bombpaw
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 3484 |
|
| |
|
myrkos
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Sep 2010 |
| Total Posts: 8072 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:12 PM |
| >as if roblox will use more than 4 gigs of ram |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LocalChum
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 6906 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:12 PM |
| Because 64-bit technology is too awesome for them (either that or they run the servers on Pentiums..that explains the lag!) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
GigsD4X
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3794 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:13 PM |
| ^ another explanation to the lag is the use of Windows for their servers |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LocalChum
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 6906 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:22 PM |
I've had enough with people thinking that Windows is bad. The only reason your Windows machine lags is because you torture it and clog it up with horrible programs. iTunes is a prime example of this - it has what, FIVE background services? It also has dozens-hundreds of registry keys. I don't know if the registry is cached/stored in memory, but that could waste tons of system resources - yes, we have gigabytes of memory and we all think that we're invincible. It will just take a bit longer for it to slow us down. OEM computers are already clogged with this crap - I have seen tons of registry fragments from uninstalled bloatware by just peeking at the registry with regedit.exe!
So don't say Windows is slow! It's YOUR FAULT! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
SQLi
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1597 |
|
| |
|
coplox
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3252 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:29 PM |
^ I Agree that he agrees with the post above him.
And I agree with the post above him. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:34 PM |
| Yeah, windows is a great OS if you kill all the unused processes/services. My server machine runs only the system, and goes down to about 1% average CPU. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:36 PM |
Deleting the contents of your Temp folder will increase speed by a TON.
I currently have over 100,000 items in Temp. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
SQLi
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 1597 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:40 PM |
Yeah, although Windows is great I still somewhat prefer Blackbuntu.
~ The Scripting Police |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
coplox
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3252 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:41 PM |
| Say this in Command prompt: `diskclean` |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
coplox
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3252 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:41 PM |
| Excuse me, I meant `cleanmgr` |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LocalChum
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 6906 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:47 PM |
Okay, I opened a Command Prompt, said cleanmgr, but nothing happened :(
ucwatididthar |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
GigsD4X
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3794 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:51 PM |
| I reinstalled windows on a computer (XP 32-bit), it was liek S00PER D00PER FAST and I was like yay n.n and then after a couple of hours the updates/service packs finished installing and 6 GB extra were used + it was slower even though I hadn't even started using it o.o Not that slow but it was still slowER. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
GoldenUrg
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6428 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 09:59 PM |
64-bit is generally about 20% slower than 32-bit, because it uses more memory for pointers.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:03 PM |
GoldenUrg,
you're really herping my derps here. There is no such performance regression between 64 and 32 bit operating modes. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
1waffle1
|
  |
| Joined: 16 Oct 2007 |
| Total Posts: 16381 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:08 PM |
| Don't 64 bit systems have 18 exabytes of memory? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:11 PM |
"64-bit is generally about 20% slower than 32-bit, because it uses more memory for pointers."
I fail to see how this is true. Though more memory is used for pointers, 64-bit systems are generally faster than their 32-bit alternatives if they're developed enough (I know older versions of Ubuntu recommended their 32-bit version over 64-bit because the 64-bit version was new, but now it seems they don't prefer one over the other). In terms of software other than the OS, that too seems to run faster for me. I'm on a 64-bit machine, and running the 32-bit version of Autodesk Maya in comparison to the 64-bit version starts to get more noticeably slower at higher poly counts (which I don't really understand since that's dealt with on the graphics end. I guess what the processor does have to handle is enough when you get to high enough poly counts for it to make a difference). Other software has given me similar results when stressing them. If 64-bit was really that slow then there wouldn't be a large market for it and people wouldn't develop for it. The only people that would use it would be those who want more than 3.99GB RAM, and we know that currently isn't true. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
GoldenUrg
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6428 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:20 PM |
You're right that 64-bit machines are generally faster.
We're talking about running 64-bit vs 32-bit applications on the same system.
64-bit pointers are by necessity twice as big as 32-bit pointers. This means it takes more memory. More memory means poorer cache performance and slower execution.
Unless you need the extra memory, 32-bit is better.
64-bit machines and 64-bit operating systems are quite useful (because they allow for more memory), but most applications under them run better in 32-bit. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:32 PM |
"Unless you need the extra memory, 32-bit is better."
Once again, I disagree. I don't utilize the extra memory (I have 4GB RAM) and I'm going to have to say execution is faster with 64-bit applications over their 32-bit counterparts for me. The impact of storing 64-bit pointers as opposed to 32-bit should be minimal, the architecture is likely designed to take that into account and probably has efficient ways of dealing with it to make it not matter. If they didn't do that, 64-bit would be useless to almost everyone seeing as how most people have 4GB or less RAM, but 64-bit OSes are gaining in popularity on those systems, meaning more people will be using 64-bit applications too. Adobe has made several of their programs exclusively 64-bit because they're more efficient that way. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
GigsD4X
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Jun 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3794 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:36 PM |
| So would it be a good idea to use a 64-bit machine/OS when rendering a huge 3D video on Blender or when gaming? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:44 PM |
"64-bit pointers are by necessity twice as big as 32-bit pointers. This means it takes more memory. More memory means poorer cache performance and slower execution."
The average CPU cache is so large now a days that cache misses are becoming less and less relevant, besides, out of order execution has existed for x86 since 1995.
And yes, increased bus size (memory access range) is the only benefit of promoting all of the general registers to 64 bits and, adding 8 general purpose registers (similar size and quantity increase for SIMD registers as well), instruction relative, or position independent code, and god knows how many instructions. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
GoldenUrg
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6428 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:57 PM |
It's always a good idea to use a 64-bit machine and likely a 64-bit OS unless you have less than 2GB of RAM.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
LocalChum
|
  |
| Joined: 04 Mar 2011 |
| Total Posts: 6906 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:58 PM |
| Phew..I kind of thought I was an idiot for a second when I installed a 64-bit OS on a machine that only has 3GB RAM :P |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
GoldenUrg
|
  |
| Joined: 23 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6428 |
|
|
| 04 Nov 2011 10:58 PM |
"The average CPU cache is so large now a days that cache misses are becoming less and less relevant, besides, out of order execution has existed for x86 since 1995."
That's not true. Memory size has increased proportionally cache is still the major factor in performance.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|