which vista 64-bit is best for gaming

hello every1,, I'm curious about which windows vista 64-bit is best fo
gaming

--
nrg

None of the above. Windows 32-bit is the clear choice for gaming.

In any event, given the same "bitness" (32-bit versus 64-bit) there is no
one version of Vista that is any faster than any other or allows programs to
run faster under it in comparison.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/


"nrg" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> hello every1,, I'm curious about which windows vista 64-bit is best for
> gaming?
>
>
> --
> nrg

Hi,

If gaming is all you are interested in, then Vista Home Premium should do it
for you. The alternate choice would be Ultimate, but there's no gaming
reason that would justify the added expense.

Most games cannot use memory addresses above the 4GB mark, so it shouldn't
make any difference whether you use 32 or 64-bit. x64 is only useful when
the programs can access memory addresses in the higher range, and few
programs currently available for the consumer can do this. Also, if any of
the games you use run 16-bit routines, then they will not work under x64 at
all.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"nrg" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> hello every1,, I'm curious about which windows vista 64-bit is best for
> gaming?
>
>
> --
> nrg

While games can't take advantage of more than 4Gb, you have to factor in
that the 4GB includes whatever ram your video cards are using. If you are
serious about your games you will likely have an SLI setup, perhaps with
2x1GB video cards, leaving less than 2GB for the OS to use for system ram,
so your game that cant use more than 4GB ram is now only getting to use 2GB
of ram. If this was a 64bit OS however you could easily have 4GB of system
memory, 2x1GB video cards and the games would still have access to all
system resources. (ie 4gb ram and 2gb video). I should say that I have been
using 64bit for a year now and SP1 made a huge difference to how well it
runs, I have no issues and wouldn't go back to 32bit. I have a Q6600@3Ghz,
8GB ram (this is a workstation as well as my game rig), 512MB 8800GTS and I
have no issues playing most games on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and though I
haven't installed Vista32 or XP to benchmark against I would say that most
new computers are fast enough that any OS overhead isnt going to
significantly affect game play.
HTH

Robert

"Rick Rogers" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hi,
>
> If gaming is all you are interested in, then Vista Home Premium should do
> it for you. The alternate choice would be Ultimate, but there's no gaming
> reason that would justify the added expense.
>
> Most games cannot use memory addresses above the 4GB mark, so it shouldn't
> make any difference whether you use 32 or 64-bit. x64 is only useful when
> the programs can access memory addresses in the higher range, and few
> programs currently available for the consumer can do this. Also, if any of
> the games you use run 16-bit routines, then they will not work under x64
> at all.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "nrg" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> hello every1,, I'm curious about which windows vista 64-bit is best for
>> gaming?
>>
>>
>> --
>> nrg
>

Robert McMillan <> wrote:
>
> While games can't take advantage of more than 4Gb, you have to factor in
> that the 4GB includes whatever ram your video cards are using. If you are
> serious about your games you will likely have an SLI setup, perhaps with
> 2x1GB video cards, leaving less than 2GB for the OS to use for system
> ram, so your game that cant use more than 4GB ram is now only getting
> to use 2GB of ram. If this was a 64bit OS however you could easily have
> 4GB of system memory, 2x1GB video cards and the games would still have
> access to all system resources. (ie 4gb ram and 2gb video). I should
> say that I have been using 64bit for a year now and SP1 made a huge
> difference to how well it runs, I have no issues and wouldn't go back
> to 32bit. I have a Q6600@3Ghz, 8GB ram (this is a workstation as well
> as my game rig), 512MB 8800GTS and I have no issues playing most games
> on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and though I haven't installed Vista32 or XP
> to benchmark against I would say that most new computers are fast
> enough that any OS overhead isnt going to significantly affect game play.



What are you talking about? If you have discrete graphics cards with their
own very fast GDDR3 RAM, why would they be using slower main system RAM?
Unless this is something to do with the way SLI works (I do not play games,
but as a CAD user and consultant, I use high-end workstation cards), I think
you are getting confused with motherboards and laptops with onboard graphics
chips, or cheap graphics cards that use main system memory for increased
texture memory.

ss.

Richard G. Harper <> wrote:

<top-posting macro corrected>

> > hello every1,, I'm curious about which windows vista 64-bit is best for
> > gaming?
> >
>
> None of the above. Windows 32-bit is the clear choice for gaming.


There are already quite a lot of 64-bit games, and there will be many more
in the future, as larger amounts of memory are included in mid-range
computers. Unless the OP wants to play old games which may not run on
64-bit, there is no reason to get 32-bit, while there are increasing reason
to get 64-bit.

ss.

"Synapse Syndrome" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Robert McMillan <> wrote:
>>
>> While games can't take advantage of more than 4Gb, you have to factor in
>> that the 4GB includes whatever ram your video cards are using. If you are
>> serious about your games you will likely have an SLI setup, perhaps with
>> 2x1GB video cards, leaving less than 2GB for the OS to use for system
>> ram, so your game that cant use more than 4GB ram is now only getting
>> to use 2GB of ram. If this was a 64bit OS however you could easily have
>> 4GB of system memory, 2x1GB video cards and the games would still have
>> access to all system resources. (ie 4gb ram and 2gb video). I should
>> say that I have been using 64bit for a year now and SP1 made a huge
>> difference to how well it runs, I have no issues and wouldn't go back
>> to 32bit. I have a Q6600@3Ghz, 8GB ram (this is a workstation as well
>> as my game rig), 512MB 8800GTS and I have no issues playing most games
>> on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and though I haven't installed Vista32 or XP
>> to benchmark against I would say that most new computers are fast
>> enough that any OS overhead isnt going to significantly affect game
>> play.
>
>
>
> What are you talking about? If you have discrete graphics cards with
> their own very fast GDDR3 RAM, why would they be using slower main system
> RAM? Unless this is something to do with the way SLI works (I do not play
> games, but as a CAD user and consultant, I use high-end workstation
> cards), I think you are getting confused with motherboards and laptops
> with onboard graphics chips, or cheap graphics cards that use main system
> memory for increased texture memory.
>
> ss.

The video cards don't use system RAM. There is only 4GB of address
space available with a 32 bit OS. This is virtual address space and has
nothing to do with the amount of physical system RAM installed. The
video card and other hardware also use that address space, with the
remainder being shared by the OS and apps. If your video card has 2GB
of RAM, that 2GB is blocked out, so the OS and apps have what's left,
minus other hardware requirements. So, your apps could be stuck with
less than 2GB. In this case the result would be the same if you have
2GB or 4GB installed.

With a 64 bit OS, the video and hardware addresses are always mapped
above the range of physical RAM, whether it's 4GB, 128GB, or more.
This is enabled by the motherboard BIOS.

Ian D <> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > While games can't take advantage of more than 4Gb, you have to
> > > factor in that the 4GB includes whatever ram your video cards are
> > > using. If you are serious about your games you will likely have
> > > an SLI setup, perhaps with 2x1GB video cards, leaving less than
> > > 2GB for the OS to use for system ram, so your game that cant use
> > > more than 4GB ram is now only getting to use 2GB of ram. If this
> > > was a 64bit OS however you could easily have 4GB of system memory,
> > > 2x1GB video cards and the games would still have access to
> > > all system resources. (ie 4gb ram and 2gb video). I should say
> > > that I have been using 64bit for a year now and SP1 made a huge
> > > difference to how well it runs, I have no issues and wouldn't go
> > > back to 32bit. I have a Q6600@3Ghz, 8GB ram (this is a
> > > workstation as well as my game rig), 512MB 8800GTS and I have no
> > > issues
> > > playing most games on a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and though I haven't
> > > installed Vista32 or XP to benchmark against I would say
> > > that most new computers are fast enough that any OS overhead isnt
> > > going to significantly affect game play.
> >
> >
> >
> > What are you talking about? If you have discrete graphics cards with
> > their own very fast GDDR3 RAM, why would they be using slower main
> > system RAM? Unless this is something to do with the way SLI works (I
> > do not play games, but as a CAD user and consultant, I use high-end
> > workstation cards), I think you are getting confused with
> > motherboards and laptops with onboard graphics chips, or cheap
> > graphics cards that use main system memory for increased texture
> > memory.
>
> The video cards don't use system RAM. There is only 4GB of address
> space available with a 32 bit OS. This is virtual address space and has
> nothing to do with the amount of physical system RAM installed. The
> video card and other hardware also use that address space, with the
> remainder being shared by the OS and apps. If your video card has 2GB
> of RAM, that 2GB is blocked out, so the OS and apps have what's left,
> minus other hardware requirements. So, your apps could be stuck with
> less than 2GB. In this case the result would be the same if you have
> 2GB or 4GB installed.
>
> With a 64 bit OS, the video and hardware addresses are always mapped
> above the range of physical RAM, whether it's 4GB, 128GB, or more.
> This is enabled by the motherboard BIOS.



Oh right, I should have read the post more closely.

Paragraphs make things easier for the reader.

ss.

> The video cards don't use system RAM.

Yes they do. All video cards need a window in the main address space
no matter how much video memory they have on board.

>With a 64 bit OS, the video and hardware addresses are always mapped
>above the range of physical RAM, whether it's 4GB, 128GB, or more.
>This is enabled by the motherboard BIOS.

The only reason they can be mapped above the physical RAM is because
current motherboards are limited to less RAM than the 64-bit address space
of the CPU can reach. When they can be filled with all the RAM the CPU can
physically address (and it WILL happen eventually), this whole problem will
reoccur.

Tom Lake

"Tom Lake" <> wrote in message
news:EB35E3E9-1654-4159-A624-...

>> The video cards don't use system RAM.
>
> Yes they do.


No, they don't.


> All video cards need a window in the main address space


That's correct, but address space is different from RAM. If you have 4GB of
RAM, what the video card use in address space reduces the amount of address
space available for the RAM to map to, so the amount of RAM you can use is
less than 4GB. But if you have 2GB of RAM, the amount of address space the
RAM needs is less and what the video card (or other hardware) uses is
unimportant, and you are able to use your full amount of RAM