win XP 64 + BF2

[DrJOnes666]

Hi guys...
Just wondering if anyone here is playing BF2 on Win XP 64, and if you noticed an increase performance (or decrease, or same) in BF2?

When XP 64 came out, I thought I'd wait a long time before considering it even though I had a 64bit CPU because too many drivers were missing. I think most drivers are now available for XP64, so I'm thinking I might consider upgrading my OS. But of course, there is no chance I'll do that if BF2 doesn't work as good as in WinXP.

Also, while we're at it, is it worth going 64 bit if I have a 64bit CPU?
Any good recent reviews on the subject? All ther eviews I found are quite dated now... I'm interested in stability and performance reviews for softwares and games running under Win XP64. Does it really use our 64bit CPU for the best? Or the improvement is marginal?

Thanks!

[AzrealDarkmoon]

From what I have heard very little performance gain from going to 64bit on 32 bit games.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Right, you're not going to see a performance increase, but as long as the game runs (it should) you won't see a decrease either. A 64 bit proc is really only going to help for super high end applications, like CAD or something. I wouldn't buy it for games unless you don't plan on upgrading your CPU for a while.

[DrJOnes666]

My CPU is an AMD 3500+ 64 bit...

Would I see increase in , say, Photoshop and the likes?
Or maybe with regulr windows use, which I suppose would be upgraded to use 64bit?

Or is 64bit simply not ready yet?

[AzrealDarkmoon]

Quite simply very little software is written for 64bit, I think Farcry has a client that is 64bit. You see a lot of server class software now written in 64 bit.

Hopefully in the coming months/years you will see more and more people targetting 64bit.

[P8riot]

Yo Dr!

Lets see.. I use both XP and XP x64. No real performance gain in BF2, there is some improvement in I/O speeds for stuff running in the background tho.

I use it in AutoCAD 2006 as well as Adobe CS and there are many nice reasons for switching to x64 for that. Using the x64 OS, the platform is MUCH more stable when switching directly between, say, BF2 and AutoCAD. If your computer can handle it, you can run Photoshop, Illustrator, AutoCAD, WoW, and BF2 simultaneously and switch comfortably between them all with little hesitation or instability - that is what has impressed me the most.

HOWEVER There are some definate incompatibilities.. With Starforce disk protection for example (used on UbiSoft games among others) that will prevent you from installing games like Splinter Cell:Chaos Theory on an x64 machine - to my knowledge (I haven't checked back in awhile) neither party was going to patch the product for x64. In-fact, I vowed never to buy another UbiSoft product again after how they handled the issue.

[DrJOnes666]

Thanks P8riot for the info.
I use Photoshop CS2 a LOT nad I do multitask between a few softwares when working in graphic design. But if multitasking si essentially where XP64 excels and no real performance gain is noticed when actually using the software (ie. PS SC2), then I really wonder if moving to XP64 is a wize decision for me...

When 64bit came out, it was told to be the Holly Grail of future computing with superb performance boost. Granted softwares need to be optimized to use 64bit cpus, I still wonder why after so long big softwares like Photoshop are not yet optimized to use 64bit CPUS. Wouldn't it be the logical step to take, if indeed the performance gain is as high as they say it would be?

[ScratchMonkey]

I've only used XP64 on my new 64-bit system, so I can't compare apples to apples on the same hardware. Drivers are slowly catching up. There's now a 64-bit Daemon Tools, but I haven't tried it yet, and heard it's missing the "hider" to keep the CD protection from finding it.

Epic just released another 64-bit binary for UT2004. Some report it works better than the 32-bit on the 64-bit OS.

Remember that 64-bit doesn't just mean wider registers. It also means more registers, so you don't juggle temporary values to memory so much.

[P8riot]

Originally Posted by DrJOnes666

When 64bit came out, it was told to be the Holly Grail of future computing with superb performance boost. Granted softwares need to be optimized to use 64bit cpus, I still wonder why after so long big softwares like Photoshop are not yet optimized to use 64bit CPUS. Wouldn't it be the logical step to take, if indeed the performance gain is as high as they say it would be?

Personally - although I don't use x64 on my gaming PC anymore. I DO think it is worth the $. But watchout for compatability issues and just be prepared to make changes. For example I use Rhapsody for music.. But Rhapsody will not work with x64 at this time. ATI doesn't have drivers for it's "Remote Wonder 2" products.. that sorta stuff.

Besides the lack of support from outside of Microsoft - I feel x64 is the most complete OS they've released to-date.. hopefully it is a sign of what is ahead with Vista. Speaking of Vista - I was disappointed to hear they weren't going to include native 32/64-bit support with Vista.. I think it sets back 64-bit development a bit. Eventually 64-bit is going to start to fly but it'll still be awhile. Hardware usually exceeds what is possible in Software - I mean so far we've been talking about 64-bit.. but now there is multi-processor on die.. BF2 won't see an improvement with that either - because it is not written for it.

Bottom line is - if you can put the cash into it, go for it. BUT be prepared to say 'It's not there yet', put it in a drawer, reinstall XP and check back with it in 6 months. If it isn't there for you now.. it will be soon. Thats exactly what I did. x64 is going to be a good, valid OS for a number of years even after Vista is released.

[ScratchMonkey]

XP64 is based on Win2003 Server code, which came after XP.

No Vista 64? That's gonna hurt their sales, given the proliferation of AMD64 chips, and the ready availability of 64-bit Linux.

Of course, the thing that keeps people locked to Windows is preloads, and the AOL'ers buying those won't care.

[AzrealDarkmoon]

I would say Vista64 will come out whenever 64 bit chips come on $300 Dells. 64 bit isn't going to be a big issue until they become more common.

I am personally waiting on dual core Pentium M Apple Powerbooks

Az

[March4Revenge]

I am running XP64 and have not noticed any difference in gaming at all. I have noticed a nice little increase in my apps like 3ds Max tho. Also multitaking between apps is much easier with lil or no lag.

[ScratchMonkey]

You won't see much improvement in any program not specifically compiled for 64 bit. The wider and more-numerous registers aren't available to 32-bit apps. You will see improvement in 32-bit apps that spend most of their time in the kernel, which is 64-bit. That includes graphics programs that spend a lot of time in the video driver. I'd guess that BF2 doesn't spend that much time in the video driver.

A 64-bit binary was just released for UT2004, and users report that they do see improvement in that game.

[P8riot]

[quote=ScratchMonkey]
No Vista 64? That's gonna hurt their sales, given the proliferation of AMD64 chips, and the ready availability of 64-bit Linux.
[quote]

There will be Vista64 they say. Originally the 32-bit and 64-bit versions were to be packaged together to install the proper vesion with the proper CPU. They nixed that.. you'll buy EITHER 32-bit editions or 64-bit editions. At last count I think I saw that Vista was going to ship in 7 different flavors instead of the 2-flavors (home / pro)I think the world was hoping for.

I haven't seen the latest though - so who knows. With everything they are taking out of the new OS.. I am so far underwhelmed by the anticipated 'Vista' release.