Gaming In 64-Bit: Tom's Tests, Microsoft Weighs In

Page 7 of 13:

Crysis: Testing Native 64-Bit Performance

Yes, we know that this horse is getting long in the tooth. But Crysis still presents a challenge to the fastest systems available. And it is one of the only metrics available with a native 64-bit executable to test against a 32-bit version.

For all intents and purposes, there is very little difference in performance here, save the 32-bit version of the game running a hair faster at 1920x1200. Otherwise, the scores are remarkably close.

We really shouldn’t be surprised here. As Microsoft’s Walbourn mentioned, there weren’t really any specific optimizations made to improve performance in 64-bit. More interesting is the fact that moving from 3 GB of memory to 6 GB makes absolutely no difference in frame rate.

Perhaps RAM has more of an effect on frame rate minimums. Let’s check that out using World in Conflict next.

Current page: Crysis: Testing Native 64-Bit Performance

Prev Page Setting Up An In-Depth Look At Performance Next Page World In Conflict: Adding Frame Rate Minimums

TOPICS

Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.

More about gpus

Nvidia RTX 5050, RTX 5060, and RTX 5060 Ti specs leak — expect 8GB/16GB flavors and higher TGPs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 5070 Founders Edition

Nvidia RTX 50 owners get another Hotfix, with 572.75 addressing crashes and clock speeds

Control Ultimate gets DLSS 3.7 support and new 'Ultra' settings — cuts performance nearly in half

See more latest

146 Comments Comment from the forums

salsoolo

i went 64-bit from last year. i hope that game devs go 64-bit. and every programmer too.

with Windows 7 around the corner, m$ already said that they expect the majority of windows installations will be 64.
Reply
curnel_D

"Given the very known nature of these virtual address space limitations, you’d think that game developers would be taking a more hurried approach to making the transition."

This mainly has to do with resources. Most developers use the same engine they've built or bought for a span of many years. Take bioware, for instance, who used the Auroa engine for 9+ years, knowing that it was limited to single threads and low memory.
To switch to 64-bit, these developers would have to take the time not just to modify their existing engines, but more likely rewrite the entire engine because of the changes involved. Something that some developers just cant afford.
Reply
curnel_D

Oh, and deffinately drop GTA. None of the GTA or games that use the GTA engine have ever been any good on PC, and have never been consistant in indicating graphics performance due to their poorly developed and optimized code. It's a waste of time.
Reply
amdfangirl

I say the benefit of having full access to 8GB of DDR2 is enough to make me switch to 64 bit. Not using a Page File and being able to use native 64 bit programs like those found in CS4, is worth it enough. The advantage of being able to execute native 64 bit instructions is absolutely heavenly powerful speed boost(CS3 vs CS4).
Reply
spearhead

indeed 64-bit is good and you can see that in games and applications which take advantage from it. it might require a bit more ram but then 64-bit can handle more applications running at the same time and execution of those applications seems to be alot faster that is what i can tell from my experience with 64-bit vista
Reply
nathanlh

One of the reasons that x64 games might run slower on 3GB of system memory than their x86 counterpart is that x64 code should be somewhat larger due to the 64 bit addressing itself. If the x86 code is already feeling the squeeze on 3GB, the x64 code will be even more so - resulting in more memory swapping to disk. Also, one of the benefits of x64 code is the use of more general purpose registers which the x64 games tested here might not have made use of.
Reply
Chris - could you check the same thing on AMD platform? AFAIK there are some performance differencies between AMD and Intel @ 64bit
Reply
amdfangirl

^ There were some on Linux with the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4. Gap has really closed tho, I'd say.
Reply
apache_lives

heh we forget the main concepts here with 64-bit:

NO ONE uses a system with nothing bar windows a single game installed - they have a few security apps, torrent apps, messenger, keyboard/mouse apps etc - they all sap up resources, so 64 bit gives all apps all the memory they need - for example 8gb is useless to a 32-bit app, but when you got that hungry game ASWELL as a hungry background app etc they both get the full amount of memory!

Also lessens the "thrashing" effect on HDD's and helps there lifespan etc

As for why there arnt any benifits for 64 bit games etc - there all still native 32-bit because all those morons still think there 2gb and XP is "sufficent and up to date" - move to 64-bit so we can all benifit!
Reply
amdfangirl

^ +1

We should all be 64 bit.

Those who play hardcore games should have at least a x64 proc.

So, devs should make 64bit games simply.

The world will transition in due time.

We just are at the frontier.
Reply