I wrote this over on my neowin blog:
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=8&showentry=2280
Bottom line: Given the choice between an SSD or running 64-bit with 8 gigs of RAM, get the extra RAM.
Previous posts by you and others have convinced me that my next computer will run 64-bit. I'm just holding out for either Windows 7 to be released or if I find a good deal before that happens.
In the mean time I'm thinking of taking my XP 32-bit system from 2 to 3GB of ram.
I'm on Vista X64 now, but with 2 gigs of ram there's no noticable diff. really.
Hoping to add some soon.
Adobe needs to get off their ass and get Flash working for 64 bit.
Also, one annoyance for PS users is PSD and .tga thumbnail views are not available in explorer on x64.
On a positive note, I'm pleased to note that, at least so far, WB and SKS 6 are faring very well on it.
agreed..very annoying
well... SSD is still mostly hype IMHO, and AFAIK those 15k SAS drives aren't optimized for desktop/workstation applications (they're optimized for servers). so that much isn't surprising to me in the least. i'd also imagine the 'faster' feel of 64-bit has a lot to do with Vista caching files as you use them.
but as far as 64-bit computing goes, one thing i've been really interested in trying out is a RAM disk (..."what's a loading screen?"). 16GB of DDR2 is a possibility on P45-based motherboards (some motherboard manufacuters claim to support 16GB on other chipsets as well). all things considered, 4GB sticks of 800MHz DDR2 are pretty cheap for the volume, and i think i'd take a 12GB RAM disk over faster RAM speed, myself. it'd be a more preferable option for computers that stay running most of the time, but i think it'd be fun to play with no matter what. with a good ghosting/imaging/backup utility and a reasonably fast HDD (or RAID array), restarting the OS and restoring the RAM disk might not even be that great an inconvenience.
I'm waiting until it's closer to Windows 7, and when I do an upgrade I'm going with 64-bit now.
I recently got Vista Home Premium x64 and currently run it with 6 gigs of DDR2 800 RAM and an AMD Athlon 64x2 6400 @ 3.4, and find it to be faster and smoother running than 32 bit... certainly quicker at boot and shutdown. So far, the only things I've found that don't run/install on it are my 'Genius' webcam and Adobe Flash Player, other than that, everything else seems to run just fine.
I do have another matched pair of 2 gig sticks to swap in for the remaining 1 gig sticks, but I figured that I might wait to install those and open up the box just the once when my faulty 500 gig HBB is replaced.
As for Windows 7, I wouldn't bother with 32 bit and just go straight to x64... something I now wish I had done when I upgraded to Vista.
I 64-Bit with 8gigs of ram.
Agreed 100% with everyone above. The difference between 2 gb and 4 gb on Vista is profound.
I love my 8gb and 16gb 64 bit machines!
I think I'll put it off till windows 7 comes out and get my desktop on that (mebbe grab an i7 or 1GB video card too), I've got a perfectly good laptop for normal people things, so I won't even know if my peripherals don't work with it.
i used to be normal too
Weren't we all.... then we discovered desktop customisation (to replace the Fisher Price look of XP) and this wacky place known as Wincustomize. After that ( and reading numerous pages containing Zubish) one was never to be normal ever again.
On a more serious note, I noticed that my CPU (AMD Athlon 64x2 6400 @.3.4) runs higher on Vista 64 bit than it did on 32 bit, and I'm wondering why that would be. Whereas 32bit would idle around 1% - 2% and peak around %50% - 70% during heavy usage, x64 idles at around 13% and can peak into the 80's and 90's....
The main culprits seem to be: WinExplorer.exe; svcHost; WsxService and Workshelf, though these did not regularly peak highly in 32bit. I am using the AMD Dual Core Optimizer software to improve CPU performance, but I don't think it's that becuse the CPU was running higher prior to its installation.
Ideas anyone... is there a setting/tweak I need to do to regulate CPU usage in x64?
TIA for any useful information/help.
Starkers, I have found the same thing on my quad core Vista 64 box, but I have everything from Dreams running in the background to 8 custom coded slideshow sidebar gadgets running (I tweaked the MS javascript to allow me to have larger, borderless pictures, hehe), so I'm not the best test case for CPU use.
Have you tried SP2 beta yet? I've seen dramatic improvements on test Vista 32 machines with SP2. I'm working directly with MS on getting it to work on my Vista 64 box (there seems to be a driver problem at stage 3 install) so I can't give you an apples to apples on that...yet.
If it's just an annoyance and not a problem, I'd wait until SP2 is officially released. Or if you aren't a bleeding edge beta testing madman like I am.
Mine seems to run high with not a lot going on... as in idling at around 13% - 15% with just background services and the Task Manager open.
No, I didn't know SP2 was available for testing as yet... but like you suggest, it's probably better to wait for the official release if the issue is more of an annoyance. I was just concerned about wear and tear on my CPU if it were to keep peaking so high, so yeah, I'd like it to be running a bit lower.
Nah, not me.... I like playing with new toys, but I'd rather other people tested them and broke stuff before I come along and manage to break it some more. Actually, I got in on the first public beta of Vista and found it pretty good, so I well imagine trying out the Windows 7 beta when it becomes publicly available.
Yeah, you're definitely starkers.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Hehe, that's alright... I'll have your address within the hour. Maybe you can expect a stark raving lunatic photo in the mail to confirm your suspicions. Now that oughta scare the bejesus out of ya.
Seriously though, I liked Vista 32 bit and never had any real issues with it... it's only this annoyance with 64 bit, but it's no worse than than the many annoyances I experienced with XP. If anything, I find Vista more stable than XP, in several ways, so I'm not complaining, tho an answer to this CPU thing would be nice.
I'da rather have Vista 64 with 2 64Gig SSD's in RAID. And not just any SSD mind you but Memowrite SSD's, they're pretty much the fastest you can get right now. And that would be just for the system drive.
My Ideal setup
2 64GB Memowrite SSD in RAID config for system.
2 Western digital Velociraptors in RAID (300GB each) for games.
2 Western Digital 1TB Greenpower drives in RAID for storage.
Yeah I know it's an expensive setup, but if money were not object, that's what I would do.
I upgraded to 8gb of RAM a few weeks ago, and wow has there been a huge difference. I hardly ever hear my drive thrashing (aside from moving around large files or defragging), I haven't had that typical stuttering in games when loading in a new area because it's not having to go to the disk cache for data.
This was an upgrade from 2GB. Night and day difference.
Hey Starkers, will you check something on your Vista 64 box? It should not break anything, but I'd be interested in seeing if this fixes the "problem" you are experiencing.
Go to Control Panel/System/Advanced System Settings/Settings/Data Execution Prevention
At the bottom of that panel it should say "Your computer's processor supports hardware DEP."
Vista 64 automatically turns the OS/SOFTWARE DEP algorithms on - and this is in addition to the built in DEP that comes in the hardware of any modern 64 bit CPU. So on a hunch I turned the software setting (at the top of this panel) from the 64 bit OS default "Turn on DEP for all programs..." to "Turn on DEP for essential Windows..." (which is the default for Vista and XP for all 32 bit versions of Windows). Then reboot.
This is not supposed to have an effect on performance, but I just noticed my system's back to the 2-5% range and this is the only change I've made (was doing some bios tweaks).
Let us know what you find out when you get the chance.
:}
Yeah, went in there but the setting was already set for "turn on DEP for essential Windows... DEP for programs was unticked.
*Got a strorm rolling in so I'd best shutdown and unplug my modem/everything PC.*
RAM is king! But 64bit is needed to access it.
OK, the storm has passed and I can elaborate some.
Although the programs DEP was unticked, I ticked it and rebooted... no difference to CPU usage, so I then reticked DEP for Windows, but before I rebooted, I noticed my page file swap was below the reccomended to upped it to the suggested 9211mb and then rebooted, resulting in lower CPU usage... back down to between 2% - 5% on idle. The program that now seems to have it peaking most is CursotFX Plus, sending it up to 9% - 13%... but I can live with that, as opposed to the much higher peaks of before.
One thing I read a while back somewhere was that moving the page file swap on to another drive and providing the path was one way of improving the performance of the OS drive, memory and etc, but I can not see where to do that in the Advanced System Settings, so a tip/heads up on that one would be appreciated.
Genearally, I am very happy that I made the switch to x64 on my main rig, and while the Start Menu All Programs folder hang can be a bit of an inconvenience at times, clicking the 'back' button/closing and reopening the start menu are workarounds that work for me without too much trouble/delay. Besides, my most regularly used apps have shortcut in Workshelf, ObjectDock Plus and of the front panel of the Start Menu, so it's no biggie 'til a fix is found.
I also read that Vista Service Pack 2 will include support for new and old hardware that previously was not compatible with Vista, and in particular x64. That's good news for those considering Vista 64 bit, and with all but the drivers not loading for my new webcam, all my software works seamlessly in x64, so Vista 64 bit has come a long way since x64 in XP and is well worth a try for the additional RAM and system power it utilizes.
*Sorry if I hijacked your thread a little, Brad, but it was all related to Vista x64 and felt it may be useful to those considering the change *
Interesting, so maybe just an oddity on my end.
To change the page file, go to the same control panel as DEP but select the Advanced Tab.
So go to Control Panel/System/Advanced System Settings/Settings/Advanced
There is a settings for Virtual Memory button at the bottom.
You will need to set the new paging file on another drive, then set no paging file to your original. Note that if there is no paging file on the root OS drive, you can't get certain memory/information dumps in the event of a Bluescreen. I find that a non issue these days with Vista, but it bears noting.
With this much RAM, I'm not sure how much paging file we're ever hitting, but yes, it's definitely a good idea to switch the page file to your fastest, least used drive (daily use speaking).
Good luck!
I honestly haven't noticed a difference, I'm mostly just running x64 on principle, I bought a computer with a 64 bit processor damnit, I want to use it. One thing I've been wondering though, I don't know much about programming, but my understanding is that if a program is in 64 bit code, only the .exe and .dll files need to be specifically 64 bit, and that any of the supporting data files that it uses can still be 32 bit. I mention this because of an issue i've been having and a thread I saw on this, that with dual core processors only one core is being used, it occured to me that the same is true for the other 32 bits of the FSB. So, would it be possible to adapt Sins to have a x64 version?
Excalipus
Well that was then and this is now... my CPU is back to running between 15% - 25% and peaking into the 70% -80% region again, with the chief culprit being Explorer.exe... so I don't think increasing the page file size influenced anything there. The DEP settings were as I left them, on just Windows, so I set it to programs and rebooted, then changed it back and rebooted... there was little or no difference either way.
I fiddled around with TweakVista and see if perhaps I could cut back on a few more non-essential processes/services, but it does not seem to have helped much... hmmmm??????
There's a setting in Vista to enable dual core usage... in 'run' type 'msconfig' to bring up 'System Cofiguration> click on 'Boot' tab> Advanced Options... in the 'Boot Advanced Options window you will see 'number of processors'> click on drop-down> enable 2 and reboot.
I just meant the game, my system runs on both, I've actually played with processor affinity quite a bit to squeese a tinsy bit more speed out of programs that refuse to use both. Thanks for the tip, though, I belive what your refering to allows one to limit resources available systemically, by default all the settings are deactivated allowing full access to all resources, so long as they are actually supported.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
