SH5 System Req's?

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Come on... we are talking about ubisoft here.

Of course they will use mutiple cores and 64 bit architeture.

If there is any game on the planet that really needs the 64 bits, its sh5.

Its just too many things to process at 4096x tc.

[JU_88]

Games support 64bit now as the norm.
3 years ago getting most games to run on 64bit OS and drivers was a freaking joke! but alots changed since then...
I did not like Vista at all (having to purchase 32 & 64 bit licences seperately, WTF?)

I will by by Windows 7 in a few months and I will still keep partiton for XP (as i will likely need it for some legacy stuff.)

I am certainly not upgrading to quad core just for SHV, talk about 'overkill' - core duo will do just fine.
With games - if you got a cpu that matches the recomended specs on the box, the difference in performace between that and something in the high end is BARELY NOTICABLE.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2....0.1,1401.html

GPU and RAM far more important for gaming, but for high end 3d / video ending its totally different matter.

Originally Posted by JU_88

I have 4GB in my system, but as far as XP is concerned I only have 3! (It can only handle 3GB)

recheck your setup because i also have 4gb ram but xp home sees 3.5 gb on my system and it can handle and does make use of all 3.5gb of it.

if your system is only showing 3gb of 4gb ram then your ram or your system has a problem.

i dont know for sure about that last .5gb but people who sound smart and are supposed to know what they are talking about have told me xp still uses the other .5gb but its just not showing as being recognised.

according to them, while its true that xp can only handle 4gb max, it will only display that it sees 3.5gb of that 4gb so many people mistakenly believe thats all it can use.

none of this is all that important anyway because people will use the operating system they have. i never heard of anyone going buy a new operating system because some game needed it in order to work.

the only time you have to have a vista/win7 OS is if you want to run over 4gb ram and the full use of quad cores is silly because NOBODY will ever use the full ability of dual cores so the notion you need access to all 4 cores output is silly. but just because we dont need or use all the power from a v8 doesnt mean we dont still have to have one when we go buy a new truck.



when it comes to dual core vs quad core cpus: (to use the v8 vs v4 example)

well games barely use half of a dual cores ability now (if that even) so that dual core is like the v4 and is more than any game will ever use so my quad core is like a v8 when games can be run on half the power of a 4 cylinder so my quad will never be touched by the game and its never going to get used fully any time soon or in the next 5 years. quads are great for multitasking and running software apps but for gaming they arent any super duper improvement over dual cores.

i bought a quad myself because it was cheap and fast but the "gaming" aspect isnt why i bought it.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

There's a big difference between WORKING on 64 bit and SUPPORTING 64 bit.

So far the only game I saw running in 64 bit was Crysis.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

recheck your setup because i also have 4gb ram but xp home sees 3.5 gb on my system and it can handle and does make use of all 3.5gb of it.

if your system is only showing 3gb of 4gb ram then your ram or your system has a problem.

i dont know for sure about that last .5gb but people who sound smart and are supposed to know what they are talking about have told me xp still uses the other .5gb but its just not showing as being recognised.

according to them, while its true that xp can only handle 4gb max, it will only display that it sees 3.5gb of that 4gb so many people mistakenly believe thats all it can use.

none of this is all that important anyway because people will use the operating system they have. i never heard of anyone going buy a new operating system because some game needed it in order to work.

the only time you have to have a vista/win7 OS is if you want to run over 4gb ram and the full use of quad cores is silly because NOBODY will ever use the full ability of dual cores so the notion you need access to all 4 cores output is silly. but just because we dont need or use all the power from a v8 doesnt mean we dont still have to have one when we go buy a new truck.



when it comes to dual core vs quad core cpus: (to use the v8 vs v4 example)

well games barely use half of a dual cores ability now (if that even) so that dual core is like the v4 and is more than any game will ever use so my quad core is like a v8 when games can be run on half the power of a 4 cylinder so my quad will never be touched by the game and its never going to get used fully any time soon or in the next 5 years. quads are great for multitasking and running software apps but for gaming they arent any super duper improvement over dual cores.

i bought a quad myself because it was cheap and fast but the "gaming" aspect isnt why i bought it.

Do you have a 512mb video card? if so thats why.
I had the same with my 9800GT now i have a gtx 275 (890mb)
xp shows mr RAM as 3.2GB
As for weather a 32bit OS only reports 4GB max - or will not use more than that, I have heard mixed interpretations of it, though I have come to belive that it is the latter of the two.

[Arclight]

P_T, there are so many inaccuracies on this page it's impossible to correct them all without my head exploding.

For example; 1) running a 32-bit OS doesn't effectively halve your CPU speed. 2) Dispite theoretical support for an astronomical amount of memory, actual support is a lot lower. 3) Win7 is a lot less of a resource hog than Vista, regardless of what version you're running (matter of fact, 64-bit systems need more memory for the same operation).

Imho you're misleading or misinforming a lot of people.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Arclight

P_T, there are so many inaccuracies on this page it's impossible to correct them all without my head exploding.

For example; 1) running a 32-bit OS doesn't effectively halve your CPU speed. 2) Dispite theoretical support for an astronomical amount of memory, actual support is a lot lower. 3) Win7 is a lot less of a resource hog than Vista, regardless of what version you're running (matter of fact, 64-bit systems need more memory for the same operation).

Imho you're misleading or misinforming a lot of people.

What I meant to say is that a 64-bit application running in a 64-bit OS will be twice (or more) faster then a 32-bit application. So far we don't have many applications in 64-bits, but its going to change in 2010. So far, all the 64-bit applications I've tested, perform absurdly faster then the 32-bit version. Take Winrar for instance.

So, what is the actual memory support in 64-bit os?

And yes, 64-bit OS uses more memory to do the same thing. But considering today's memory prices and application needs, which is better? To have 12gb and 64-bit OS, using the double amount of memory for the same application, or having 3.5, or 3.0gb ram, with 32-bit?

I'd dare to say that 2010 holds some very good surprises for 64-bit users.
And its obvious that instead of buying a better processor to be able to run something, its better to invest in 64-bit for the future, since applications will start using this 64-bit plataform better, taking the true performance out of it. Videogames had a HUGE leap in performance once their processor was changed from 32 to 64 bits. But if we don't have applications to take the use of it, how the hell will we be able to see the difference? Once we have every single application we use in 64-bit, people will begin to notice the difference.

SH5 may not take use of 64-bit architeture. But I really hope it does. I'll be pretty upset if they (dev) don't make the game take full advantages of something that EVERYBODY already have in their homes: a 64-bit processor. Of course, it will depend on people having 64-bit OS too. But what's the point in sticking with 32 if 64 will run anything aswell?

[Arclight]

Going from 32 to 64-bit isn't like flipping a magic switch that makes everything twice as fast; it highly depends on the application. Not every operation benefits from a 64-bit architecture. Compiling can see a boost of 500 or 600%, while everyday stuff liking browsing the web sees no benefit at all.

There are speed gains to be had, but saying everything suddenly is twice as fast is just plain wrong.

Actual support depends on the hardware; I'm running a 64-bit system, but the board can't handle more than 16GB (which is the case with most consumer boards).

When I said 64-bit uses more memory, I meant a little bit, not 2x as much.




I agree that it's a bright future though, but a problem I see is the fact a lot of companies supply 32-bit OS with their systems. You only get a 64-bit one if you buy one of their higher end PCs. 32-bit is still "mainstream", which is why I think SH5 will be 32-bit, though it certainly would be nice to see a 64-bit .exe as well (like Crysis).

Not sure it will improve anything though, Crysis actually performs worse when I run it in 64-bit, not to mention the fact it crashes every 5 mins ,while I played through several times without a single crash on 32-bit system.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Crysis 64 performance worse!?!?!

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7

Scroll down the page.

About memory...

"I believe the answer is more fundamental:

64 bit numbers are twice as big as 32 bit numbers and therefore consume double the memory.

each 32 bit reference costs 4 bytes, 64/8 = 8 bytes. An OS maintains a lot of references.

the 64 bit architecture is faster because of the extra core registers and the increased size of the base registers. (registers are the fastest storage in a cpu)

32 bits processors have to do a lot of 64 bit math and they do it inefficiently."

Quoted from a Vista research site.

Although I don't think he's 100% right. It may allocate the double memory for its references and pointers, but that does not mean its going to use all of it. Vista 32 loads up with 700-800 mb ram, while Vista 64 loads up around 1.2gb ram.

[Arclight]

Just telling you my experience with Crysis, was a bit surprised myself. Keep in mind though it's on a Win7 "beta" OS with drivers that were designed for that beta OS.

I noticed they had to come up with a work-around to keep it from locking up; like I said it's terribly unstable for me when running the 64-bit .exe, maybe I'll give that fix a try sometime (if I ever get round to it, way too much to play at the moment ).



Not too sure about the memory thing, but I think just some data types are larger. But I guess it depends on how the OS handles it, I dunno.

Reminds me a bit of allocation size for HD or stripe size on RAID array, wonder if it works the same way.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Don't worry, Im not fighting you... Im having a nice conversation!

Kinda puts a smile on my face when I see you replyed to the topic...

But back to the topic... YOU'RE WRONG AND IM RIGHT!!!

When I had Crysis some time ago, I always used the 64bit executable and never had problems with it... never crashed or locked.

let me offer some links that speak directly to the 32 bit vs 64 bit question:

What’s the difference between 32-bit Windows and 64-bit Windows?

A Closer Look at 32-Bit vs. 64-Bit Windows

How to determine whether a computer is running a 32-bit version or 64-bit version of the Windows operating system

The difference between 64 and 32 bit processors

Differences and Advantages Between 32-bit (x86) VS 64-bit (x64) Windows Vista

As was stated earlier in the thread, the max ram your system will display depends on your hardware configuration so very often we can see a slightly different number on our own computer than on someone elses, see more about it in the link below.

How To Know Your System's Maximum RAM Usage And The Issue Of Windows XP Not Recognizing Full RAM Capacity

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Going from 32 to 64-bit isn't like flipping a magic switch that makes everything twice as fast; it highly depends on the application. Not every operation benefits from a 64-bit architecture. Compiling can see a boost of 500 or 600%, while everyday stuff liking browsing the web sees no benefit at all.

There are speed gains to be had, but saying everything suddenly is twice as fast is just plain wrong.

Actual support depends on the hardware; I'm running a 64-bit system, but the board can't handle more than 16GB (which is the case with most consumer boards).

When I said 64-bit uses more memory, I meant a little bit, not 2x as much.




I agree that it's a bright future though, but a problem I see is the fact a lot of companies supply 32-bit OS with their systems. You only get a 64-bit one if you buy one of their higher end PCs. 32-bit is still "mainstream", which is why I think SH5 will be 32-bit, though it certainly would be nice to see a 64-bit .exe as well (like Crysis).

Not sure it will improve anything though, Crysis actually performs worse when I run it in 64-bit, not to mention the fact it crashes every 5 mins ,while I played through several times without a single crash on 32-bit system.

^^This is spot on (Apart from the bit on Crysis which I have never played)

[Philipp_Thomsen]

lol...

everybody is aiming at thomsen...

[prowler3]

Regarding system specs and SHV.

My new system I consider pretty "hefty":
Windows XP Pro (SP2, 32 bit)
ASUS Rampage Extreme x48
Intel C2Q 9650 3.0ghz
4gb OCZ RAM
BFG GTX260, 896mb
(C:720, S:1480, M:1220, mhz)
SoundMAX X-fi
ASUS VW266H lcd flat panel

And, yet, I still find performance to be "less than I expected" with older sims I use, namely SH3+GWX3 and FS9. FS9 always runs at my FPS "lock" of 40...but AI aircraft textures load slowly, when there is a lot at a busy airport. this causes a "stuttering" effect as the textures come into view (say, as I'm turning into the runway and the main terminal, and all those AI, come into view). SH3+GWX3 causes the exact opposite...no stuttering but a drop in FPS, especially when the lame AI TypeIX is sitting there, not really diving, while the escorts and armed merchants just fire away at it as I approach (or even look in the direction of) the convoy that is "dealing with" the Type IX. I've even had system freezes while viewing this rather silly drama...since resolved by dropping the OC somewhat.

I'm guessing FS9 and SH3 use 2 different graphics engines and this leads to the different "issues" I see. More importantly, I've always been under the impression that newer games would have their graphics and computing "needs" optimized, and be better able to use the computing power of newer systems.

My point is this...after seeing the less than stellar improvements in the older sims I've mentioned with this new machine...I'm a bit worried that something like SHV will be even worse for me? I don't play any newer stuff...I'm a simmer, through and through, and I won't try FSX (Eye-candy over everything else) as it does nothing for my simming. I have no "new" game to compare my performance with.

I'm obviously no 3D or computer guru so I speak in very general terms.

Vic