|06-13-2005 02:21 PM|
Hey, thanks for the comments. They are exactly what I am looking for.
Firstly, I do agree with you with synthetic benchmarks. I have seen others using them around the web, so that's why I included them. I didn't expect much of a performance increase, but I stated as such. Some people believe that having a 64-Bit OS improves *everything*, and I am just stating that's not the case.
About FarCry, I do believe I mentioned in there that there wasn't much of a performance increase, because of the 64-Bit advantages. I noticed in some levels, that there is more realistic looking fog, and ground. This is why I figure the FPS is not higher. I do agree with you here.
As it stands right now, I don't see any reason for anyone to go 64-Bit, unless they already have a specific use, or need to buy an OS for a fresh computer. I wouldn't consider the price to be worth an 'upgrade' though. As for Longhorn, I am not sure either. For gamers, I'm sure it will be the WGF 1.0/2.0 that will make them want it, moreso than the 64-Bit support. Even at that time, I would be surprised if there was a good amount of 64-Bit supported software on the market.
Time will tell, I suppose.
|06-13-2005 09:03 AM|
|Jito463||I must say, I really don't agree with your article. True, there may not be "huge" differences right now between 32-bit and 64-bit, some of your information and tests were misleading. For example, you ran 32-bit synthetic benchmarks under x64 through WoW64 (an emulator) and expected an increase in performance? It's one thing to run a 32-bit game or app through WoW64 and test performance, but a synthetic benchmark? Also, the FarCry patch you so quickly denounced added additional content that should have reduced performance. Instead, due to the advantages of x64, the performance hit was negligible. You yourself said so in the article, but you put the spin on it to represent what you wanted to get across. Finally, while x64 is not for everyone (many manufacturers have yet to get on the ball with driver support), to say it's pointless is denying the fact that everything that goes into the x64 version of XP will only make 64-bit Longhorn even better (though I have my doubts about switching to Longhorn still...). Decent article, but too much spin towards your own PoV.|
|06-09-2005 01:18 PM|
Glad you enjoyed the article!
You certainly didn't waste money on your 64-Bit though, as you still get killer performance. If you compared benchmarks from your CPU, to 32-Bit CPU's of the same speed, you would see the performance differences.
Once Longhorn is released, hopefully we will get even more punch from our 64-Bit CPU's, since by that time there *should* be more 64-Bit software available.
Can't wait to see how well the 64-Bit Solitaire works
|06-09-2005 09:59 AM|
|swanny||Fantastic article, very well written and informative. As a rabid game junkie who recently purched a AMD64 3700+ this contained everything I wanted to know aside from the kick in the butt for spending the extra cash for a processor not using its entire potential.|
|06-08-2005 11:03 AM|
Enthusiast Look: Windows XP 32-Bit versus 64-Bit
Since Windows XP Pro 64-Bit was released, there has been a lot of speculation of whether it would help current gaming or anything else in general. I put both versions of the OS through a round of benchmarks to see if the 64-Bit does indeed offer any advantage.
Feel free to view the article here, and then leave comments here.