[coffeesoft]

Hi.

I'm a bit confused after reading some articles on the web about 32 Bits and 64 Bits OS and the memory usage.

I want to ask if there are benefits for the game using more than 3GB of Memory RAM and of course installing a 64 Bits OS
or the game will not have any improvement.

I suppose for other applications in relation to the game could help but not to the game directly ?

In the future ( when i have money  ) I want to upgrade my computer to play the FSOpen games and i don´t know if I should use more memory than 3GB or is not necessary.

Many thanks.

[The E]

Right now, there are no benefits specific to FSO in running a 64-bit system. Even the most demanding of mods rarely break the 2GB of allocated memory (Not to mention that we do not have a native 64-bit version of the executable on Windows).

That being said, if you're building a new system, using 4 or more GB of RAM as well as a 64-bit OS is strongly recommended.

[Fury]

32-bit Windows application regardless of OS can typically use only 2GB of memory. In the subject of games, hardly any game breaks this barrier and we owe this to (current generation) consoles and their limited memory. Exception to this are 32-bit applications compiled with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE compiler flag. In which case under 32-bit OS the application can use 3GB and under 64-bit OS 4GB.

Again in the subject of games, this will change with next-gen consoles as they have 8GB shared memory and the processor they run on is x86_64. As next-gen consoles have AMD's efficient hUMA, it is difficult to predict how much RAM and how much VRAM will be needed in the future in your typical case of gaming PC where system RAM and GPU VRAM are separate and not shared.

The bottom line however is that there is zero reason not to get 64-bit OS. You don't lose anything except compatibility with legacy 16-bit apps and hardware whose manufacturers do not provide 64-bit drivers.

[coffeesoft]

So if I understand correctly, it would be better to invest in a good processor and a better Video Card to improve the FPS and the features of the engine in game.

Using 3GB of memory should be enough for the game...

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Just remember that you still need memory for the OS and other apps running as well.  If you only have 3gig in the system that is at least 2 of that already used (assuming win7 here don't know the specs for others)

[Fury]

So if I understand correctly, it would be better to invest in a good processor and a better Video Card to improve the FPS and the features of the engine in game.

As opposed to what? There is no real price difference between 32-bit and 64-bit OS. That is unless you plan to use existing 32-bit license and even then it would be strongly recommended to get 64-bit OS.

Using 3GB of memory should be enough for the game...

Yeah sure, if you have 3GB RAM free after you've booted into Windows and used the computer a bit. To make full use out of even 4GB RAM, you need 64-bit OS. You see, even if 32-bit OS does support up to 4GB RAM, whatever memory you have in your video card is subtracted from that. If for example you have 4GB RAM and 1GB VRAM, you effectively have 3GB RAM and 1GB VRAM. This is further reduced by whatever RAM BIOS, device drivers and other peripherals map to function correctly. Only after that we can start thinking about how much different apps running on your computer use memory, like internet browser for example. So there's not all that much left just for a game.

Edit: But if all you're concerned about is running FSO, then you'd probably be fine even with less RAM and 32-bit OS. Heck, people are playing it on machines that have 2GB RAM and integrated Intel or AMD graphics card. That said, it's not completely painless experience.

[AV8R]

Benefits of a 32-bit (x86) OS:

1) Less overhead (memory used by OS)
2) Highly optimized software
3) Better driver support

Benefits of a 64-bit (x64) OS:
1) 192GB of addressable memory ("Home" Edition OS - 16GB)
2) Specialized software that can use large memory spaces
3) Better expandability

In either case, it really comes down to how you use your computer. If you're a "use one program at a time" kind of person, then a 32-bit OS will work just fine - even with 2GB of RAM. But if you like to open multiple programs at one time (and tend to leave them open) and/or work with large programs or files, then a 64-bit OS may be a better fit due to lack of memory constraints - throw 8-16GB onto the MB and away you go.

In my case, since I never deal with GB-sized files and tend to use my computer one program at a time, I use Win7 x86 with 2GB or RAM and everything runs smooth as silk. To handle OpenGL video games with ease (like FSOpen), I splurged and installed an ATI FirePro 3D v4800 video card (1GB of GDDR5) since workstation-class video cards have drivers highly-optimized for OpenGL performance (as opposed to "consumer" class cards which focus on DirectX performance).

Some may ask why I did not install 4GB of RAM in my system and the answer is: it would be a waste of resources/money. 2GB works out better in my case - 2GB of RAM plus 1GB of Virtual Memory plus 1GB of video memory equals 4GB - all of which is useable and addressable by my 32-bit OS with no space wasted. Since a 32-bit OS can only see up to 4GB of memory (including video memory), then having 4GB or RAM plus 1GB of video memory (on my ATI card) would equal 5GB of total memory - 1GB of which is not useable by the OS - so it goes to waste.

Anyway, it's up to you. Other than allowing the use of more memory, a 64-bit OS is not going to get you any more performance - only a faster processor or a dedicated/better video card will get you better FPS in FSOpen.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Benefits of a 32-bit (x86) OS:

1) Less overhead (memory used by OS)
2) Highly optimized software
3) Better driver support

Benefits of a 64-bit (x64) OS:
1) 192GB of addressable memory ("Home" Edition OS - 16GB)
2) Specialized software that can use large memory spaces
3) Better expandability

One quite important issue you're forgetting, though, is that 32-bit is gonna get deprecated in the future. In another 5 years from now, it'll get harder and harder to still find 32-bit compatible programs. This may be something to take into account if you don't plan on upgrading your OS any time soon.

[The E]

Benefits of a 32-bit (x86) OS:

1) Less overhead (memory used by OS)
2) Highly optimized software
3) Better driver support

Fixed that for you. The only point on that list that is relevant is "Better driver support" and that doesn't matter for current consumer-grade hardware (As there are very very little pieces of hardware that absolutely cannot work under x64 Windows).

Less overhead? I dunno, according to process explorer, my current Windows 8 install uses somewhere around 300MB of memory by itself. Not sure if that qualifies as "more overhead" compared to x86 code.

Another benefit to using x64 Operating Systems is that they can use the extra memory to cache all sorts of stuff, improving system responsiveness in the process.

Let me repeat: There is, at this time, no longer any real benefit to using an x86 OS for a normal consumer (Not that you can actually get one if you buy a new PC at this point).

In my case, since I never deal with GB-sized files and tend to use my computer one program at a time, I use Win7 x86 with 2GB or RAM and everything runs smooth as silk. To handle OpenGL video games with ease (like FSOpen), I splurged and installed an ATI FirePro 3D v4800 video card (1GB of GDDR5) since workstation-class video cards have drivers highly-optimized for OpenGL performance (as opposed to "consumer" class cards which focus on DirectX performance).

This isn't true anymore. The only benefit to FirePro cards and their drivers is that AMD certifies them for use with certain professional applications, like 3DS MAX, Maya, AutoCAD and the like. On an API/Performance level, they are no different to consumer cards.

Some may ask why I did not install 4GB of RAM in my system and the answer is: it would be a waste of resources/money. 2GB works out better in my case - 2GB of RAM plus 1GB of Virtual Memory plus 1GB of video memory equals 4GB - all of which is useable and addressable by my 32-bit OS with no space wasted. Since a 32-bit OS can only see up to 4GB of memory (including video memory), then having 4GB or RAM plus 1GB of video memory (on my ATI card) would equal 5GB of total memory - 1GB of which is not useable by the OS - so it goes to waste.

Not really seeing the argument for a 2GB machine here apart from "I spent less money on RAM". If you're doing more than just casual gaming, 4GB or more are a necessity these days, especially when going for games built with the PC in mind (Witcher, Crysis, Dwarf Fortress, that sort of thing). Even if they're only x86 programs themselves, the simple thing that they don't have to share memory space with the OS (which forces paging, which makes computers slow) will make them run better.

[Parias]

The E is absolutely correct. There is very little reason to use a 32-bit OS these days, and the longer you stay with one, the more you'll be knee-capping yourself in the future.

[AV8R]

While I agree with some of your observations, there will still be widespread use of x86 OS's for years into the forseeable future for various reasons (mostly application and hardware compatibility). So while x64 OS's have their benefits, currently its use doesn't fit all consumer's needs, nor do all consumers need a x64 OS. This is a transitionary period, much like back in 1995 when Windows 95 became the first psuedo-32-bit OS. Did everyone immediately format their HD's and throw their Windows 3.11 floppies away and install Windows 95? No. It took years for that to happen and it didn't really come full circle until Windows XP hit the market (a true 32-bit OS). Even then, there were still DOS and 16-bit Windows programs available and in use. The same will happen here. x64 programs will eventually proliferate and force the market (and thus individuals and businesses) to get on the x64 band wagon. It'll just take some time.

The only point on that list that is relevant is "Better driver support" and that doesn't matter for current consumer-grade hardware (As there are very very little pieces of hardware that absolutely cannot work under x64 Windows).

You obviously don't work in IT - if you did you'd know how much of a deal-breaker this is. Yes, hardware currently sold in stores have x64 drivers but there are plenty of people (and companies) with legacy hardware and software that won't work in an x64 environment. And not everyone who buys a new PC with an x64 OS will immediately buy all new software/peripherals to go with it. Why? Because they expect all of their current software/hardware to work on the x64 OS and it won't. I deal with this everyday in my IT job where I do just that - replace old WinXP computers with new ones when they reach 3-5 years old. New PC's coming in have WIndows 7 x64 and we have to step many of them down to x86 since many older programs and peripherals (even a 3 year old HP All-In-One printer, for example) won't work properly on the x64 OS. Why should we have to replace ALL of our hardware just to use an x64 OS? That would be fiscally irresponsible.

Less overhead? I dunno, according to process explorer, my current Windows 8 install uses somewhere around 300MB of memory by itself. Not sure if that qualifies as "more overhead" compared to x86 code.

Check minimum system req's for Windows 7/8. x64 requires double the amount of RAM. Coincidence? Hardly. Sure it can USE more memory space but it also requires more memory space to function at its best. And more RAM means more cost.

Another benefit to using x64 Operating Systems is that they can use the extra memory to cache all sorts of stuff, improving system responsiveness in the process.
Let me repeat: There is, at this time, no longer any real benefit to using an x86 OS for a normal consumer (Not that you can actually get one if you buy a new PC at this point).

32-bit OS's do the same thing with its usable RAM supply. If you're not running CAD or GIS or Adobe Creative Suites with huge data files you're not even scratching the surface of a 4GB RAM supply. So now, add a x64 OS and another 4GB of RAM and use it with the same everyday consumer software (MS Office and such) and where is the benefit? Sure you can open every program in Windows twice along with every other app installed on the PC and you still won't get close to using up all of the 8GB in the x64 system. So why do it? Just because you can? Again, not everyone needs a x64 OS.

And yes there IS a benefit - that benefit is better application and hardware compatibility/support. Maybe you have the money to replace every app and peripheral in your house when you upgrade to an x64 OS, but the rest of us mortals want to be sure all their stuff at home will work with Windows 7/8, and using an x86 OS will increase that chance of success. Ever try to run a DOS or 16-bit app on an x64 OS (without DOSBOX)? Denied. On an x86 platform they work just fine.

This isn't true anymore. The only benefit to FirePro cards and their drivers is that AMD certifies them for use with certain professional applications, like 3DS MAX, Maya, AutoCAD and the like. On an API/Performance level, they are no different to consumer cards.

I disagree. Yes, nVidia and AMD include ultra-optimized drivers for specific programs so those app can perform exceptionally well on their workstation-class video cards. It's a known fact that the OpenGL drivers included with workstation-class video cards are far more optimized/streamlined than the OpenGL drivers included with consumer cards (it's what you're paying the extra $$$ for). What good would it do for a workstation-class card to have app-specific drivers to allow the app to access the hardware directly (negating the need for OS API calls) when the very rendering technology used by those programs (OpenGL) isn't optimized too? It's also a fact that consumer-based cards are specifically optimized for DirectX since nearly all modern games are written and optimized to utilize DirectX calls. Sure some can do OpenGL too, but they typically aren't written to take advantge of all of the OpenGL optimizations/features available - and even if they were they would do so through non-optimized OpenGL drivers included with the consumer-based card. Lose-Lose.

Not really seeing the argument for a 2GB machine here apart from "I spent less money on RAM". If you're doing more than just casual gaming, 4GB or more are a necessity these days, especially when going for games built with the PC in mind (Witcher, Crysis, Dwarf Fortress, that sort of thing). Even if they're only x86 programs themselves, the simple thing that they don't have to share memory space with the OS (which forces paging, which makes computers slow) will make them run better.

No argument, and I did spend less money. My point was this: everyone's situation is different. If a x86 OS fits the bill for me, great. If a x64 OS works for you, all of your software and all of your hardware around your home, then good for you. And since I don't play any of the titles you mentioned, I don't need to have a system that can. FSOpen is the most systemically taxing game I play - and even then with the OS and FSOpen running the system is using less than 500MB of RAM. So, if the PC I'm currently using (x86 OS and all) works for me, then that's what I'll use.

The x86 OS will be around for years to come. If you feel x86 is passe, then use x64. That's your choice and your opinion - and your opinion doesn't make x86 obsolete.

[mjn.mixael]

I will simply point out that the time between Win95 and WinXP is a similar amount of time between Vista and now. (Win95 being the first 32bit hybrid and Vista being the first 64bit hybrid.) So, already there's been more time for 64bit to be assimilated into computer world. Continuing to use or encourage the use of x86 is simply prolonging the inevitable change and making it harder for you (and apparently your customers) long term.

I think the biggest issue is that you are still talking about 64bit as if it's a new thing. When in reality, 64bit has been in homes since 2007. To put that in FSO terms, that's before SCP's webpage had it's first news post... That's during the days of FSO 3.6.9 and probably the MediaVPs 3.6.9Zetas... I personally was running 64bit that year (to no ail of my peripherals or software, I might add). Six years is a loooooong time in computer world and encouraging the use of hardware structure from that long ago going forward is increasingly silly given how the speed of tech advances is still (reference needed) increasing.

EDIT: I find it quite surprising a company didn't make 64bit printer drivers for a 3 year old printer.. but then you did say HP. What printer was this?

[AV8R]

Maybe it's me working in IT and with PCs directly that help me see it, but you obviously don't realize what a huge problem legacy applications and hardware are causing in this transition. There are apps still in use in my organization that are 15 years old and will not go away any time soon. There is also mission-critical hardware interfaces that will only work in an x86 environment. And the reason we can't upgrade these apps or pieces of hardware is either:

1) The vendor went out of business years ago, so there are no longer updates/upgrades/replacements.
2) The vendor is behind the curve and won't create an x64 app or a driver for their hardware. Most simply say they will not support their product in an x64 environment (and if you don't like it, tough).
3) It is cost prohibitive to replace every single piece of software/hardware so it is compatible with the x64 environment.

I wish the transition would occur sooner - it was way easier in the WinXP heyday when everything was x86 (yes, there was WinXP x64 and Vista x64 but they were niche products for specific use or enthusiasts - they were never intended to be mainstream). It made software/hardware support streamlined and effortless. I waste more time at work now regression testing all sorts of software/hardware issues caused by the x64 environment - sometimes its as simple as a piece of software not liking the fact that it is installed in the "Program Files (x86)" folder when it's expecting to be installed in the "Program Files" folder (the 32-bit Program Files path is hard-coded in the app somewhere). Although I like the x64 environment and use it at work (all of the software and hardware I need works on Win7 x64 just fine) many in my organization are not in the same boat. If I give them a PC with Win7 x64 and the software they need to do their jobs won't work, it's of no use/benefit to them.

So, I well know too that 6 years in the PC world is an eternity, but tell that to the vendors/companies that make products for the Windows OS to get their asses in gear and start developing x64 apps and hardware products with x64 driver support. Microsoft is already way ahead of the game - its these companies that develop specialized task-specific software/hardware solutions that are very much dragging their feet to get an x64 product out of their doors. And why should they? Their product has worked fine since WinXP's rollout in 2002 and they know many companies who would purchase their products still don't want to transition to Win7/8 (let alone x86 to x64). They can just sit back and do nothing and still make money, so why rush to develop a x64 solution now? They'll be like everyone else: when they HAVE to do it, then they will.

The HP product in question was the HP LaserJet 3030/3055 AIO. x64 driver for printing only, no x64 scanner driver. A scanner driver came later for the 3055, but for USB connected devices only. No support at all if either device was connected via LAN - and almost all of ours are connected via LAN. At the time Windows 7 was released these HP devices were only 3 years old.

Really HP? Really?   

[mjn.mixael]

OK, but you are talking about some very niche software. Typically work, or organization specific. Fine, I'll give you that. But this topic is not in any way related to using 15 year old apps. There is next to no reason outside of thsoe very specific cases to use 32bit anymore. This is a case where your "IT Profession" is hindering your common sense.

[AV8R]

Like I said, I agree that everything should move to the x64 environment, eventually. I use it at work and like it. But tell that to the rest of the (corporate) world. The x86 environment is very entrenched with legacy apps that are not going away any time soon. So while individuals and small companies may find the switch to x64 effortless, larger corporations and businesses will continue having "growing pains" due to niche software/hardware specifically designed for the x86 environment that they have no plans of replacing. This will guarantee a slow transition to x64.

The 15 year old software I mentioned was just an example of how much the organization I work for has dragged its feet not upgrading/replacing a product because it still works well in the current x86 environment.

Also, even at this stage in the game, not every vendor out there has an x64 product available. So even if you wanted one for a specific task, you may still not be able to find one. This is especially true for software developers. Why write a native 64-bit app when a 32-bit app still works on an x64 OS? The only downside for them is not being able to use memory addresses over 4GB. Big deal. Only hardware developers are on the hook since a 64-bit drivers will be required and need to be certified to run on the x64 Windows OS.

So, if I personally want to run an x86 OS at home, that's my business. If x86 works for what I need it to do, then that's my choice. How dare you insinuate that doing so in some way makes me common sense deficient? Like the other guy, your opinion doesn't make x86 obsolete either.

And BTW, it's my "IT Profession" that helps me see the reality of the situation: that fully transitioning to x64 is going to be a long, slow process - and I'm not in any hurry. Nor is most of the rest of the planet's population.

[mjn.mixael]

 

I think this all speaks for itself at this point. We shall not disagree with the IT professional.

[Fury]

And BTW, it's my "IT Profession" that helps me see the reality of the situation

O rly?

Just letting you know that you're not the only "professional" to grace these forums. Don't get conceited.

[jr2]

Just dropping by to say that where I work, the control stations for forming plastic resin into either bubble wrap or foam (thin insulating stuff they make in big rolls), they use.....


*drumroll*



Windows 2000


When will they change?  Probably never.  At least until they have a reason to get new control systems.  The workstations are now slowly being switched out with Windows 7.  Might be x86, as they use some pretty old-looking programs for their inventory control.

[The E]

You obviously don't work in IT - if you did you'd know how much of a deal-breaker this is. Yes, hardware currently sold in stores have x64 drivers but there are plenty of people (and companies) with legacy hardware and software that won't work in an x64 environment. And not everyone who buys a new PC with an x64 OS will immediately buy all new software/peripherals to go with it. Why? Because they expect all of their current software/hardware to work on the x64 OS and it won't. I deal with this everyday in my IT job where I do just that - replace old WinXP computers with new ones when they reach 3-5 years old. New PC's coming in have WIndows 7 x64 and we have to step many of them down to x86 since many older programs and peripherals (even a 3 year old HP All-In-One printer, for example) won't work properly on the x64 OS. Why should we have to replace ALL of our hardware just to use an x64 OS? That would be fiscally irresponsible.

I did mention consumer-grade hardware, yes? Not sure why you felt the need to go into the intricacies of business IT (Which I completely agree is a separate field with separate constraints).

Check minimum system req's for Windows 7/8. x64 requires double the amount of RAM. Coincidence? Hardly. Sure it can USE more memory space but it also requires more memory space to function at its best. And more RAM means more cost.

What they post as hardware requirements, and what the OS actually needs to run, are two different things.

32-bit OS's do the same thing with its usable RAM supply. If you're not running CAD or GIS or Adobe Creative Suites with huge data files you're not even scratching the surface of a 4GB RAM supply. So now, add a x64 OS and another 4GB of RAM and use it with the same everyday consumer software (MS Office and such) and where is the benefit? Sure you can open every program in Windows twice along with every other app installed on the PC and you still won't get close to using up all of the 8GB in the x64 system. So why do it? Just because you can? Again, not everyone needs a x64 OS.

Not everyone needs one, that is correct.

Not everyone needs a dual-core processor either. Doesn't mean that there are no benefits to using one.

And yes there IS a benefit - that benefit is better application and hardware compatibility/support. Maybe you have the money to replace every app and peripheral in your house when you upgrade to an x64 OS, but the rest of us mortals want to be sure all their stuff at home will work with Windows 7/8, and using an x86 OS will increase that chance of success. Ever try to run a DOS or 16-bit app on an x64 OS (without DOSBOX)? Denied. On an x86 platform they work just fine.

What you see as a drawback I see as a good thing, but then I'm coming at it from the software developers' perspective (And yes, I am employed in that capacity, working on big .NET applications. We don't care about how many bits your OS has.).

I disagree. Yes, nVidia and AMD include ultra-optimized drivers for specific programs so those app can perform exceptionally well on their workstation-class video cards. It's a known fact that the OpenGL drivers included with workstation-class video cards are far more optimized/streamlined than the OpenGL drivers included with consumer cards (it's what you're paying the extra $$$ for). What good would it do for a workstation-class card to have app-specific drivers to allow the app to access the hardware directly (negating the need for OS API calls) when the very rendering technology used by those programs (OpenGL) isn't optimized too? It's also a fact that consumer-based cards are specifically optimized for DirectX since nearly all modern games are written and optimized to utilize DirectX calls. Sure some can do OpenGL too, but they typically aren't written to take advantge of all of the OpenGL optimizations/features available - and even if they were they would do so through non-optimized OpenGL drivers included with the consumer-based card. Lose-Lose.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Because, I gotta tell ya, from where I'm sitting, I can't see this distinction. The only instance I am aware of where FirePro and consumer GPU performance differed one little bit was in a bug report we got recently where something wasn't working on the FirePro card that worked just fine everywhere else, which is colouring my perception of the issue somewhat.

[Al-Rik]

So if I understand correctly, it would be better to invest in a good processor and a better Video Card to improve the FPS and the features of the engine in game.

Using 3GB of memory should be enough for the game...

Depends on the game. For SCP it't enough. Some modern games like Planetside or ARMA have a small benefit with more than 4GB Ram, but only if you have a Quadcore and a good GFX Card.