Vista(32bit) versus XP(32bit)

[gabbadude]

Hi,

From all the research I have done, it has been determined that WoW is more CPU intensive than GPU intensive.

If I move to Vista(32bit), would I get better performance or should I rather wait for Windows 7? Another question is, moving to any other 32bit OS, would it make a bigger difference that XP?

Thanks in advance.
G~D

[g00seberry]

I wouldn't bother moving to 32bit Vista and keeping the same hardware. If you have 2GB or less of RAM, then it will probably run worse, if you have more, then get 64bit Vista.

If you don't have a 64bit CPU, then buy a new one rather than spending money on an OS.

[gabbadude]

:) thanks

But if WoW is a 32bit game, how will the 64bit OS help?

[LeeNux]

as far as i know wow supports 64bit by now, shouldn't make any problems at least, but i don't know if it brings any substantial performance difference ... leave to say you should have at least 4gb ram to make it count ^^

edit: look here! (might have to scroll down a bit for further details, but it says since patch 1.8.0 wow fully supports natively)

[g00seberry]

:) thanks

But if WoW is a 32bit game, how will the 64bit OS help?

More RAM pretty much. If you have at least 4GB it'll be completely worth it.

WoW doesn't have a 64bit version yet, but supposedly it has multi-threading support, although through my experience it doesn't really work very well. (I haven't played it for 3 months or so now, so I can't speak for any recent patches).

[gabbadude]

As far as I know, it will run on a 64bit OS but it will run in 32bit compatibility mode which doesn't really help.

[Mach1.9pants]

However a 32bit OS can use a max of about 3.5GB (minus space for your gpu ram etc- I have only 2.6GB of my 4GB available to use by XP) whereas a 64bit OS can use all that you can stick in your mobo. That is why if you are moving from XP there is no reason at all to go 32bit; 64bit vista can run any app that is 32bit in compatability mode with no performance hit, it can run any (of the very few) 64bit apps and it uses every GB of your RAM.

However switching from XP to Vista 32bit or Win7 32bit will see a performance drop in most games. XP is still faster almost every time. If you have 4GB+ of memory you might see a tiny increase in frame rate in 64bit Vista or Win7 but not enough to be worth it.

I dunno what your rig is but spend your money on hardware (new cpu, better cooling and OC it, more RAM if you only have 1GB, a new mobo/cpu, new GPU, hell even a new mouse!) before you update your OS... not worth it for gaming.

[gabbadude]

So the answer then is to stick with XP. It's interesting what you say cause other people I have spoken to say that going vista is the way to go as after SP1, the performance has improved drastically. Also, not only for WoW, using DX10 is better. Is this statement accurate?

[Mach1.9pants]

Not IME:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=3
Conclusion
# On the whole, applying SP1 to Vista makes little difference to most games.
# Seven out of ten of the games tested produced frame rate averages which were lower under Vista than XP SP2.
# However, a closer look at the numbers shows that when Vista is slower than XP SP2, the actual frame rate differences are only in the single digits.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2304031,00.asp
Results very very similar.

IME Vista SP1 = XP SP3 +/- 5% in most games. Not worth an upgrade. Admitedly I have no experience of WoW but AFAIK it doesn't run in DX10 anyway

[gabbadude]

Thanks Mach, :)

Very informative answers there. I do appreciate your time and efforts in helping me decide.

[dopefish]

However a 32bit OS can use a max of about 3.5GB (minus space for your gpu ram etc- I have only 2.6GB of my 4GB available to use by XP) whereas a 64bit OS can use all that you can stick in your mobo. That is why if you are moving from XP there is no reason at all to go 32bit; 64bit vista can run any app that is 32bit in compatability mode with no performance hit, it can run any (of the very few) 64bit apps and it uses every GB of your RAM.

Correction on the RAM.

32-bit and 64-bit will have the memory hole between 3gb and 4gb. The size of available memory in that range depends on the hardware in your system, such as video, audio, etc.

If you have 4gb of memory on a 32-bit OS, you won't have access to the memory in the 3-4gb range.

If you have 4gb of memory on a 64-bit OS, you can have all of the memory in the 3-4gb for use **IF** your motherboard supports the ability to remap the memory hole.

There are plenty of people with 6-8gb of memory on a 64-bit OS that have 1gb less available because their motherboard doesn't support remapping that hole.

So if you are doing a hardware upgrade and are planning on using a 64-bit Windows, make sure the motherboard supports the ability to remap the memory hole beforehand.

The reason this hole exists goes far, far, far back to when 16MB of memory was insane. It's an actual limitation of the x86 architecture, regardless of the OS. 32-bit is an extension on top of the 16-bit processor, and 64-bit is an extension on top of the 32-bit processor. The reason the memory hole exists is because back when we only had systems with 4mb or 16mb of memory, the virtual memory allocation area was placed in the 3-4gb of memory since no one could see in the future that one day we would have that much memory. Remapping the memory hole does not actually get rid of that hole, it simply moves it to the end of the 64-bit range, which is so high that we'll never likely see a motherboard that even supports that much RAM. :)



Now when using 32-bit apps on a 64-bit OS, the apps themselves can never use more than 2GB of memory. There are tricks to raise that limit to 3GB, but it doesn't always work with every application and it can cause problems. 64-bit apps, however, have the ability to use far above the 2GB limit.



The main benefit to using 64-bit OS is that you are future-proofing yourself. You can run 64-bit variants of applications if they exist. If you're a developer, you have access to extra registers. You can use >4GB of memory. And that about sums it up for now.



As for performance difference in games, the difference between XP and Vista is so minimal that it's really not even worth considering. Some games perform better in Vista than in XP, and some games perform better in XP than in Vista. The difference is typically +/- 5 FPS. It's hardly worth crying over. Vista offers a whole lot more than XP, and it looks better.

A lot of people also misunderstand memory usage in Vista. They think by booting and seeing 50% of their memory used that Vista is a hog. The point is is that you aren't using that memory anyway, and if Vista can make better use of it, then let it. If a game or application needs the memory that Vista is using, Vista will free that memory in an instant (memory is fast, think in milliseconds).


Anyway, none of us can make decisions for people wanting to switch. All we can do is provide information and hope they put it to use. What I can suggest is you give a trial of Vista a shot, or give the Windows 7 RC a shot and try it for yourself. See if you can get used to it, if your games run acceptably, and anything else you really need to test to decide if you want to stick with it or not.

Personally, I was reluctant to switch to Vista, especially since Vista Pre-SP1 was impossible to use on my system. However, once SP1 was released, 100% of my problems disappeared. I haven't had a single bluescreen in over a year of using SP1. And recently with SP2 released, I still haven't had any problems. The SP2 upgrade went a lot nicer than any XP SP upgrade. It actually left all of my services and settings the way they were before. With XP, I always had to take screenshots of my services and other settings so I could reset them to the way they were before after the upgrade. With Vista, the only things I had to change were the settings for the new stuff implemented in SP2.

Hopefully this information helps.