my loss you were right ... well i wasnt wron either i just misunderstood you

turns out that video memory is indeed mapped into the 32 bit of adressing space the cpu can handle with movs with some additional more obscure parts of the gpus io system mapped somewhere between 640k and 1 meg (since as we all know 640k is more than enough for anyone)

what i was talking about is the virtual adress space windows provides in which you wont find any adresses to access the gpus memory unless youre using vista

I've just recently read AnandTech's article about 32/64 bit, XP/Vista, and the 4GB memory space. I find it very informative. It comes in 3 parts:

http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3034
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3060


Worth a read!

Well, I've just bought some new parts for my comp.

My rig:
Intel Core 2 QUAD
Asus Striker Extreme
2x250gb Samsung Sata2
Patriot Extreme Performance DDR2 PC2-6400 2gb
nVidia 8800GTX 768mb
Power supply 630w

Well, I run with Vista 64-bit vers. due to my Core 2 QUAD processor.
Can I play LFS without any lag?

Lag is dependant on network connection to the server(s).

Visual stutter is dependant on the performance of the computer. Based on those specs, you shouldn't get any visual stuttering.

Just putting a dual or quad core processor in, won't magically fix problems though.

Quote from Rowbean :

Well, I run with Vista 64-bit vers. due to my Core 2 QUAD processor.
Can I play LFS without any lag?

You'll struggle there mate. You'll only get about 300fps.

hmm...

im on a p4 3ghz, 1gb ram, 7800gtx..
i am at 100fps SOLID, when driving alone... with 30+ cars then i jump from 30 - 50 fps.. i dont whine

Quote from axus :

You'll struggle there mate. You'll only get about 300fps.

ROFL!

Reminds me of the 0.1 days when someone found a bug where LFS would lose timing accuracy at very high FPS and crashes if you break four digit framerates! The screencap was with an XF GTi with the framerate pushing 936 FPS...

After reading this I'm left with 1 overwelming question.






Yes - 64 bit has its uses but with LFS ?

Then I guess you didn't read the topic at all...

Quote from Impreza WRX :

Reminds me of the 0.1 days when someone found a bug where LFS would lose timing accuracy at very high FPS and crashes if you break four digit framerates! The screencap was with an XF GTi with the framerate pushing 936 FPS...

Would be more of 1000 FPS (What that view is limited too), but taking the screenshot dropped the FPS

In car is limited to 333.3 FPS

TV is limited to 500 FPS

That was taken on a 2.8 GHz Quad / 7950GT, with every conceivable driver/LFS option set to low - my GFX card was holding me back :P

Quote from mikey_G :

Then I guess you didn't read the topic at all...

Um, actually I have but my question still stands.

With an old AMD 3200, 1 gig of ram and a nVidia 5950 I can manage 40 fps with a full grid.

How the hell is a 64 bit version of LFS going to improve things ?

The below is a quote from Microsoft.

" There are, of course, other differences between 64-bit processors and 32-bit processors, and some of those differences, such as having twice as many registers available, can give a well-written application a definite speed improvement. But the reality is that most current applications will not run much faster in Windows XP Pro x64 than they run in 32-bit Windows XP Pro, even if they are rewritten as native 64-bit applications. What they will have is the ability to do things that just haven’t been possible in 32-bit Windows. "

I really can't help thinking that there are better things to do with LFS than waste time rewriting it completely to 64 bit, especially as there are very few drivers for 64bit windows !

64-bit LFS.....yummy :P

How about a 64 kb version of LFS?

http://www.lfsforum.net/attach ... id=14418&d=1154941177

are those pixel shaders?

Just the one, 20 left 19 down

Quote from Jakg :

Would be more of 1000 FPS (What that view is limited too), but taking the screenshot dropped the FPS

In car is limited to 333.3 FPS

TV is limited to 500 FPS

That was taken on a 2.8 GHz Quad / 7950GT, with every conceivable driver/LFS option set to low - my GFX card was holding me back :P

Did you try it with 0.1?

What do you mean?

That was taken with S2 X10.

Quote from Impreza WRX :

Vista sucks like a warp driven vaccum cleaner unless you have LOTS and I mean LOTS of RAM. I have it on Gigabyte-GSR and 1 GB of RAM is not enough for Vistra and gaming. Also, Vista slows down the hard drive to a grinding halt. I'm not giving up on x64 Windows XP just yet, and I can assure you every other game I have played (GT Legends, some top end Star Wars games, and the like) does not max out my system. TBH GT Legends looks awesome at 1280x1024 with everything turned on and up to the limit, and still pulling 75 FPS (Vsync).

Weird,
Vista 64 bits is running very wel here.
I must admit, a little bit more ram, faster cpu and faster graphics card.

Vista needs 4Gbyte to run very well and memory is currently very cheap...
Also remember to turn off al unwanted nice gimmicks microsoft has build into vista which you really dont need..

Well, made a little fun benchmark today with one of my school buddies: launching 3dsmax9 on his uber-high-end notebook with vista, and on my crap 1.5GHz Centrino
I had created a teapot and started rendering when his viewport started to show up...
Ok, he has "only" 2 cores and 2GB ram though. Prolly not enough for Vista... oO

Remember that as a rough rule of thumb Vista will use half of your RAM - superfetch will chew through RAM caching stuff - if you have 4 GB of RAM Vista will use over a GB of it for SuperFetch ALONE, whereas i have run Vista with a GB of RAM and it was a bit slow, but was only using 50% of my RAM.

IMO the "sweet spot" is 2 GB, although it will probably fly with 4 GB.

Dual Core REALLY helps though.

Quote from Jakg :

Remember that as a rough rule of thumb Vista will use half of your RAM - superfetch will chew through RAM caching stuff - if you have 4 GB of RAM Vista will use over a GB of it for SuperFetch ALONE, whereas i have run Vista with a GB of RAM and it was a bit slow, but was only using 50% of my RAM.

Actually, Superfetch will use every last drop of your memory if it can find a use for it. I have 4GB in my system and 2.9 of them are currently used by Superfetch and the other caching systems in Vista.

The point is that this cache will be dropped as soon as this memory is needed for something else. That's the theory anyway. In practice my computer, back when I had 2GB RAM, had Superfetch and Crysis in a battle to the death over who would get to use the memory, and the whole game slowed to a crawl as the harddrive tried to keep up with it all. Turning off Superfetch solved that problem quite nicely, and Vista performed a lot closer to XP in Crysis (Drivers still sucked though). Turning off Superfetch won't get you the benefits it provides though, and they really are quite noticeable.

Ok, well i'm not quite sure why, as my copies (both 32 and 64-bit, Business and Home Premium - seperate PC's) both idle at 33% with tweaking, and with SuperFetch running.

The 1+ GB figure was from a post on another forum by a user with 4 GB.

Quote from Jakg :

Ok, well i'm not quite sure why, as my copies (both 32 and 64-bit, Business and Home Premium - seperate PC's) both idle at 33% with tweaking, and with SuperFetch running.

I think it varies from computer to computer. Superfetch will try to be smart about what it pre-loads and will load different things depending on your usage pattern (what files you use and when etc.). I've seen the cache shrink by a GB for no apparent reason here, but usually it only leaves a few megabytes of memory unused. Loading LFS, the LX6 and Fern Bay without having disk access is a great thing to behold.