The games will still be console ports though, so technically the minimum requirements wouldn't rise.
[QUOTE=TheLolrus;36043783]I think he's talking about 16 bit software.[/QUOTE]
You can still run them on x64, you just need something to emulate the 16-Bit stuff that has been removed. DOSBox for example.
[QUOTE=Zoran;36044177]I still use 32-bit. :saddowns:[/QUOTE]
You have no excuse [b]not[/b] to upgrade to 64-bit.
[QUOTE=Zeos;36044161]The game doesn't even look that visually demanding, at all. What could possibly justify 35 GIGS.[/QUOTE]
Every piece of content could justify 35GB storage. The textures could be stored in a higher resolution than average. Sounds could have less compression (faster loading, more accurate reproduction). If any cutscenes are done in FMV they take up space too. Models take up some space, and depending what they have computed for the (AO, various reflection shaders, etc.) all takes up space. Levels too take up a good amount of space.
There are lots of reason a modern game can require that much storage.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;36041989]and then some of the great old games that you want to play don't support 64-bit
and there's no official or fan patches to fix the support[/QUOTE]
Yes, let's hold back the whole of technological advancement just so you can play Grim Fandango.
a lot of people still use x86 operating systems for better compatibility with older software
some games that people still religiously play simply won't work on x64 operating systems
i'm still in the "x86 operating system" camp because of that, and i don't have the money for an x64 version of Windows 7
irrational by an technlogical standpoint, but i still love my old games
i'll probably do an dual-boot once i get an x64 OEM disc
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;36044262]Yes, let's hold back the whole of technological advancement just so you can play Grim Fandango.[/QUOTE]
64 bit is not a huge technological advancement (for the end user) than 32 bit. You can use more memory, applications use a little more memory, thats pretty much the only difference you'll notice. The only reason they're dropping 32 bit support is either because the next frostbite engine will consume enormous amounts of ram, or because they're too lazy to ensure compatibility for a smallish market share
[QUOTE=ConTron123;36044215]You have no excuse [b]not[/b] to upgrade to 64-bit.[/QUOTE]
i got an excuse: can't afford/isn't worth it.
[QUOTE=BigPalooka;36043743]For some older games (For instance, that were made to run for Windows 95) That doesn't work though. That's why I dual-boot with Windows 7 x64 and Windows XP x32, makes things a lot easier.[/QUOTE]
Eh, you'd probably be faster just starting a VM.
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;36043318]My processor is 64 bit but I have a 32 bit OS.
Thank god I'm getting this bitchin' laptop with all the trimmings as a graduation gift.[/QUOTE]
Let me guess, judging from your vocabulary. It's an Acer or HP and you think it's the shit. It has a 5400 RPM drive from 2002 but that "doesn't matter"
[QUOTE=Within;36044443]Let me guess, judging from your vocabulary. It's an Acer or HP and you think it's the shit. It has a 5400 RPM drive from 2002 but that "doesn't matter"[/QUOTE]
haha yeah look at that guy being happy about getting a new pc! what an idiot he is because it is probably not going to be a good pc because we know this by looking at how he writes
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;36043826]I've never even heard of a game that requires more than 3-4gb of RAM, let alone 16gb.
This thing going to be the new Crysis/Metro 2033?[/QUOTE]Didn't realize Metro 2033 was so graphics intensive when I played it?
[QUOTE=Icedshot;36044362]64 bit is not a huge technological advancement (for the end user) than 32 bit.[/QUOTE]
Go compare 3dsmax, AfterEffects, Photoshop, or any other demanding piece of software and the difference between 32 and 64 bit is as clear as day.
[editline]21st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ybbat;36044620]Didn't realize Metro 2033 was so graphics intensive when I played it?[/QUOTE]
You ever tried running it with DX11 and all the bells and whistles enabled? Talk about a system killer.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36044911]Go compare 3dsmax, AfterEffects, Photoshop, or any other demanding piece of software and the difference between 32 and 64 bit is as clear as day.
[editline]21st May 2012[/editline]
You ever tried running it with DX11 and all the bells and whistles enabled? Talk about a system killer.[/QUOTE]
A natively coded dx11 game is actually going to probably perform better than a dx9 one. Was a problem earlier when you essentially had dx9 games ported to dx10. Changing now.
[QUOTE=Ybbat;36044620]Didn't realize Metro 2033 was so graphics intensive when I played it?[/QUOTE]
Metro 2033 is a GPU killer if you max it out. One of the best looking games made.
I won't upgrade until I'm forced to. I like XP, it has the support for my older games while still being able to run most of my newer games too.
Yeah it's not perfect, but neither is the fact that operating systems drop compatibility for older games.
[QUOTE=Icedshot;36044362]64 bit is not a huge technological advancement (for the end user) than 32 bit. You can use more memory, applications use a little more memory, thats pretty much the only difference you'll notice. The only reason they're dropping 32 bit support is either because the next frostbite engine will consume enormous amounts of ram, or because they're too lazy to ensure compatibility for a smallish market share[/QUOTE]
I don't see why you would ensure compatibility for a smallish market share.
It's dumb to not be using more then 2Gigs of RAM. Especially when [B]Videocards start to have more VRAM[/B] then RAM for an application.
[QUOTE=Fofilolipop;36044363]i got an excuse: can't afford/isn't worth it.[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding? Most Windows 7 boxes got 32 and 64-bit disks, and any x86 CPU made in the last 8 years has 64-bit support.
[QUOTE=kukiric;36045113]Are you kidding? Most Windows 7 boxes got 32 and 64-bit disks, and any x86 CPU made in the last 8 years has 64-bit support.[/QUOTE]
I have a really old computer.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36044410]Eh, you'd probably be faster just starting a VM.[/QUOTE]
I tried that, a lot of the games lagged, and some of the 3D ones were almost unplayable because the Meshes would start spazzing out across the screen. To me atleast, it's a lot more stable to have the actual OS running it so Dual Boot was the easiest solution
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36044911]Go compare 3dsmax, AfterEffects, Photoshop, or any other demanding piece of software and the difference between 32 and 64 bit is as clear as day.[/QUOTE]
For extremely memory demanding applications - of course it will make a difference. Most (not all, but most) games on PC don't use up as much memory as a professional image editing suite, and certainly not more than the 4 gb that requires addresses longer than 32 bits.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;36041886]I don't see how 64bit has anything to do with things having to take up more RAM. 16G of RAM is ridicolus by todays standards. Honestly, I do not think that there's a need for more than 4G in pretty much any game. There shouldn't be a need for more than 2, but with the content of todays games, 4 should be about right.
Unless they're doing their memory management really wrong, 4 amounts to enough. 8 and above is only for heavy video and 3D applications, such as renderfarms and rendering video and 3D really fast.
This is silly.[/QUOTE]
64bit processes have more overhead than 32bit. But it's not much. 64bit is just way more open for devs from what I understand, regardless of all dat ram.
[editline]21st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;36041994]I know this, but that's not what I wrote. I don't understand why 64bit applications should TAKE UP more RAM. That doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]
[editline]21st May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Icedshot;36044362]64 bit is not a huge technological advancement (for the end user) than 32 bit. You can use more memory, applications use a little more memory, thats pretty much the only difference you'll notice. The only reason they're dropping 32 bit support is either because the next frostbite engine will consume enormous amounts of ram, or because they're too lazy to ensure compatibility for a smallish market share[/QUOTE]
The difference is that windows has more ram to work with and can cache more data into the ram, meaning applications feel snappier and load from the disk faster.
Also be aware that a 32bit program I believe still has to allocate itself to the GPU vram. If you have a GPU using 1.5gb of its 2gb of vram, that gives you 2.5 or less for the application itself.
Are people still going on about those Max Payne 3 requirements? That list with the 16GB RAM was the [B]maximum supported specs[/B] not the recommended requirements.
[editline]22nd May 2012[/editline]
Also there are few excuses to still be on 32 bit at this point.
[QUOTE=TheLolrus;36043783]I think he's talking about 16 bit software.[/QUOTE]
Oh gosh. Well, I guess you could go with BigPalooka's solution and dual boot with XP x86 or something, I don't know of any 16bit software that I've ever used so I guess it slipped my mind. My apologies.
[QUOTE=garrynohome;36046529]Oh gosh. Well, I guess you could go with BigPalooka's solution and dual boot with XP x86 or something, I don't know of any 16bit software that I've ever used so I guess it slipped my mind. My apologies.[/QUOTE]
Why even dualboot when you can use Virtal PC's?
All our computers are 64bit with windows 7, honestly I've had no compatibility issues with older games everything runs perfectly fine.
[QUOTE=Chaoss86;36042805]I have a 240G, 120G & 60GB cache ssd, and 2 x 1G hard drives, G.....
g[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.seat42f.com/images/stories/tvshows/NCISLosAngeles/S0101/Callen-NCIS.jpg[/img]
Yes?
I have a 64 bit windows 7 disk somewhere around here but I CBA to back up my data for a reformat :v:
[QUOTE=Ybbat;36044620]Didn't realize Metro 2033 was so graphics intensive when I played it?[/QUOTE]
I didn't realize Metro 2033 was so graphics intensive until I got my new desktop recently and BF3 runs better maxed than Metro. :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
