Windows 7 64-bit adoption rate higher than 32-bit for gamers

It’s well known now that Windows 7 has made a big splash in the operating system market, surpassing all expectations of consumers and even Microsoft.  There is also another interesting surprise, and that is from gamers, according to a Steam hardware survey.

Gamers that are familiar with Steam know that you can take a hardware survey which assists developers to learn gamers latest hardware trends.  Each month Steam posts their statistics on the average specs for gamers, along with detailed information about the most popular hardware and software brands, including operating systems, like Windows 7.

Based on Steam’s January 2010 information, Windows 7 64-bit is used by 19.50% of all Steam users compared to 9.03% for Windows 7 32-bit.  Windows 7 managed to take 28.53% of all users, up +5.47% from last month.  Windows XP is still dominant with 42.78%, down 2.63% from last month.

All other Windows based operating systems including Vista (64-bit/32-bit), Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003 are all down from last month.

The average Steam user is running an Intel chip (69.06%) which has 2 CPU’s (56.93%), using a DirectX10 (48.94%) NVIDIA graphics card (65.01%).  The average user has 2GB of RAM with a primary resolution of 1280 x 1024.

SteamWin764bit

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple: iPad prices could lower

Next Story

Top tech Super Bowl commercials for 2010

95 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

steam is nuts. Why wouldn't release 64 bit platform software?

In 64 bit, we still run 32 bit software for games. I don't know when is the day its going to be released.

64 bit is much better. I don't know why! I have no complaints on gaming!

The only reason I did not switch to 64bit vista early on was that i could not print to onenote using office 2007 and vista 64 bit. now that windows 7 64 bit and office 2010 (with its 64 bit version) work flawlessly together, I gladly made the switch.
honestly, i see no downside for a typical user, (a student) like myself to use win7 x64.

A wise gamer would go for a Windows x64 because a beefy VGA card with 2Gigabytes of RAM would suck 2 GB from your max of 4GB of system memory. Leaving you with a tinywiny 2GB of RAM :).
So, beefy VGA cards will drive you to x64!

PGHammer:
"

Stability and crash resistance, that's what benefit.

The WOW64 (Windows on Windows) thunk layer (which 32-bit Windows apps and games run within) is completely isolated from the rest of the operating system. When a 32-bit application or game in that layer crashes, the absolute WORST that can happen is that subsection goes down; the rest of Windows goes merrily along without a care and is completely unaffected. (That is why BSODs usually are a non-event on x64 Windows; in fact, I haven't had any.)

I have just 3 GB of RAM, and migrated with just two.

"

Not exactly. WOW just translates the API from 32-bit to 64-bit. On x86 and x64, both 32-bit and 64-bit programs are run in their own address space, this is what causes the application's crashes to not affect the system, x64 provides no benefit here.

But something the "no benefit to using x64" people miss is that x64 does have an advantage, in security. x64 is basically immune to rootkits, unlike x86, because of Kernel Patch Protection and Driver Signing Requirements. Malware can't modify the kernel or plug into it as a driver, so rootkit like activity is not really seen on x64 Windows. I would use x64 even with 2GBs of Ram because of this.

J_R_G said,
But something the "no benefit to using x64" people miss is that x64 does have an advantage, in security. x64 is basically immune to rootkits, unlike x86, because of Kernel Patch Protection and Driver Signing Requirements. Malware can't modify the kernel or plug into it as a driver, so rootkit like activity is not really seen on x64 Windows. I would use x64 even with 2GBs of Ram because of this.

+1

Exactly!!!

Edited by neo158, Feb 9 2010, 7:33pm :

ThoriumKnight said,
64-bit windows always takes more disk space than 32 :(

And??????

Hard Disks are cheap these days anyway so that's not really an excuse!!!

Edited by neo158, Feb 9 2010, 7:06pm :

Question : Has anyone else had the issue of x64 Win7 suddenly slowing to a crawl, and the taking ages to boot? Had win 7 x64... crashed on me, then went back to x32.... and now made the change again to x64.... hoping that i don't suffer the same glitch again! Had the same on Vista x64 as well....its really odd! It would happen totally randomly as well. One day boot just fine... and then the next i would have to patiently wait up to an hour for x64 to get me into windows.... and it would be terribly slow, explorer crashing... rather frustrating.
So, got my 8Gb DDR3 1666Mhz ram back at least... just prayin to the x64 powers that be it doesnt bite me again.....

Sulphy said,
Question : Has anyone else had the issue of x64 Win7 suddenly slowing to a crawl, and the taking ages to boot?

I used to get that sort of problem a lot when running the unpatched "Devils Own" version of XP. Is the software pucker?

boho said,

I used to get that sort of problem a lot when running the unpatched "Devils Own" version of XP. Is the software pucker?

Yup, software is 100% legit, i buy both flavours (x32 & x64) of all the OS's that come out... just to get my hands dirty with... and i am a MAPS subscriber... my rig is decent with an XFX 790i Ultra mobo... only different thing i have done this time around, was not to install the NVIDIA NFORCE drivers that have the raid tools & drivers, network management tools & drivers etc... saw on the NVIDIA forums that some people experienced some issues with that lot... only time i play with "patched" OS's is on my testing rig, to see what some people do to the OS, services that are disabled, registry hacks etc... sometimes there are some tweaks that are rather impressive!

Magellanes : you might be like me, checking on a weekly basis for latest BIOS updates etc... as for lowering my RAM to 2GB.... WHYYYYY???? seriously tho... have tried that, even dropped in 2Gb DDR3 1333Mhz to test out a theory.. to no joy!

Thanks for the options tho guys.... will keep testing.. :)

And all we need now is for Adobe to get off there arses and make a 64 bit version of Flash for Windows.

WTF IS GOING ONN!!!!

Unfortunately there is little motivation for them to do so. Because most browser plugins are 32-bit-only 64-bit users are forced to use 32-bit browsers. Even if it was finally made available it would take a long time for people to switch over to 64-bit browsers, especially those who need access to other 32-bit-only plugins. Because of this the potential market share for a 64-bit Flash is rather small--at least initially--and Adobe has obviously declared it to be non-critical. Unlike 64-bit drivers, the lack of a 64-bit browser plugin isn't a deal-breaker for the average user.

Adobe is only just now introducing proper GPU acceleration for Flash, and I'd be surprised if they were any faster with 64-bit support.

Arkose said,
Unfortunately there is little motivation for them to do so. Because most browser plugins are 32-bit-only 64-bit users are forced to use 32-bit browsers. Even if it was finally made available it would take a long time for people to switch over to 64-bit browsers, especially those who need access to other 32-bit-only plugins. Because of this the potential market share for a 64-bit Flash is rather small--at least initially--and Adobe has obviously declared it to be non-critical. Unlike 64-bit drivers, the lack of a 64-bit browser plugin isn't a deal-breaker for the average user.

Adobe is only just now introducing proper GPU acceleration for Flash, and I'd be surprised if they were any faster with 64-bit support.

That's not strictly true, Adobe do have a 64-bit version of Flash, it's just for Linux and not Windows.

Edited by neo158, Feb 9 2010, 2:41pm :

I'm not sure if Steam automatically collects hardware stats without asking you, because I haven't seen a survey form in months.

rm20010 said,
I'm not sure if Steam automatically collects hardware stats without asking you, because I haven't seen a survey form in months.

Steam only collects the information when you get the survey window pop up.

Tried Vista 64bit, had too many issues with some 64bit drivers, specifically ones from iTunes64 for connecting with an iPhone/iPod on a 64bit system, so went back to vista 32bit.

Been running Win7 x64 since beta, then RC, and now the final release, haven't had any issues.

It would be nice to see more games take advantage of this though, I guess the console market is much larger, since it's simpler for the more casual gamers to grasp, so they stay away from the PC gaming side of things most of the time.

Wish i could move my desktop to 7 64bit, but need a new sound card first. Running it on my laptop and its the greatest OS on my laptop. Vista sucked balls.

Un4given said,
Wish i could move my desktop to 7 64bit, but need a new sound card first. Running it on my laptop and its the greatest OS on my laptop. Vista sucked balls.

What soundcard do you have?

Edited by neo158, Feb 9 2010, 5:52pm :

Athlonite said,

probably a Creative SB 5.1

That wouldn't surprise me, Creative screwed consumers over when it came to Vista Drivers and they seem to be doing that again with Windows 7!!!

Went down from 64bit to 32. Dont really see the need to install 64bit yet since everything application is nearly 32bit only.

Soldiers33 said,
Went down from 64bit to 32. Dont really see the need to install 64bit yet since everything application is nearly 32bit only.

Well, it's future-proofing, and there is nothing negative about 32bit apps running on a 64bit OS, it's flawless so far.

Soldiers33 said,
Went down from 64bit to 32. Dont really see the need to install 64bit yet since everything application is nearly 32bit only.
For what benefit?

Kirkburn said,
For what benefit?

Stability and crash resistance, that's what benefit.

The WOW64 (Windows on Windows) thunk layer (which 32-bit Windows apps and games run within) is completely isolated from the rest of the operating system. When a 32-bit application or game in that layer crashes, the absolute WORST that can happen is that subsection goes down; the rest of Windows goes merrily along without a care and is completely unaffected. (That is why BSODs usually are a non-event on x64 Windows; in fact, I haven't had any.)

I have just 3 GB of RAM, and migrated with just two.

Soldiers33 said,
Went down from 64bit to 32. Dont really see the need to install 64bit yet since everything application is nearly 32bit only.

Sounds like instead of having your cake and eating it too, you just want the cake...
32 bit apps run perfectly fine in a 64 bit environment.

PGHammer said,
Stability and crash resistance, that's what benefit.
"For what benefit" was aimed at downgrading, not upgrading :)

Windows 7 is my first 64-bit OS and I've not ran into any application compatibility problems, to me it feels better than 32-bit but that could be a psychological thing. I even convinced a mate with no computer knowledge to upgrade from Vista 32 to Windows 7 64.

Can't afford Windows 7 =( however Vista HP x64 is still fine for me. It's actually a very good operating system once it's all set-up.

bucko said,
Can't afford Windows 7 =( however Vista HP x64 is still fine for me. It's actually a very good operating system once it's all set-up.

As has been stated above, Windows 7 is only Vista warmed over, so you're missing nothing unless you upgraded from XP... but then we all make mistakes from time to time ;-)

boho said,

As has been stated above, Windows 7 is only Vista warmed over, so you're missing nothing unless you upgraded from XP... but then we all make mistakes from time to time ;-)

err no it's not there's quite a bit of difference under the hood between the two unless your just talking about the ui want to know more then browse CH9 for Mark Russinovich's interview on inside windows 7

boho said,

As has been stated above, Windows 7 is only Vista warmed over, so you're missing nothing unless you upgraded from XP... but then we all make mistakes from time to time ;-)

see >> http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-Inside-Windows-7/

Not surprised, as the vast majority of OEM systems from the likes of Dell with Windows 7, are all now 64-bit.

Article makes for a pretty good laugh. These stats represent only Steam[ing pile]'s customers, not "gamers" as a whole and certainly Steam's customers are only a small portion of the gamer's demographic.

True gamers never abandon their roots which is why it will be a long time before 64-bit gamers represent the majority of the entire PC gamers market. Besides, there haven't been any decent game releases in years if you're looking beyond the cookie cutter clone crap (say that three times fast)

C_Guy said,
Article makes for a pretty good laugh. These stats represent only Steam[ing pile]'s customers, not "gamers" as a whole and certainly Steam's customers are only a small portion of the gamer's demographic.

True gamers never abandon their roots which is why it will be a long time before 64-bit gamers represent the majority of the entire PC gamers market. Besides, there haven't been any decent game releases in years if you're looking beyond the cookie cutter clone crap (say that three times fast)

You clearly know the gaming market. Not...

C_Guy said,
Article makes for a pretty good laugh. These stats represent only Steam[ing pile]'s customers, not "gamers" as a whole and certainly Steam's customers are only a small portion of the gamer's demographic.

True gamers never abandon their roots which is why it will be a long time before 64-bit gamers represent the majority of the entire PC gamers market. Besides, there haven't been any decent game releases in years if you're looking beyond the cookie cutter clone crap (say that three times fast)

Wow, so bitter. What on earth caused you to start feeling this way?

Steam is fine. It represents a sizeable portion of committed PC gamers. 64-bit has nothing to do with abandoning your roots. Many decent games have been released in recent years.

Edited by Kirkburn, Feb 8 2010, 9:05pm :

C_Guy said,
Article makes for a pretty good laugh. These stats represent only Steam[ing pile]'s customers, not "gamers" as a whole and certainly Steam's customers are only a small portion of the gamer's demographic.

True gamers never abandon their roots which is why it will be a long time before 64-bit gamers represent the majority of the entire PC gamers market. Besides, there haven't been any decent game releases in years if you're looking beyond the cookie cutter clone crap (say that three times fast)

Sarcasm...Anyone!!!!

Kirkburn said,
Wow, so bitter. What on earth caused you to start feeling this way?

Haha...it's just C_Guy. His comments are always bitter and full of contempt. I'm frankly glad he's back (haven't seen him commenting on much since the site change). Even though I rarely agree with him, he's entertaining to argue w/.

As has been said, the bottom line is lots of people are running more than 3GB of RAM.. and if you wanna do that on desktop PC hardware, you need 64bit. It's a no-brainer really!

Problem is that if games aren't written for x64 then they are still limited to the same 2/3GB address space regardless. (Many games have been hitting this was for several years now - AoC, SC, etc)

Edited by Dashel, Feb 8 2010, 9:31pm :

Dashel said,
Problem is that if games aren't written for x64 then they are still limited to the same 2/3GB address space regardless. (Many games have been hitting this was for several years now - AoC, SC, etc)

while that fact about games may be true, it is important to realize that some of us multitask.

It's the multitasking that requires the overhead over your arbitrary 32bit application memory limit.

For instance, this means my wife can run MCE from my Gamer box to my 360 in the oft chance I play flip flop and game on the PC instead of the console.

Wouldn't be possible without > 3.5GB
(8GB RAM today) whew.

Dashel said,
Problem is that if games aren't written for x64 then they are still limited to the same 2/3GB address space regardless. (Many games have been hitting this was for several years now - AoC, SC, etc)

True, but what people are missing is that the OS handling the API calls and all the things the 32bit Application 'asks' the OS to do are running on a real 64bit kernel that can use the extra registers and RAM and other 64bit CPU features that don't get much attention.

The whole 32bit vs 64bit myths were kind of started by Intel that didn't want AMD's 64bit design to succeed, and in current times are used by Apple to say that only the 64bit address space of RAM is what is important, as they don't want to move OS X to a true 64bit kernel and instead are just doing tricks to let Applications use the 64bit address space.

So if you have applications calling to an OS and the OS is moving in 64bits, it is moving more data faster, the drivers are also moving more data faster as they are native 64bit so things that use a lot of bandwidth and processing like Video drivers get a boost by running in a native 64bit mode, even if the application is only running in the 32bit mode.

One final thing that is significantly important is that on Vista or Win7 x64 version, when running a 32bit application, and the application reads/writes to RAM, the OS, since it is dealing with 64bit address space chunks can take two 32bit application RAM read/writes and process them in one single read/write when possible. (This not only speeds up the RAM access the 32bit applications get, but also saves RAM space as the OS is not handing out and wasting 64bit space chunks for storing a 32bit space chunk.)

I really hate the whole myth movement by Intel and currently still used by Apple to convine their users that 64bit isn't important and ONLY offers more address space because that is all OS X offers even for their 64bit applications because it is running on a 32bit kernel.

(Snow Leopard in 'theory' does have a full 64bit kernel, but it has to be manually enabled with each boot and is dodgy because 64bit OS X drivers are rare from 3rd party hardware. Thus it is disabled, and only enables on an OS X Server if the hardware meets the included 64bit driver list.)

dotf said,

while that fact about games may be true, it is important to realize that some of us multitask.

I thought that's what women did - being able to talk on the phone while ironing. What's it got to do with 64 bit processing! This bullet-in board uses tired, sad old technobabble

Dashel said,
Problem is that if games aren't written for x64 then they are still limited to the same 2/3GB address space regardless. (Many games have been hitting this was for several years now - AoC, SC, etc)

While that is true, I didn't move to x64 almost two years ago for that reason.

I moved to 64-bit in late 2008 for stability (especially while multitasking) reasons.

If you run any operating system these days, you will invariably run multiple applications at the same time (even if they are just micro-apps, such as IM or P2P clients). Now, throw in social networking software (such as Facebook). E-mail software (Outlook, or even Thunderbird). PDF readers (Adobe or even Foxit). General Web browsing (IE, Firefox, or Google Chrome, even sans plug-ins or add-ins). This is *light* multitasking (even though you now have at least twelve applications/processes running, and that doesn't count the processes devoted to the rest of the OS). Also not counted are any security apps (such as Microsoft Security Essentials). As I said - this is *light*.

Given that, why would you not run 64-bit, especially if you run all that above (and then some!) with greater stability, and without making so much as a single hardware or software change other than the OS?

Fantastic news. I am suprised by this though, as you still hear the vast majority of XP users calling themselves "power users". But I'm a happy 64bit 7 gamer.

ccoltmanm said,
as you still hear the vast majority of XP users calling themselves "power users".

I still have no idea what a "power user" is even though I've heard the term bandied about from the days of Windows v3.1, running on MS-DOS and the OS/2 O/S. I suppose it means someone who switches between Wordpad and VisiCalc - perhaps someone can educate me! Power Users WTF!

Yea, I was forced into Vista 64 bit bc my system had 4 gig of ram and 1 gig of video ram. I was formatting it ever 3 or 4 months bc it would just god down.
As soon as Win 7 was released I installed and haven't any issue since. I haven't even had to reformat or even think of reformating yet.

Huffdady said,
Yea, I was forced into Vista 64 bit bc my system had 4 gig of ram and 1 gig of video ram. I was formatting it ever 3 or 4 months bc it would just god down.
As soon as Win 7 was released I installed and haven't any issue since. I haven't even had to reformat or even think of reformating yet.

That makes no sense what-so-ever. If you have 64bit up and running, then it is up and running (Vista or 7). You sound like one of those users that lets whatever crap onto your system. Prediction: you will be formatting and reinstalling Windows 7 next month. And you will probably blame Windows 7. But Windows 7 really isn't the problem, is it?

Edited by Shadrack, Feb 8 2010, 8:23pm :

Shadrack said,
That makes no sense what-so-ever. If you have 64bit up and running, then it is up and running (Vista or 7). You sound like one of those users that lets whatever crap onto your system. Prediction: you will be formatting and reinstalling Windows 7 next month. And you will probably blame Windows 7. But Windows 7 really isn't the problem, is it?

+1, not to mention that Vista and 7 are virtually identical from a core perspective, just some tweaking and services management changes.

vaximily said,

+1, not to mention that Vista and 7 are virtually identical from a core perspective, just some tweaking and services management changes.

Yes and no...

Win7 builds on Vista's core, but there are some significant structural changes in Win7 that could influence system stability on marginal hardware or overclocked hardware.

For example the way hyperthreading is handled and scheduled on i7, Atom, and P4 CPUs. There are many of these type of changes that are fairly significant including low level NT core scheduling and even optimizations of scheduling and locks that were changed for the first time in Win7 from the Original NT code written by Cutler himiself back in 1991/1992.

If this interests you, go look up Win7 Video at MSDN/Channel9 or find the tech papers.

Vista jumped further ahead than many people realize with the new object states and memory prioritization concepts and Win7 advances these as well so that the new models are even more fluid that Vista which was a generation ahead of XP and what you will find used in most other OSes like Linux or OS X.


However, if the user is experience 'failure' problems as described in the original post, there is something significantly wrong with the hardware or an application that is added to the system that should not be there. This can be anything from a slighty unstable system, a slowly dying HD, or even a bad Anti-Virus/Security suite that punches holes int he network and I/O stacks where it has NO business being (i.e. Symantec/McAfee).

thenetavenger said,
Yes and no...

Win7 builds on Vista's core, but there are some significant structural changes in Win7 that could influence system stability on marginal hardware or overclocked hardware.

For example the way hyperthreading is handled and scheduled on i7, Atom, and P4 CPUs. There are many of these type of changes that are fairly significant including low level NT core scheduling and even optimizations of scheduling and locks that were changed for the first time in Win7 from the Original NT code written by Cutler himiself back in 1991/1992.

If this interests you, go look up Win7 Video at MSDN/Channel9 or find the tech papers.

Vista jumped further ahead than many people realize with the new object states and memory prioritization concepts and Win7 advances these as well so that the new models are even more fluid that Vista which was a generation ahead of XP and what you will find used in most other OSes like Linux or OS X.


However, if the user is experience 'failure' problems as described in the original post, there is something significantly wrong with the hardware or an application that is added to the system that should not be there. This can be anything from a slighty unstable system, a slowly dying HD, or even a bad Anti-Virus/Security suite that punches holes int he network and I/O stacks where it has NO business being (i.e. Symantec/McAfee).

You just pasted a bunch of technical jargon that most people wouldn't understand in the slightest, but it sounds like exactly what I just said, "services management changes". Scheduling is part of services.

Your last paragraph is way off base though, it's a known issue that Vista has performance issues, even on high-end machines, and it's because of the lack of scheduled services. IE every possible service loads on boot just like in XP, but the services are much more complicated some are unnecessary entirely.

debsuvra said,
Only if they made more and more regular apps 64bit ASAP.

There are memory allocation benefits for running 32bit applications in a 64bit environment with >4GB of ram.

Just as there are performance benefits to running a 2 or 4 cores when an application/game will only use 1 core.

Gives the Operating System (that is 64bit and can use multiple cores) some wiggle room to do its stuff in the background.

veritas310 said,
Proud to be one of the 19.5% :)

Proud to be one of the 9.03%. Sorry fellas, but I've only got 3.5gb of ram installed so there is no benefit there. On the other hand, I may go 64 bit on my next install.

Billus said,

Proud to be one of the 9.03%. Sorry fellas, but I've only got 3.5gb of ram installed so there is no benefit there. On the other hand, I may go 64 bit on my next install.

And how much can your system use of that? It is 4GB of addressable memory, not just RAM, a lot of systems can only use 3.25GB or 3GB of memory due to addressing of other components.

And please, 64bit isn't the ONLY reason as people think to go 64bit, I guess those nice registers that the CPU can have do absolutely nothing. I have a 2GB system running 64bit Windows 7, can always put 4GB in there, but it is using other capabilities of the CPU beyond addressing.

Billus said,

Proud to be one of the 9.03%. Sorry fellas, but I've only got 3.5gb of ram installed so there is no benefit there. On the other hand, I may go 64 bit on my next install.

There is a benefit...a nice little thing called stability.

All x64 flavors of Windows include the WOW (Windows on Windows, *not* World of Warcraft) thunk layer. x32 apps and games run inside that thunk layer, encapsulated from the rest of the system. That means that buggy games can't take down the rest of the OS when they crash. There is little or NO performance penalty for a game running in WOW compared to native x32 on x32, even on the wimpiest of x64 processors (that has more to do with the capabilities of said processors), and that is why I moved entirely to x64 when I built my current rig (Vista Ultimate x64 at the time), despite having just 2 GB of RAM. (I have 3 GB of RAM today.)

Unless I'm installing hardware (or critical software), I have uptime measured in days, and I'm doing more beta-testing than ever (and on the same rig I game on, and often with other apps running). However, crashes are isolated to the buggy app or game, and the rest of the OS keeps on keeping on. Number of BSODs I've had since moving to x64: NONE. (And that's in more than a year.)

I thought 64bit was the standard for Higher end PC's I mean you have to have it to use more than 3Gb of ram so you should have 64bit OS just makes since in my mind.

littleneutrino said,
I thought 64bit was the standard for Higher end PC's I mean you have to have it to use more than 3Gb of ram so you should have 64bit OS just makes since in my mind.

+1... and it's sense not since :P

I switched from vista ultimate x86 to 7 ultimate x64.
I did it very smoothly. No issue at all with x86 apps. So I'm happy that 64 bits are becaming streamline really fast. :)

rossl4l said,
32bit should be dead.

+1
Completely agree, there really is no reason to stay on 32-bit these days unless your system isn't 64-bit capable.

neo158 said,

+1
Completely agree, there really is no reason to stay on 32-bit these days unless your system isn't 64-bit capable.

True - then again there is the 32bit Atom chips still being shipped with the current Netbook range. Although Microsoft could release a 'Windows 7 Netbook edition' specifically a 32bit version on a thumb drive for netbooks :)

rawr_boy81 said,

True - then again there is the 32bit Atom chips still being shipped with the current Netbook range. Although Microsoft could release a 'Windows 7 Netbook edition' specifically a 32bit version on a thumb drive for netbooks :)

That was my point entirely, my netbook is 32-bit and can't support a 64-bit OS so I had to use the 32-bit version of Windows 7 HP.

But, there is no excuse for using a 32-bit OS on a machine that supports 64-bit.

Edited by neo158, Feb 9 2010, 1:58pm :

rawr_boy81 said,

True - then again there is the 32bit Atom chips still being shipped with the current Netbook range. Although Microsoft could release a 'Windows 7 Netbook edition' specifically a 32bit version on a thumb drive for netbooks :)


Intel Atom N450 is 64-bit.

Not really a surprise. Most gamers want the best so the idea of 64-bit sounds better even if it really doesn’t matter considering all games today are written for 32-bit. That and I’m sure it’s common for gamers to run >4gb of RAM.

sphbecker said,
Not really a surprise. Most gamers want the best so the idea of 64-bit sounds better even if it really doesn’t matter considering all games today are written for 32-bit. That and I’m sure it’s common for gamers to run >4gb of RAM.

Completely agree....

sphbecker said,
Not really a surprise. Most gamers want the best so the idea of 64-bit sounds better even if it really doesn’t matter considering all games today are written for 32-bit.

98% of games these days are written for consoles, so there isn't even a need for a modern PC anymore unless you play obscure PC games that actually utilize more than one core of your CPU. :/

The game industry is ****ed.

toadeater said,

98% of games these days are written for consoles, so there isn't even a need for a modern PC anymore unless you play obscure PC games that actually utilize more than one core of your CPU. :/

The game industry is ****ed.

Yes, tell EA about that obscure game called The Sims 3 or tell Activision about that game no one has heard of called WoW. There might not be as many big PC titles these days, but those that do come out usually get pretty far from obscure.

Quite true toadeater. Its quite disappointing that game developers haven't helped us move to 64bit sooner. Most game developers should be kicked in the head.

Worst part is, your average noobstick is quite happy to have an inferior product as long as we are stuck with the same version, which really means NO version.

Edited by Dashel, Feb 8 2010, 9:31pm :

toadeater said,

98% of games these days are written for consoles, so there isn't even a need for a modern PC anymore unless you play obscure PC games that actually utilize more than one core of your CPU. :/

The game industry is ****ed.

PC Games are hardly obscure! True it may not be as big as the console market but its still a money maker for game manufacturers.

sphbecker said,
Not really a surprise. Most gamers want the best so the idea of 64-bit sounds better even if it really doesn’t matter considering all games today are written for 32-bit. That and I’m sure it’s common for gamers to run >4gb of RAM.

64bitness is more than just memory addressing; there is also extra registers and lots more which games could take advantage of.