Not true. 64-bit can be slower than 32-bit! One advantage of 64-bit is more registers (just...). These are far faster than making memory accesses, but persuading C/C++ to use them is hard. Assembler rocks! They could have added more 32-bit registers, but they chose not to. :( Best regards,Robin.

By default? Wrong. 32-bit is 2^32 (4,294,967,296 bytes), max 4GB memory (which really is 3.6GB). Virtual addresses is a reason if you need a supercomputer (see IBM 7030 - circa. 1961); but, home computing is a little different.

Nooooooo................. The memory is split 2 Gb user/2 Gb kernel. You can not change this ratio. The app therefore can only access 2 Gb of RAM even though yes the addressing space permits 4 Gb of RAM. Furthermore, and ignoring the complexities of paged memory, the OS itself can not access more than 4 Gb of RAM on a 32-bit system. EDIT: On Windows there is "4GT" or 4 Gb Tuning: http://msdn.microsof...v=vs.85%29.aspx How it works: http://technet.micro...28WS.10%29.aspx As you can see in the first link, there are a lot of pit-falls and "gotchas!" when writing software to work with 4GT properly. I doubt FSX meets the requirements. Related - how PAE x86 works: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc736309%28WS.10%29.aspx Best regards,Robin.

As you can see in the first link, there are a lot of pit-falls and "gotchas!" when writing software to work with 4GT properly. I doubt FSX meets the requirements.

It does, since SP2/Accel.

It does, since SP2/Accel.

I think you mean the Large Address Aware flag Mike, and that's only in 64b OS. FSX, and any other 32b application can only address 4GB in a 64b OS with the LLA flag tweak. Without it the limit is still 2GBIn a 32b OS, FSX is limited to 2GB, you can expand that at the expense of the OS VAS (3GB for the app and 1GB for the OS for example, but that has obvious potential problems)

Yes, that's what I have in mind, and that's what 4 Gb Tuning linked by Robin is for on 32 bit OS. The Large Address Aware flag informs the operating system, that it can give the application addresses beyond the 2GB limit should the need arise, and the application can handle it. That's why this feature is off in most applications.

A couple of crossed wires here me thinks! Seems some are talking 32-bit running on 64-bit, some on software and some on hardware, and others on 32-bit vs. 64-bit. A lot of different perspectives.

A couple of crossed wires here me thinks! Seems some are talking 32-bit running on 64-bit, some on software and some on hardware, and others on 32-bit vs. 64-bit. A lot of different perspectives.

Yeah, it's true. Nothing said so far worth reading (AFAIR) has been completely "wrong". But...

I agee with Zach. In my original post I was expressing a hope to the forum that the flight simulator world will go all 64 bit at some point with programs coded and compiled for 64 bit processors.

Wow! I haven'nt seen this much posturing and bs on these forums for a long time. It really does sound a lot like people defending descions already made: "my gadget must be the best because it is the one I bought".If you want to bs about word size, then please show the rest of us the respect of doing even a little research first.

Wow! I haven'nt seen this much posturing and bs on these forums for a long time. It really does sound a lot like people defending descions already made: "my gadget must be the best because it is the one I bought".If you want to bs about word size, then please show the rest of us the respect of doing even a little research first.

Paul, I know that it's tempting to act out what with all the rude folks lashing out thanks to the NGX's pending release, but please... Please chill. I know everyone, I fed the troll.

"Wow! I haven'nt seen this much posturing and bs on these forums for a long time."

I truely hope, Paul, that isn't aimed at me! I think people in this thread are using examples to show their meaning rather than what you suggest. For instance, my use of "I" above for 64-bit was intended as a kind of personification instead of a defence or boast. Also, my posts were merely factual - that's what I use.

I truely hope, Paul, that isn't aimed at me! I think people in this thread are using examples to show their meaning rather than what you suggest. For instance, my use of "I" above for 64-bit was intended as a kind of personification instead of a defence or boast. Also, my posts were merely factual - that's what I use.

With all due respect, I highly doubt things like "gamers needed faster so they released 64b" is even close to a fact Christopher. If that was true, most games would be 64b and they're not."Virtual addresses is a reason if you need a supercomputer" being another example of complete nonsenseI was wrong saying that 64b won't speed up anything, but the main reason why it was implanted is to solve the VAS limitation of 32b. Certainly not because gamers need faster From the wikipedia article:

Some programs such as encoders, decoders and encryption software can benefit greatly from 64-bit registers (if the software is 64-bit compiled), while the performance of other programs, such as 3D graphics-oriented ones, remains unaffected when switching from a 32-bit environment to a 64-bit one

LMFAO I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for your info as that is not considered a reliable source as it is written by anyone who wants to input. Also, call me Chris.

"gamers needed faster so they released 64b" is even close to a fact Christopher

Well, they do overclock! Hmmm... 64-bit isn't new. However, it is to home users - how many 18 year old users said, "I need more virtual addresses!" lol What would home users need it for? Improved Graphics? Also It was developed and was used in supercomputers back in the 60s...reason? Virtual addresses? Or is it a little more complicated than that?

One of the driving forces for the development of the DEC Alpha 64-bit architecture was the need to address really huge datasets in memory -- the sort of thing needed by geographic modeling by oil companies, finite element analysis, computational fluid dynamics.

LMFAO I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia for your info as that is not considered a reliable source as it is written by anyone who wants to input. Also, call me Chris. Well, they do overclock! Hmmm...

My point is, if 64b arrived to the desktop PC world because gamers needed faster... how come 8 years later consoles and PC games are still 32b for the most part?Some games have been released in 64b, but they don't run any faster generally speaking, some even run faster on 32b. It's not as simple as eating chocolates and having twice the data to process = twice faster.

Probably about 5 years ago, even shoot-em-ups weren't using the address limit available to a 32-bit system. However, Microsoft NT ran a system known as VLM - making more memory available to 32-bit - which wasn't true 64-bit as only physical memory was available; it couldn't use virtual memory. Not sure if the same still applies to Win7 64-bit in terms of not being 100% 64-bit; especially, as it can run 32-bit. Is this "true" 64-bit? There are also differences, which look at the variables of Software and Customer. Therefore, Customer = Gamer; Software = Game - what would the point of 64-bit be for them? Performance, aesthetics? They won't be running complex computational software requiring large datasets, will they? They'll want games. This would then mean a "smoother" experience? However, 64-bit hardware is reliant on the software used as it will only do what is coded for them to do - as in the software makes use of the hardware available if coded to do so (generally speaking). It doesn't matter how the hardware works, the reason for it will be different per customer group.