64-bit processor and 4gb ram question

I plan on purchasing a new system equipped with Intel dual core 2.4ghz and 4gb of memory, and 1gb GeForce 7950 GX2 but from what I understand I need a 64 bit processor and 64 bit OS to fully make use of 4gb of memory. I'm no expert at this, so howcan I tell if an OS and an intel chip is 64 bit?

And is Guild Wars, multi-threaded?

For Guild Wars I use:
Intel P4 2.4ghz
512mb ram
ATI Radeon 9700
XP SP2 (not sure how many bit)
Broadband

I am struggling with guild wars, most likely due to memory even at lowest settings. I'd like to be able to enjoy playing at high settings without compromising fraps. And after reading the many reviews for MS Flight Simulator X, many complaints come from an extreme requirement (more intense than Quake 4) to properly run MS Flight Simulator X at high settings and make it look like the screenshots even though the minimum req. is 1ghz, 1gb ram and 256mb radeon/geforce series). The latest dual cores, 4gb of ram and dual card of radeon/geforce sli/crossfire was figured to be a gurantee, some say that the kind of hardware Microsoft demands isnt even out yet. But if it turns out I won't be able to play FS X properly with the new system , Ill still be happy now that I can play Guild Wars: NF and FS 2004 very smoothly with voice comm!

Thank you in advance!

Windows XP 64 or Vista 64 bit is required to support anything past 4 gb of memory.
XP with 1gb of memory is blazing fast. Vista with 2gb is very fast as well.

I would stick with 32 bit xp or vista.. there is not enough hardware/software support for 64bit.

Why not wait for a directx 10 card equipped system with vista? Seems like you're not going by budget..

I agree with the other guys, and would also cut back to 2GB of memory, I have no idea why youd need that much, you really wont notice any gains. By the time programs require even 2 GB of memory, the memory speeds will be a good bit faster than they are now. So, Id say just get 2GB, and wait till more memory is more necessary than now.

GW isnt programmed for improved performance on a 64-bit, same way it isnt set up to work with dual-cored processors. it still works, just not better

lol...

Another overkill system...

Wrath Of Demons:
How do you know that GW isn't set up for multiprocessor setups? GW is multithreaded, at least it has asynchronous texture and ( i guess ) model loads. Any sufficiently well implemented multithreaded program should run better on a Core2 than e.g. on a P4.

Dookie:
Get a Core2 and a nVidia 8xxx-Card. And ( as said before ) you really don't need more than 2 GB atm.

OP you would be better waiting until all the DX 10 stuff comes out with windows vista buying a new system now is just plain stupid when everything will be going on to DX10 plus it pays to plan for the future and you won't have to upgrade again in a years time.

Bloodthorn: In case you haven't noticed, the Geforce 8xxx Series ( atm the Geforce 8800 ) is fully dx10 compliant.

Are you having the problems all the time or just at certain times of day?

Most people's problems with GW have to do with bandwidth. Cable and DSL companies oversell their bandwidth. They assume that all customers will not be on-line at the same time. Of course, like with street traffic, there are times of the day when the majority of the area customers are on-line and your bandwidth is cut back.

I have screen loading problems at night, but not in the early morning. Thus it's not my machine's RAM (512MB), video card (NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200) or processor (AMD Athlon 1700+).

Overkill? Why must everyone here assume that everyone only plays Guild Wars. You need a system like that to play most of the newer games. GW being an exception cause Anet wants people with lower grade computer to still be able to play.

The Gforce 8800 is not fully supported and the drivers are a bit buggy at the moment plus they are rather expencive at the moment it would be best to wait un till next year when more DX10 cards start to come out and the drivers are more stable and the price will of drop as well.

Did my other post get deleted.

All I remember is making a comment about how 4 gigs of RAM is not needed for the current gaming setups.

Unless of course you want one of those $26,000 Quad nVidia workstations.

A high end dual core system (intel duo core 2) with 4gb of ram would be nice for future proofing, for example the version of windows in development slated for 3 years after Vista launch, you will probable meet the min or it runs ok system requirements with the high end rig now.

Steve Balmar (ceo MS) has stated they want to go back to the 3 year new OS cycle.

I have an E6600 Core2Duo, GF 8800GTS, with 2Gbs of RAM, and of course Guild Wars runs like a dream.

I'm not sure how it would even be possible to run it better...

If your main games are Guild Wars and Microsoft FS, definitely go with the 8800GTS or 8800GTX if you have the cash.

The GTS runs slightly above the 7900GX2, and once Direct3D X comes out, it'll blow it away.

Livingston

There is such a thing as to much "future proofing". Having 4 GB of DDR2 RAM at this time is really overkill, unless you are useing apps that can really use that much RAM.

Myself, I tend to prefer getting "enough for current needs", then upgrading at a future time. When I built my system in 2004, 512MB of DDR3200 was just fine. Last year, I upgraded to 1 GB for about half the cost of my original 512. At this time, I generally encourage buyers to get 1-2GB (depending on need), and hold off on the 4 GB until next year, when the prices will surely drop (they always do 2-4 months after a new Windows release).

And for the people reccomending the 8800, I suggest holding off for a similar reason. Right now, the 8800 is the only card of it's kind, a "Version 1 release" if I ever saw one. And most people in the industry will tell you to be very cautious of first releases. Wait until they get all of the bugs out, and you have some competition to drive the price down to a reasonable level.

And at a starting cost of $450, the 8800 is hardly cheap. I would bet that within 3 months, it will be at least 15% cheaper then it is now. By this time next year, it will probably be a sub-$200 card sitting with the "next gen budget cards". Not to mention that it is not fully "DirecX 10" compliant, simply because Vista and DirecX 10 is not out yet. It falls among all those "Pre 802.11N Routers", where they are guessing the requirements will be.

Those of us around during the initial move to 9600 baud and 56k modems can tell you all about how items expected to meet future standards often fall well short of the mark.

Windows xp pro 32-bit

4GB of RAM. But only 2GB can be used toward applications unless you change the boot.ini file. Even then it can only use 3GB, not the full 4GB.

/PAE in the boot ini , gives 3gig total
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEdrv.mspx

/3GB in the boot ini , gives the User full 3gig total
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEmem.mspx


So really unless the app you want to run uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE (means the program was written to support 3 gigs) in the process header 2 gigs is good enough not to mention that video card will be added on so you are really limited to a total of 2 gigs if you go with the 32-bit

Really i would wait till after Jan 30 2007 before i purchase any new computers. And if you decide to go to 64-bit be ready for some program/driver incompatibilities, but in my testings most of the everyday stuff works fine. If you go with vista 64-bit it will break more programs then the winxp 64-bit.

Vista
Home Basic 8 Gigs Ram 32bit and 64 bit
Home Premum 16 Gigs Ram 32bit and 64Bit
Rest of the editions are Max physical
http://winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp


Yes i know 32-bit max is 4 gig .. /PAE can support up to 64GB physical memory. A 32-bit process can use a large amounts of memory via address windowing extension functions. This means that they must map views of the physical memory they allocate into their 2GB virtual address space. So each process is still limited to 2gigs just you can have more processes running.
http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?ID=69

Pentium 4s using the E0 revision of the Prescott core and up i think for 64-bit processors on the intel side..
Duo2 is a nice family to start with.

i dont see why ure having problems with guild wars atm
i used to play gw with a similar configuration: P4 2.4, 512Mb DDR 2100 (slow ddr yeah :P), geforce fx 5900xt and 56k
with that i was able to play with maximum settings
now im using a AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1GB ddr 3200, still with the fx 5900xt(gonna upgrade to a 8XXX when they release them) and broadband
ive never played guild wars with less than maximum settings and ive never lagged once, well maybe back in the 56k days but i cant remember
id suggest waiting a bit for prices drop if you want to buy a new comp and nvidia to release other 8XXX serie video cards

I'm happy to that statement, that means Nvidia DX 10 card still does great job on DX 9 under xp. One of my fears would be DX 10 rock, but DX 9 takes a hardware hit / change and not as good as previous gen.

It think the big thing is other games. I would love to play oblivion at full rez / settings on my widescreen 20" LCD it's still very impressive but with better video I know I can pump it higher.

Most likely it's your CPU and ram that's limiting your system for Guildwars, though looking at your specifications, it can't be that bad.

Guildwars isn't really GPU intensive.