Vista 32 vs. Vista 64 shootout – PC Gaming
Welcome to our Vista 32 vs. Vista 64 operating system shootout. It is about time that gamers know if a 64-bit operating system (OS) is necessary or better than 32-bit, or not. This has been examined in the past and two years ago this editor concluded that Vista 32 was still the king for PC gaming. ABT has always attempted to show an upgrade path that gamers would likely choose to get better performance. We know the future is heading toward 64-bit OSes, but what about now? We will look at our usual gaming benchmarks and attempt to show where we stand now. For a fact, we know that even Microsoft is making their next Office 64-bit and that is also the only way to use more than 4GB of RAM practically in your PC. We also know that most games are 32-bit optimized and that 64-bit has been largely ignored up until now as Microsoft has been able to workaround the 2GB RAM limitation for PC games. In the past, only FarCry and Hellgate: London ran noticeably better on a 64-bit OS over a 32 bit one – at least of the more popular games. Sadly, Hellgate: London multiplayer is gone except for in the Far East.
Our readers need to realize that this change to 64-bit is not for gaming, but for having the ability to use more system RAM effectively. We just want to determine that we are not losing anything – as 32-bit applications have to run in a sort of “emulation layer” in the 64-bit version of Vista. From our past experience with Vista64, we are pretty confident that there will be little penalty and we are hoping that some of the games that we test are coded to run faster than 32-bit on Vista 64. We did notice very little difference between using both operating systems. With no one telling you “which one”, I think you would have to guess in most situations with identically configured 4GB system RAM-equipped PCs.
Recently, we tested Q9550S to finally answer the question: “Is a quad core CPU necessary to get the best out of today’s modern PC games, even paired with a powerful video card?” We learned that quad core is indeed very important to frame rates in games that utilize more than 2 cores. We did this last review with Catalyst 9-2 and GeForce 180.08 and you will be able to follow the progress of both sets of vendor’s drivers into this review as we have now updated to Catalyst 9-3 and GeForce 180.20. Of course, we will compare our same drivers, apples-to-apples – for 32-bit Vista, as before – against Vista 64 drivers.
We want to know what effect our choice of operating system has on graphics performance and ultimately how it affects the frame rates of the newer games we play. We are consistently testing at two of the most popular demanding wide-screen resolutions, 1680×1050 and 1920×1200, 4xAA plus 16xAF and with maximum DX10 details whenever it is available and with our Q9550S overclocked to 4.0 GHz. We want to show you how Vista 64-bit gaming compares with 32-bit gaming by using a multi-GPU video card, 4870-X2, and single GPU video cards, 4870-1GB and GTX280.
Test Configuration
Test Configuration – Hardware
*Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S (engineering sample reference 2.83 GHz; overclocked to 4.0 GHz – i.e. 470 FSB).
* ASUS Rampage Formula (Intel X48 chipset, latest BIOS, PCIe 2.0 specification; CrossFire 16x+16x).
* 4 GB DDR2-PC8500 RAM (2×2 GB, dual-channel at PC6400 speeds)
* ATi Radeon 4870-X2 (2GB, reference clocks) byVisionTek
* GTX280 (1 GB, reference clocks) by BFGTech
* ATi Radeon 4870 (1GB, reference clocks) by ASUS
* Onboard SupremeFX-II (ASUS P5e Deluxe motherboard daughter-card)
* 2 – 250 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 hard drives
Test Configuration – Software
* ATi Catalyst 9-3; highest quality mip-mapping set in the driver, Catalyst AI set to “Standard”
* GeForce 182.08; high quality filtering, optimizations off, LOD clamp enabled
* Windows Vista 32-bit SP1; very latest updates
* Windows Vista 64-bit SP1; very latest updates
* DirectX March 2008.
* All games patched to their latest versions.
Test Configuration – Settings
* vsync is off in the control panel and is never set in-game.
* 4xAA enabled in all games and “forced” in Catalyst Control Center for UT3; all in-game settings at “maximum” or “ultra” with 16xAF always applied
* All results show average, minimum and maximum frame rates except as noted.
* Highest quality sound (stereo) used in all games.
* Vista 32 and Vista 64, all DX10 titles were run under DX10 render paths
3DMark06
3DMark06 still remains the number one utility used for a system benchmark. The numbers it produces aren’t indicative of any gameplay in general. We find that it is mostly useful for tracking changes in a single system, which is what we are doing now. There are four “mini-games” that it uses for benchmarking graphics, as well as two CPU tests. The scores are weighed and added together to give an overall number and there is a further breakdown possible with these mini games that we are charting for you.
Here is a scene from one of the four benchmark “mini games” used to benchmark GPU performance. It will give your PC a real workout even though its default resolution is only 1280×1024.
Here are the results of our 3DMark06 benchmark comparison using the benchmark at its default settings:
Here we simply do not see a lot of difference. It could be well within any margin of error. Well, now let’s look at the mini-game frame rates:
Here is the identical situation exemplified in the mini-game’s frame rates. ‘Playing’ the 3DMark06 Mini-games on Vista 32 would edge out play on Vista 64 – but not with any practical difference. So, let’s move on to our second synthetic benchmark, Vantage.
Vantage
Vantage is Futuremark’s latest test. It is really useful for tracking changes in a single system – especially driver changes.
There are two mini-game tests: Jane Nash and Calico. Also, there are two CPU tests but we are still focusing on the graphics performance.
Here is a scene from Vantage’s second mini-game.
Lets go right to the graphs and first check the Basic Tests with the default benchmark scores:
In this synthetic test, Vista 32 scores almost identically to Vista 64. Now let’s look at Vantage’s mini-game frame rates:
Here frame rates switch back and forth. 4870-X2 shows perhaps a driver issue with CrossFire. Let’s move on to real games and real world situations and see what advantage – if any – one operating system has over the other. Still, there is nothing that you would notice actually ‘playing’ these benchmarks as if they were games. Enough of the synthetics, as we move on to PC games!
Call of Juarez
Call of Juarez is one of the very earliest DX10 games that was released as a fast-paced Wild West Epic Adventure Shooter. Techland’s Call of Juarez is loosely based on Spaghetti Westerns that become popular in the early 1970s. Call of Juarez features its Chrome Engine using Shader Model 4 with DirectX 10. Our benchmark isn’t built into Call of Juarez, but is an official stand-alone that runs a simple flyby of a level that is expressly created to showcase its DX10 effects. It offers great repeatability and it is a good stress test for DX10 features in graphics cards, although it is not quite the same as actual gameplay because the game logic and AI are stripped out of this demo. However, it is very useful for comparing video card performance.
Performing Call of Juarez benchmark is easy. You are presented with a simple menu to choose resolution, anti-aliasing, and two choices of shadow quality options. We set the shadow quality on “high” and the shadow map resolution to the maximum, 2048×2048. At the end of the run, the demo presents you with the minimum, maximum, and average frame rate, along with the option to quit or run the benchmark again. We always ran the benchmark at least a second time and recorded that generally higher score.
Call of Juarez DX10 benchmark at 1920×1200:
Call of Juarez DX10 benchmark at 1650×1080:
There is not much variance here and again 4870-X2 may also show an issue with drivers and CrossFire. Frame rates are completely satisfactory with only short dips down into the teens with 4870-X2.
CRYSIS
Now we move on to Crysis, a science fiction first person shooter by Crytek. Crysis is based in a fictional near-future where an ancient alien spacecraft is discovered buried on an island near the coast of Korea. The single-player campaign has you assume the role of USA Delta Force, ‘Nomad’ in the game where he is armed with various futuristic weapons and equipment. Crysis uses DirectX10 for graphics rendering.
A standalone but related game, Crysis Warhead was released last year. CryEngine2 is the game engine used to power Crysis and Warhead and it is an extended version of the CryEngine that powers FarCry. As well as supporting Shader Model 2.0, 3.0, and DirectX10’s 4.0, CryEngine2 is also multi-threaded to take advantage of SMP-aware systems and Crytek has developed their own proprietary physics system, called CryPhysics. However, it is noted that actually playing the game is a bit slower than the demo implies.
GPU Demo, Island
All of our settings are set to ‘maximum’ including 4xAA and we force 16AF in the control panels. Here is Crysis’ Island Demo benchmarks, at 1920×1200 resolution, and then at 1680×1050.
We sense a real disappointment here, perhaps. We see Crysis apparently only optimizes for the 32-bit pathway and we see GTX280 take a nose dive in framerates as we move from Vista 32 to Vista 64. We can only assume that there are driver issues. Let’s look at 1650×1080:
Again, not much except that GTX280 is again slower on the 64-bit pathway. However, the difference is usually by a single frame rate or two. Crysis does not appear to take advantage of 64-bit. However, through much of the game we note that it is quite playable with 4870-X2, even with 4xAA/16xAF, if you are willing to tweak your settings a bit downward.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky
Prologue: S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky naturally became a brand new DX10 benchmark for us when GSC Game World released a prequel story expansion to the original Shadows of Chernobyl, our previous DX9c benchmark. Both games have non-linear storylines which feature role-playing gameplay elements. In both games, the player assumes the identity of a S.T.A.L.K.E.R.; an illegal artifact scavenger in “The Zone” which encompasses roughly 30 square kilometers. It is the location of an alternate reality story surrounding the Chernobyl Power Plant after another (fictitious) explosion.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. & Clear Sky feature “a living breathing world” with highly developed NPC creature AI. S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky uses the X-ray Engine – a DirectX8.1/9/DX10/10.1 Shader model 3.0 & 4.0 graphics engine featuring HDR, parallax and normal mapping, soft shadows, motion blur, weather effects and day-to-night cycles. As with other engines using deferred shading, the original DX9c X-ray Engine does not support anti-aliasing with dynamic lighting enabled. However, the DX10 version does.
We are using the 12 minute, stand-alone “official” benchmark by Clear Sky’s creators. As an expansion to the original game, Clear Sky is top-notch and worthy to be S.T.A.L.K.E.R’s successor with even more awesome DX10 effects which help to create and enhance their game’s incredible atmosphere. Unfortunately, DX10 comes with steep HW requirements and this new game really needs multi-GPU to run at its maximum settings – even below 1650×1080! We picked the most stressful test out of the four that are run by the benchmark. “Sun shafts” approximating a bright sunny morning, brings the heaviest penalty due to its extreme use of shaders to create DX10 and even DX10.1 effects. We ran this benchmark fully maxed out in DX10.0 with “ultra” settings but did not apply edge-detect MSAA which chokes performance even further.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Clear Sky DX10 benchmark “Sun shafts” at 1920×1200:
Here are Clear Sky benchmarks now at 1680×1050.
Another surprise! An engine that takes advantage of multi-core CPU still does not give a big practical advantage with 64-bit over running on the 32-bit pathway! In fact, we only see Vista 64 just occasionally edge out the frame rates on the 32-bit pathway and it even flip-flops with 4870-X2.
PT Boats: Knights of the Sea DX10 benchmark
PT Boats: Knights of the Sea is a stand-alone DX10 benchmark utility released by Akella, last year. It is a benchmark-friendly tech demo of their upcoming simulation-action game. This DX10 benchmark test runs reliably and apparently provides very accurate and repeatable results.
We set the only settings options available to us as follows:
DirectX Version: DirectX 10
Resolution: 1920×1600 and 1680×1050 at 60 Hz
Image Quality: High
Anti aliasing: 4x
PT Boats DX10 benchmark at 1920×1200:
PT Boats DX10 benchmark at 1650×1080:
We see virtually no difference here between Vista 32 and Vista 64. In only one case is there so much as a single frame rate difference! We are really looking forward to this game’s release, later this year.
FarCry 2
FarCry 2 uses the name of the original FarCry but it is not connected to the first game as it brings you a new setting and a new story. Ubisoft created it based on their Dunia Engine. The game setting takes place in an unnamed African country, during an uprising between two rival warring factions. Your mission is to kill “The Jackal”; the Nietzsche-quoting mercenary that arms both sides of the conflict that you are dropped into.
The FarCry 2 game world is loaded in the background and on the fly to create a completely seamless open world. The Dunia game engine provides good visuals that scale well. The FarCry 2 design team actually went to Africa to give added realism to this game. One thing to especially note is FarCry 2’s very realistic fire propagation by their engine that is a far cry from the scripted fire and explosions that we are used to seeing.
FarCry 2 benchmark at 1920×1200 with AI enabled:
FarCry 2 benchmark at 1680×1050 with AI enabled:
Very interesting. Finally our Vista 64-bit pathway shows a distinct and solid advantage over playing on 32-bit! However, in no place do we see where the 32-bit pathway is “slow” compared to running on Vista 64. However, this is the future of gaming in our opinion.
World in Conflict
World In Conflict is set in an alternate history Earth where the Cold War did not end and Russia invaded the USA in 1989 and the remaining Americans decided to strike back. World in Conflict (WiC) is a real-time tactical/strategy video game developed by Massive Entertainment. Although it is generally considered a real-time strategy (RTS) game, World in Conflict includes gameplay typical of real-time tactical (RTT) games. WiC is filled with real vehicles from both the Russian and American military. There are also tactical aids, including calling in massive bombing raids, access to chemical warfare, nuclear weapons, and far more.
Here is yet another amazing and very customizable and detailed DX10 benchmark that is available in-game or as a stand-alone. The particle effects and explosions in World in Conflict are truly spectacular! Every setting is fully maxed out.
First, World in Conflict at 1920×1200:
World in Conflict at 1650×1080:
It is too close to call! It depends on where the frame rate is measured and still there is no clear advantage of either operating system for this game.
X3-Terran Conflict
X3:Terran Conflict (X3:TC) is another beautiful stand-alone benchmark that runs multiple tests and will really strain a lot of video cards. X3:TC is a space trading and combat simulator from Egosoft and is the most recent of their X-series of computer games. X3:TC is a standalone expansion of X3: Reunion, based in the same universe and on the same engine. It complements the story of previous games in the X-Universe and especially continues the events after the end of X3: Reunion.
Compared to Reunion, Terran Conflict features a larger universe, more ships, and of course, new missions. The X-Universe is huge. The Terran faction was added with their own set of technology including powerful ships and stations. Many new weapons systems were developed for the expansion and it has generally received good reviews. It has a rather steep learning curve.
X3:Terran Conflict at 1920×1200:
At 1680×1050:
Again nothing conclusive. There is no reason to be dissatisfied with either operating system although the edge might go to 64-bit.
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is an objective-driven, class-based first person shooter set in the Quake universe. It was developed by id Software and Splash Damage for Windows and published by Activision. Quake Wars pits the combined human armies of the Global Defense Force against the technologically superior Strogg, an alien race who has come to earth to use humans for spare parts and food. It allows you to play a part – probably best as an online multi-player experience – in the desperate battles waged around the world in mankind’s war to survive.
Quake Wars is an OpenGL game based on id’s Doom3 game engine with the addition of their MegaTexture technology. It also supports some of the latest 3D effects seen in today’s games, including soft particles, although it is somewhat dated and less demanding on video cards than many DX10 games. id’s MegaTexture technology is designed to provide very large maps without having to reuse the same textures over and over again. For our benchmark we chose the flyby, Salvage Demo. It is one of the most graphically demanding of all the flybys and it is very repeatable and reliable in its results. It is fairly close to what you will experience in-game. All of our settings are set to ‘maximum’ and we also apply 4xAA/16xAF in game.
Salvage Demo fly-by at 1920×1200:
Now at 1650×1080 resolution:
Here 32-bit runs faster – but no one playing the game would notice any practical difference at all.
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R. – First Encounter Armed Assault – is a DX9c game by Monolith Productions that was originally released in October 2005 by Vivendi Universal Production. Later, there were two expansions with the latest, Perseus Mandate, released in 2007. Although the game engine is aging a bit, it still has some of the most spectacular effects of any game. F.E.A.R. showcases a powerful particle system, complete with sparks and smoke for collisions as well as featuring bullet marks and other effects including “soft shadows”. This is highlighted by the built-in performance test, although it was never updated. This performance test will tell you how F.E.A.R. will run, but both of its expansions are progressively more demanding on your PC graphics and will run slower than the demo. We always run at least 2 sets of tests with all in-game features at ‘maximum’. F.E.A.R. uses the Jupiter Extended Technology engine from Touchdown Entertainment.
We test with the most demanding settings. Fully maxed details with 4xAA/16xAF; soft shadows ‘off’, as they do not play well with AA; first at 1920×1200:
Finally we test at 1650×1080 with 4 AA/16xAF and with Soft shadows again disabled:
We are starting to see a pattern. Some games are definitely faster on Vista 32 – but not so much as to make any practical difference to the player.
Lost Planet DX10 benchmark
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition is a Capcom port of an Xbox 360 game. It takes place on the icy planet of E.D.N. III which is filled with monsters, pirates, big guns, and huge bosses. This frigid world makes a great environment to highlight the benefits of high dynamic range lighting (HDR) as the snow-white environment reflects blinding sunlight, while DX10 particle systems toss snow and ice all around. The game looks great in both DirectX 9 and 10 and there isn’t really much of a difference between the two versions except perhaps shadows. Unfortunately, the DX10 version doesn’t look that much better when you’re actually playing the game and the DX10 version still runs slower than the DX9 version.
We use the in-game performance test from the retail copy of Lost Planet and updated through Steam to the latest version for our runs. This run isn’t completely scripted as the bugs spawn and act a little differently each time you run it. So we ran it many times. Lost Planet’s Snow and Cave demos are run continuously by the performance test and blend into each other.
Here are our benchmark results with the more demanding, Snow. All settings are fully maxed out in-game including 4xAA/16xAF – first at 1920×1200 resolution:
And Now at 1680×1050:
Here Vista 32 is faster than its 64 bit counterpart.
Unreal Tournament 3
Unreal Tournament 3 (UT3) is the fourth game in the Unreal Tournament series. UT3 is a first-person shooter and online multiplayer video game by Epic Games. Unreal Tournament 3 provides a good balance between image quality and performance, rendering complex scenes even on lower-end PCs. Of course, on high-end graphics cards you can really turn up the detail. UT3 is primarily an online multiplayer title offering several game modes and it also includes an offline single-player game with a campaign.
For our tests, we used the very latest game 2.0 patch for Unreal Tournament 3, released with its ‘Titan’ pack. The game doesn’t have a built-in benchmarking tool so we used FRAPS and did a fly-by of a chosen level. Here we note that performance numbers reported are a bit higher than compared to in-game. The map we use is called “Containment” and it is one of the most demanding of the fly-bys. Our tests were run at resolutions of 1920 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050 with UT3’s in-game graphics options set to their maximum values.
One drawback of the way the UT3 engine is designed is that there is no support for anti-aliasing built in so we forced 4xAA in each vendor’s control panel. We record a demo in the game and a set number of frames are saved in a file for playback. When playing back the demo, the game engine then renders the frames as quickly as possible, which is why you will often see it playing it back more quickly than you would actually play the game.
Containment Demo at 1920×1200:
No big difference. And now at 1680×1050:
Vista 32 edges Vista 64 here but makes no practical difference that you would notice.
Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (CoD4) is a first person shooter running on a custom engine. There are nice graphics but the engine is somewhat dated compared to others and it runs well on modern PCs. It is the first CoD installment to take place in a modern setting instead of in World War II. It differs from the previous Call of Duty games by having a more film-like plot that uses intermixed story lines from two perspectives; that of a USMC sargeant and a British SAS Sargeant. There is also a variety of short missions where players control other characters in flashback sequences to advance the story. Call of Duty 4’s move to modern warfare introduced a variety of modern conventional weapons and technologies including plastic explosives.
There are currently 20 multiplayer maps in CoD4. It is very popular and there is a new expansion for it. For multiplayer, it includes five preset classes and introduces the Perks system. Perks are special abilities which allow users to further customize their character to suit their personal style. Our timedemo benchmark was created by ABT’s own Senior Editor and lead reviewer, BFG10K. It is very accurate and totally repeatable.
And now at 1650×1080:
Mixed results. We call a tie here. No one would notice any difference.
Conclusion
It’s disappointing if you expected to see more games that take advantage of 64-bit so as to run faster. However, we did see that there is at least one new game where 64-bit has a definite advantage over 32-bit and we expect devs to optimize for 64-bit more and more as newer games are released. We can see that 64-bit will become much more important for gaming in future – but there is no current need to migrate to a 64-bit operating system just for PC gaming.
We are definitely going to recommend Vista 64 over Vista 32 today if you want the very most out of your PC – for other than PC gaming and will invest in more than 4GB system RAM. We shall continue to use Vista 64 for all of our future testing in this Shootout Series. Our very next article is “Diamond HD 4890-xOC Review, Part 2” and it carries on where “Diamond HD 4890-xOC Preview, Part 1” left off.
As we move on to the HD4890-xOC review, we will also upgrade to the next set of drivers from each vendor: Catalyst 9-3 and GeForce 182.50 so you can see the drivers progress and compare their performance directly from one driver set to the next. We will again update the drivers for the article after that, examining architectural differences between 4890 and 4870 which will also feature CrossFireX – pairing “FrankenFire” 4890 and 4870 against “true” 4890 CrossFire. And we have a new “Big GPU shootout – revisited” – with many more video cards and game benchmarks than the original – in the works for you!
Our “Shoot-out Series” has been a steady progression examining Intel’s Penryn platform and we have been upgrading it as necessary, to maximize our PC’s gaming performance and to chart those improvements for you. Part IV, The Summary, showed this by comparing drivers all the way back to August 2008 when we first began benchmarking, focusing on the progress the vendors have made since then until now.
In our installment of Part III, Big GPU Shootout, PCIe 1.0 vs. PCIe 2.0, we especially focused on the motherboard’s effects on video card performance, using the extremes – P35 PCIe 1.0 vs. X48 PCIe 2.0. We saw how limiting the older motherboard’s PCIe bandwidth can be in certain situations and so we upgraded to X48.
Part II – The Big GPU Shoot-Out – Setting New Benches – demonstrated the need for overclocking our E8600 CPU from its stock 3.33 Ghz to 4.0 Ghz to take full advantage of our new video cards.
Part I, The Big GPU Shootout: Upgrade Now or Wait? we examined the performance of five video cards. We realized that the last generation’s video cards are not sufficient for today’s DX10 maxed-out gaming. We even started by comparing Core 2 Duo E4300 to E8600 at the same 3.33 GHz and found the older CPU rather lacking and continued on for the rest of our series with E8600. With our last review article, we now use Core 2 Quad Q9550S and recommend it highly! We also started to bench with CrossFireX-3 in Part I which ran on fairly immature Catalyst 8-8 drivers at the time and we have continued to chart its progress until now.
Stay tuned. We think we will have some very interesting articles for you to read as you plan your own coming upgrades. Well, we are done with our benches and this part of our “Shootout” Series and we are already working on our next article on 4890-xOC for you. In the meantime, feel free to comment below, ask questions or have a detailed discussion in our ABT forums. We also want to let you know we will again run a brand new promotion with nice prizes and a contest shortly in our forums. Always look for these announcements on the main ABT page and in our forum. We want you eventually to join us and Live in Our World. It is expanding and we think you will like what you progressively discover here.
Mark Poppin
ABT editor
Please join us in our Forums
Follow us on Twitter
For the latest updates from ABT, please join our RSS News Feed
Great information! I can’t wait for your next article