Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: 32 vs 64 bit

  1. #1

    Default 32 vs 64 bit

    Would someone please inform us what visual and preformance difference is when going from 32 to 64 bit color?
    Digital Storm, Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Intel i5 4690k (OC 4.5 GHz)
    Dell U2713HM & Dell 2405 PTW, ASRock Z97, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, UT2
    8GB DDR3 SP, NVIDA GeForce GTX 970, Nvidia Inspector, RC4, Opus wx,
    FSX Gold, GEX, UTX, REX (4, Soft, Airports), FS Global 2008, PMDG 737 & J41

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    suburbs of Dallas, TX
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Neither FS9 nor FSX run in 64-bit. They'll run on a 64-bit operating system, but they run in 32-bit mode, just like all other games.
    Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz w/Scythe Ninja B|Gigabyte P35C-DS3R|2x2 GB G.Skill PC6400|eVGA 8800GT SC|Seagate 320GB 7200.10|PC P&C 610 watt psu

  3. #3

    Default

    Even with VISTA 64 bit, FSX does not operated any differently that 32 bit?
    Digital Storm, Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Intel i5 4690k (OC 4.5 GHz)
    Dell U2713HM & Dell 2405 PTW, ASRock Z97, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, UT2
    8GB DDR3 SP, NVIDA GeForce GTX 970, Nvidia Inspector, RC4, Opus wx,
    FSX Gold, GEX, UTX, REX (4, Soft, Airports), FS Global 2008, PMDG 737 & J41

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zachiii View Post
    Even with VISTA 64 bit, FSX does not operated any differently that 32 bit?
    FSX is a 32-bit program that cannot take advantage of a 64-bit operating system's larger overhead and memory handling. It will, for all intents and purposes, work the same way on 64 as it does with 32.

    Some feel that due to a 64-bit operating system architecture's underlying improvements in hard disk and memory access that you will see some minor smoothness improvements.

    My personal experiment with Vista 64 showed me no difference. No perceived smoothness, FPS, or image quality improvements. It was spot-on with Vista 32 and Windows XP. I didn't benchmark it for hard numbers, but they looked and felt the same to me.

    Personally, I'd recommend sticking with 32. I ran into some 3rd party incompatibilities with the 64-bit flavor of Vista. From a technical perspective, if you actually needed 64-bit Vista, you'd already know that by now.


    -Greg

  5. #5

    Unhappy Thanks

    I am getting the picturte FSX is not designed to take advantate of 64-bit or dual and quad core CPUs.

    Our latest FS seems to be in the Stone Age compared to many games.

    I am still in the holding pattern with FS9, and waiting for FS11... Hope I don't run out of fuel.
    Digital Storm, Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Intel i5 4690k (OC 4.5 GHz)
    Dell U2713HM & Dell 2405 PTW, ASRock Z97, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, UT2
    8GB DDR3 SP, NVIDA GeForce GTX 970, Nvidia Inspector, RC4, Opus wx,
    FSX Gold, GEX, UTX, REX (4, Soft, Airports), FS Global 2008, PMDG 737 & J41

  6. #6

    Default

    It is not correct to say FSX takes no advantage of a multi-core processor as it does make some use of more than one core and even more so since SP1. See more here:
    https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?t=161337

    BTW - Your question asked - "what visual and performance difference is when going from 32 to 64 bit color?".

    However, it seems what you were referring to a 32 bit versus a 64 bit operating system. For the sake of correctness and clarity, 32 bit color (or any other bit level of color) refers to the number of bits used to represent each pixel in a digital image and is not tied per se to the number of bits on which an an operating system may be based.

    Maybe it was just me who was left wondering what your question meant and my apologies for pointing this out if it was simply a typo.


    ...Noell

  7. #7

    Smile Thanks, Noell

    I understand FSX software does not take advantage of dual and 4-core technology.

    Yes, there is some benefit with SP1, but not full utilization. I understand 4-core is even less useful, less practical.

    I thought FSX would use 64-bit color from Vista, when upgraded from 32 to 64. But FSX is 32-bit software, period. So Vista upgraded to 64-bit would render nothing to FSX.

    Finally, I think the software programers of FSX gave us something close to ancient architecture when compared to common gaming and especially their use of modern CPUs and video power.

    I'm staying with FS9, waiting for FS11, and looking for a big improvement.

    Noell, your're the man. Straighten me out.
    Digital Storm, Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Intel i5 4690k (OC 4.5 GHz)
    Dell U2713HM & Dell 2405 PTW, ASRock Z97, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, UT2
    8GB DDR3 SP, NVIDA GeForce GTX 970, Nvidia Inspector, RC4, Opus wx,
    FSX Gold, GEX, UTX, REX (4, Soft, Airports), FS Global 2008, PMDG 737 & J41

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    suburbs of Dallas, TX
    Posts
    300

    Default

    [QUOTE=Zachiii;1104342]I understand FSX software does not take advantage of dual and 4-core technology. Yes, there is some benefit with SP1, but not full utilization. I understand 4-core is even less useful, less practical.[QUOTE]

    You understood wrong. Take it from the owner of a quad-core, FSX uses 100% of all four cores, once SP1 has been installed.

    I thought FSX would use 64-bit color from Vista, when upgraded from 32 to 64. But FSX is 32-bit software, period. So Vista upgraded to 64-bit would render nothing to FSX.
    As noell already noted, xx-bit color has absolutely nothing to do with either 32-bit or 64-bit operating systems. As a matter of fact, there will most likely never be anything greater than 32-bit color; it's already more colors than any human eye can differentiate. Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with 32 or 64-bit operating systems. And yes, any game that will run on 32-bit Vista will run on 64-bit Vista.

    Finally, I think the software programers of FSX gave us something close to ancient architecture when compared to common gaming and especially their use of modern CPUs and video power.
    I agree, but they've fixed that with FSX's SP1.
    Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz w/Scythe Ninja B|Gigabyte P35C-DS3R|2x2 GB G.Skill PC6400|eVGA 8800GT SC|Seagate 320GB 7200.10|PC P&C 610 watt psu

  9. #9

    Wink Thanks Myocardia

    "Take it from the owner of a quad-core, FSX uses 100% of all four cores, once SP1 has been installed."

    I'm getting an education. Maybe I should get one of those high tech machines and FSX.
    Digital Storm, Win 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Intel i5 4690k (OC 4.5 GHz)
    Dell U2713HM & Dell 2405 PTW, ASRock Z97, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, UT2
    8GB DDR3 SP, NVIDA GeForce GTX 970, Nvidia Inspector, RC4, Opus wx,
    FSX Gold, GEX, UTX, REX (4, Soft, Airports), FS Global 2008, PMDG 737 & J41

  10. #10

    Default

    Well I agree that all cores get used 100% but not all cores get used 100% for 100% of the time. I don't have quad core but my dual core system most of the time shows one core at 100% and the other at varying degrees of utilization up to 100% due to (I assume) whatever the software is sending to the other core for processing. That's the way I also interpret what Phil Taylor says here:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archiv...ulti-core.aspx

    See the attached screeenie of what my two cores look like during a typical flight.

    ...Noell
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FSX Dual Core Usage.JPG 
Views:	306 
Size:	109.2 KB 
ID:	3150  

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-28-2012, 04:59 PM
  2. 64 bit OS vs. 32 bit OS
    By jring2 in forum FSX
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 02:26 PM
  3. 32 Bit VS 64 Bit OS
    By dutchman2 in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 11:54 AM
  4. Help 64 Bit Vs 32 bit systems
    By Emerycrew in forum PC Hardware, Video And Audio Help
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 08:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •