro.com/8/M/189526/original/image015.png


It might be only 3-4FPS, but there is lag. Apparent Difference is there, And that is my whole point.
 
Last edited:
S

sasuke

Broken In
i have on logic if you have 4gb or more ram install 64bit windows 7 and if 3gb or less ram then install windows 7 32 bit, coz 64 bit costs more than 32 bit but all ram is used.
 
Liverpool_fan

Liverpool_fan

Sami Hyypiä, LFC legend
ajai5777 said:
When you run a 32-bit program on a 64-bit version of Windows 7, the program runs in a 32-bit emulation mode, using software to simulate a 32-bit version of Windows 7.That could cause a slight degradation in performance.
Click to expand...
Do you realise "Software Emulation" and "Compatibility layer" are NOT exactly the same technology :|
 
vamsi_krishna

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
ico said:
Blame Windows for that.

I find Ubuntu amd64 faster on my laptop than Ubuntu 32bit.
Click to expand...

Yes, and one will find the same difference while using 64bit Windows 7. But the problem is with the game Architecture's Optimization. To run perfectly, 64bit optimization should be executed at engine level, which will be a deadly blow for single core processors. Thats why judging on the market share of the processors, they use to ship with 32bit architecture support. But, we have surpassed that level now, Most of the games now are supporting MutiCore processors, and 64bit architecture.

sasuke said:
i have on logic if you have 4gb or more ram install 64bit windows 7 and if 3gb or less ram then install windows 7 32 bit, coz 64 bit costs more than 32 bit but all ram is used.
Click to expand...

Yes, almost perfect statement. To perfectly run a 64Bit operating system, more than 4GB of System ram is recommend.
 
Last edited:
Liverpool_fan

Liverpool_fan

Sami Hyypiä, LFC legend
^ You are still WRONG. Windows 7 64 bit runs perfectly in less than 4 GB RAM. Without ANY problem or being limited in any manner as you suggest.
And a 32bit OS can use more than 4 GB RAM if your kernel has PAE enabled. Not sure how Windows does it, but in *nix you can compile a kernel with PAE.
And how the hell it matters if your game gives 51 fps or 53 fps, geez.
 
vamsi_krishna

vamsi_krishna

Human Spambot
Liverpool_fan said:
^ You are still WRONG. Windows 7 64 bit runs perfectly in less than 4 GB RAM. Without ANY problem or being limited in any manner as you suggest.
And a 32bit OS can use more than 4 GB RAM if your kernel has PAE enabled. Not sure how Windows does it, but in *nix you can compile a kernel with PAE.
And how the hell it matters if your game gives 51 fps or 53 fps, geez.
Click to expand...

How can I tell you that It is not about running windows perfectly.. it is about running games that we are talking about.

Saw that GTA 4 benchmarks? If you have observed it carefully, you will know how much performance gain is there for 6GB RAM. and if you can't figure out that for yourself..

Read this page

I'm telling again, it is not the operating system's performance, we are talking about. We are talking about how well the games can run in that operating system.

And yea.. 3FPS is a small thing. And I wasn't trying to tell that It runs slow. But I was only trying to make a point that there is LAG(Even a minute)

Fact is you hardly have much idea about what have you said above. Whether it is correct or incorrect, it is a different story.
Click to expand...

If it was about FancyPants, then yes, I don't have much idea about the term. If it is about "64bit operating systems" then, Mr.Admin.. I very much do than you ever had. I would like to say that the only 64bit operating system we were talking about here is windows 7. We are not talking about XP 64bit, ubuntu 64bit. And Nitpicking game, eh?


Windows NT 4.0 ran on even 16 MB RAM and it was 64bit.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out our Very own PS2, which had a 64Bit processor and 32MB ram. Which kicked ass for many years. The only thing we are talking about here is Windows 7. So, save your efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom