open All Channels
seplocked Issues, Workarounds & Localization
blankseplocked eve on windows 7 64 bit, running dual creens with a gforce GTS 250
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Krankyoldlady
Posted - 2009.11.25 19:01:00 - [1]
 

Here are my spec's:
Gigabite p35 DS3R
Intel E8200 "wolfsdale" intel core duo
OCZ ddr2 pc2-6400 Gold kit, 4 gig.
Samsung 250 GB SAT2
Nividia Gforce 250 GT^S 250
TSST corp CDDVDW SH-S203W
Fortron BlueStorm 500w
Windows 7

And in running two screens.
My problem is that if i dont run eve on the quality setting, wich is everything high i think)
the nividea display driver kernel has stopped responding and has recoverd or something along those lines

Any idea's?

Meiyang Lee
Gallente
Azteca Transportation Unlimited
Gunboat Diplomacy
Posted - 2009.11.25 19:11:00 - [2]
 

In other words, your graphics-drivers crash (and restart automatically) whenever you don't run EVE at high settings with both screens... now that is odd. Is performance acceptable at high?
(I would assume it is, the GTS 250 can't be that bad) If it is, leave it there? Smile

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like an ass, no idea what the issue is tbh, that card may not be top end, but it certainly shouldn't give any issues running EVE.

Have you tried updating your drivers to the latest non-beta Windows 7 drivers?

Aloriate
Amarr
Big Buck Bunny Interstellar Solo Society
Posted - 2009.11.25 19:15:00 - [3]
 

Most likely it's the driver for the graphics card dealing with the 64 bit Windows 7. Check the manufacturer's website for updated drivers for the graphics card. That should resolve the problem.

Krankyoldlady
Posted - 2009.11.25 22:42:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Krankyoldlady on 25/11/2009 22:42:11
Nope sorry aint it.
I have my drivers if possible from the manufacturers site always
Nividea driver version: 190.38

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.25 22:47:00 - [5]
 

There is no reason for you to be running win7 64bit with your listed hardware unless you have a specific 64bit program that requires it. You gain nothing performance wise and run the risk of driver and program incompatibilities like the one you made the thread about.

Teark Valkro
Posted - 2009.11.25 22:58:00 - [6]
 

Quote:
There is no reason for you to be running win7 64bit with your listed hardware unless you have a specific 64bit program that requires it. You gain nothing performance wise and run the risk of driver and program incompatibilities like the one you made the thread about.


Quote:
OCZ ddr2 pc2-6400 Gold kit, 4 gig.


Clearly, no reason to run 64bit at all.

Nocts
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:00:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Zeba
There is no reason for you to be running win7 64bit with your listed hardware unless you have a specific 64bit program that requires it. You gain nothing performance wise and run the risk of driver and program incompatibilities like the one you made the thread about.

Quote:
4 gig.

4 Gigs means 64-bit is needed for full use of that RAM. Also:
Quote:
run the risk of driver and program incompatibilities

That era of incompatibilities faded out a long time ago, before Vista 64 SP1. I've been running Windows Vista 64 and now Windows 7 64 with not only increased speeds (since now I can run a lot of the 64-bit programs that I used to run in 32-bit) but without ever having a single driver or compatibility issue with 64-bit.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:08:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Teark Valkro
Quote:
There is no reason for you to be running win7 64bit with your listed hardware unless you have a specific 64bit program that requires it. You gain nothing performance wise and run the risk of driver and program incompatibilities like the one you made the thread about.


Quote:
OCZ ddr2 pc2-6400 Gold kit, 4 gig.


Clearly, no reason to run 64bit at all.
The 2 gig limit was due to crappy xp memory code and not because it was 32bit as Win7 32bit supports 4 gigs. Now if he had said he was using 8 or 16 gigs of ram(which btw is totally wasted unless you are heavily into running a zillion programs at once or professional video editing) then I would still have made the comment about the incompatibilites on using the 64bit version over the 32bit.

Nocts
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:12:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Nocts on 25/11/2009 23:20:32
Originally by: Zeba
The 2 gig limit was due to crappy xp memory code and not because it was 32bit as Win7 32bit supports 4 gigs. Now if he had said he was using 8 or 16 gigs of ram(which btw is totally wasted unless you are heavily into running a zillion programs at once or professional video editing) then I would still have made the comment about the incompatibilites on using the 64bit version over the 32bit.
Quote:
That era of incompatibilities faded out a long time ago, before Vista 64 SP1. I've been running Windows Vista 64 and now Windows 7 64 with not only increased speeds (since now I can run a lot of the 64-bit programs that I used to run in 32-bit) but without ever having a single driver or compatibility issue with 64-bit.

It's also a very common issue that Windows 7 does not detect a good portion of RAM vendors up to their 4GB limit. Yes, XP/Vista had sloppy code that limited it to below 4Gigs. But the more apparent issue is that even a quick google can turn up a lot of laptops and desktops both limited to 3 gigs of RAM for the 32-bit version, with the only options being to get a different brand of RAM or get the 64-bit version of 7.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:16:00 - [10]
 

Well luckily I'm not one of those people as I see the whole 4 gigs of the ocz reaper kit I got in yesterday.

Nocts
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:27:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Well luckily I'm not one of those people as I see the whole 4 gigs of the ocz reaper kit I got in yesterday.

Also, a program meant for 64-bit can work twice as fast as a program in 32-bit because the 64-bit processor can take the 64-bits call (see: 4gigs) and process it in one go, where as the 32-bit version of the program (and a 32-bit processor) is going to take two processor calls to handle the 64-bit call (See: 4gigs)

By it's very nature, a 32-bit processor will be outperformed by a 64-bit processor when each is using the native program (32 in 32, 64 in 64).

Sources:
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/18/0,1425,sz=1&i=182657,00.gif
http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_osx_64bit&num=8

As you can see, programs compiled with 64-bit optimizations has the potential to not only match 32-bit, but surpass it because of the additional optimizations that can be done on 64-bit, in conjunction with how large a chunk of data the processor can handle per call.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:37:00 - [12]
 

I guess you missed this part of my original reply. Razz

Originally by: Zeba
unless you have a specific 64bit program that requires it.


Again with his stated hardware and no mention of any native 64bit programs in use he is better off with the 32bit version. The rest of this thread is nothing moar than an argument about using premium gas in a car not designed for it and claiming it runs better.ugh

Faith O'Siras
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:48:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Faith O''Siras on 25/11/2009 23:50:08
Actually, to be specific ... 64BIT is superior to 32BIT in everything now-a-days. Almost every program you use has a 64bit version now. I can't think of one and if you do know of one that doesn't support 64-bit natively, move on to a better piece of software with decent development. Windows8 will be the first implementation of 128BIT if rumors are to be believed.

@ THE OP: Sounds like corrupted display drivers. Uninstall your current graphic drivers, and reinstall fresh with the latest. That *might* solve your problem. Simply put, without more information, it's hard to diagnose your problem. It could be a number of things. Let me know if this corrected your problem or not. ugh

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:54:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Faith O'Siras
Edited by: Faith O''Siras on 25/11/2009 23:50:08
Actually, to be specific ... 64BIT is superior to 32BIT in everything now-a-days.
And in the real world of gaming and general computing the vast majority are still using a single core cpu and an 8800gt equivalent card running off xp with a gig or two of memory. In that world the potential of 64bit performance is nothing more than wishful thinking for christmas. Wink

Nocts
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.25 23:56:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Nocts on 26/11/2009 00:00:15
Edited by: Nocts on 25/11/2009 23:58:31
Originally by: Zeba
Again with his stated hardware and no mention of any native 64bit programs in use he is better off with the 32bit version. The rest of this thread is nothing moar than an argument about using premium gas in a car not designed for it and claiming it runs better.ugh
Just because he did not mention it does not mean he does not use it. Even if he just uses Windows 7 64and EVE, then the VAST majority of the operating system is going to run faster than the 32-bit version of Windows 7.

Being compiled for 64-bit does get an increase to response time and processing speed. Having your entire OS compiled with the optimizations that 64-bit allows would give you a positive increase.

To explain it in your car example: It's like using premium gas in a car built specifically for premium gas, but with an air-conditioner that draws from the electricity of the car instead of the combustion of fuel. Even if the air conditioner doesn't benefit from it, the entire car does.

Quote:
And in the real world of gaming and general computing the vast majority are still using a single core cpu and an 8800gt equivalent card running off xp with a gig or two of memory. In that world the potential of 64bit performance is nothing more than wishful thinking for christmas.
What? The "Real world" is the OP. Someone who is running a dual-core CPU that isn't an 8800gt equivalent, with 4 gigs of memory. We're talking about this thread, right now. Not a different thread. If there was someone on here with 1 gig of RAM, a GeForce 4, and a Pentium III processor, then I'd agree with your stance on 64-bit being a poor platform for them because of actual negative benefits. But that isn't the case here, and it certainly isn't the case with my system, my girlfriend's system, my mother's system, my brother's system, nor most of my friends. Dual-cores are very common now and are typically the first-choice for pre-built computers as well.

edit: Which allows me to repeat my first point: Even if it was a single-core processor, a 64-bit processor using a 64-bit OS (and any 64-bit applications) is going to outperform a 32-bit processor using 32-bit applications. There is still a positive benefit of using 64-bit if you have a 64-bit processor

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:03:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Nocts
Being compiled for 64-bit does get an increase to response time and processing speed. Having your entire OS compiled with the optimizations that 64-bit allows would give you a positive increase.
Then in the real world where programmers look at projected numbers of os distribution and still find the vast majority clinging to xp even with uber all 64bit hardware under the hood they don't try to make it perfectly compatible with the 64bit os yet. Just google up win7 64bit problems with 32bit programs and you will see what I mean. Now one win7 gets a service pack or two and the user base rises to the point software devs give it serious consideration in the QA phase I might use the included 64bit disk to upgrade my existing 32bit install.

Nocts
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:08:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Then in the real world where programmers look at projected numbers of os distribution and still find the vast majority clinging to xp even with uber all 64bit hardware under the hood they don't try to make it perfectly compatible with the 64bit os yet. Just google up win7 64bit problems with 32bit programs and you will see what I mean. Now one win7 gets a service pack or two and the user base rises to the point software devs give it serious consideration in the QA phase I might use the included 64bit disk to upgrade my existing 32bit install.
Okay, this is where this conversation with you ends:

I am a programmer and projected numbers mean very little. Do you know how much work is involved in porting something over from 32bit to 64bit? Very, very little. If you handle your global variables properly it's a piece of cake. The terror of compatibility you are referring to is mostly ancient history, with very few exceptions where the authors of the rare programs that are incompatible with 64-bit are simply poor programmers. It has nothing to do with 64-bit, and it's not nearly the panic you're painting it as. And this lie about "they don't try to make it perfectly compatible with the 64bit os yet" is simply an uninformed opinion, not fact. It's a simple process that doesn't even involve major code changes. Major code changes come from Windows version to Windows version, not from 32 to 64.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:13:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Nocts
I am a programmer and projected numbers mean very little.
Thats because you are a programmer. Now convince your supervisor who has a strict scedule to meet or its his arse and his bonus to extend the QA phase to fix a minor incompatiblity for an os that is barely in use. Wink

Emperor D'Hoffryn
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:15:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Well luckily I'm not one of those people as I see the whole 4 gigs of the ocz reaper kit I got in yesterday.


Alot of mis-information in the thread, but I will just start with this.

the 4 gig limit has NOTHING to do with code in WinXP or Vista. It has to do with the fact that 2^32 = 4 gig (4.3 billion and change)

thus, when running a 32-bit OS, ANY 32-bit OS, your maximum addressable memory is 4 gig.

If you have a fancy 1 gig video card, that video memory has to be memory mapped into the SAME 4 gig address space. Thus, your actual usable memory is 4 gig - 1 gig = 3 gig.

Yes, I work at Microsoft, no, there is no way around the above, yes, I understand what you think it says when you right click "my computer" and go to properties, but no, ITS NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE.

And yes, Vista SP1 lies to you in the properties page that reports system memory.

___________________________

Now,

As to the OP, the problem you mention could very well be your video card going bad. My 8800GTX went bad, and at first its symptoms were what you describe.

Nocts
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:15:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Nocts on 26/11/2009 00:16:25
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Nocts
I am a programmer and projected numbers mean very little.
Thats because you are a programmer. Now convince your supervisor who has a strict scedule to meet or its his arse and his bonus to extend the QA phase to fix a minor incompatiblity for an os that is barely in use. Wink
It's like you don't even read people's entire posts. I give up.
Quote:
Alot of mis-information in the thread, but I will just start with this.

the 4 gig limit has NOTHING to do with code in WinXP or Vista. It has to do with the fact that 2^32 = 4 gig (4.3 billion and change)

thus, when running a 32-bit OS, ANY 32-bit OS, your maximum addressable memory is 4 gig.

If you have a fancy 1 gig video card, that video memory has to be memory mapped into the SAME 4 gig address space. Thus, your actual usable memory is 4 gig - 1 gig = 3 gig.

Yes, I work at Microsoft, no, there is no way around the above, yes, I understand what you think it says when you right click "my computer" and go to properties, but no, ITS NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE.

And yes, Vista SP1 lies to you in the properties page that reports system memory
That isn't what was being discussed. We were discussing why XP and previous were limited to 3.2 gigs of RAM. That was faulty code, not the 4gig limit.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:21:00 - [21]
 

You guys are still arguing that a yugo runs better on premium. The facts are that right now this second he is better off with the 32bit version. End of story no matter how green the 64bit pasture will be tommorrow. Unless of course he replies in this thread that he indeed does have a 64bit program that requires a 64bit os to run. Also to the comment about the video memory getting mapped and leaving you with 3 gigs well so what? Its still using up part of the 4 gigs and unless you are running a really super memory hog program thats still about a gig more memory than you realisticaly need to run anything you want.

Sheese stop with the nerd rage already.. Laughing

Emperor D'Hoffryn
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:24:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Nocts
Edited by: Nocts on 26/11/2009 00:16:25
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Nocts
I am a programmer and projected numbers mean very little.
Thats because you are a programmer. Now convince your supervisor who has a strict scedule to meet or its his arse and his bonus to extend the QA phase to fix a minor incompatiblity for an os that is barely in use. Wink
It's like you don't even read people's entire posts. I give up.
Quote:
Alot of mis-information in the thread, but I will just start with this.

the 4 gig limit has NOTHING to do with code in WinXP or Vista. It has to do with the fact that 2^32 = 4 gig (4.3 billion and change)

thus, when running a 32-bit OS, ANY 32-bit OS, your maximum addressable memory is 4 gig.

If you have a fancy 1 gig video card, that video memory has to be memory mapped into the SAME 4 gig address space. Thus, your actual usable memory is 4 gig - 1 gig = 3 gig.

Yes, I work at Microsoft, no, there is no way around the above, yes, I understand what you think it says when you right click "my computer" and go to properties, but no, ITS NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE.

And yes, Vista SP1 lies to you in the properties page that reports system memory
That isn't what was being discussed. We were discussing why XP and previous were limited to 3.2 gigs of RAM. That was faulty code, not the 4gig limit.


Yes, please tell the Microsoft Windows programmer that the issue is with a version of Windows. Rolling Eyes

or you could go to the actual microsoft support page on the issue:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp

but I'm sure you will be back to correct me, the guy with access to the entire windows source code depository, on what the real issue is.

*sigh*

Wyehr
Rage of Inferno
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:24:00 - [23]
 

Get different video drivers. Current generic is 190.62. Try those first.

P.S. Most of the 32bit/64bit discussion in this thread is nonsense. The 4 GB limit is address space per process, not physical memory. CPUs have been able to use 64GB of physical memory since 1995.

Krankyoldlady
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:25:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Krankyoldlady on 26/11/2009 00:29:27
Right...
Zeba:
Yea me again, i have ran xp, its stable but thats all you can say from it these days.
Most of the people you keep reffering too found out about the vista hype and how wrong it all went.
Today i can honestly say that there is no reason at all to not run windows 7 nor 64 bit if you know what your doing.

I have read what was said about 32 versus 64 and wonder why xp went 64 to begin with.
As i understand it it works something close to this:
32 version depending on your hardware can not untilize the, lets say 4 gig or ram, 64 bit OS can.
If that is correct, i can see the need for a 64 XP. kinda.

Vista is and was a complete dissaster in my oppion, either 32 and 64.
Windows 7 so far, same as XP and since i have this setup i go 64.
Why do i sound confident saying that?
I tested em all and built my own machines, doesnt mean i dont get a error every now and then.

And now is she gonne drink a coffee:)
*one would think that my name gave away if i was a he or a she....

Dianna Soreil
Monolithic.
Advocated Destruction
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:26:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Dianna Soreil on 26/11/2009 00:27:15
Originally by: Zeba
yo i'm postin


Running 4 GB on 32 bit is only possible with PAE and PAE sucks donkey balls on a desktop machine.

/running on Windows 7 and Kubuntu 64 bit with an NVIDIA card

Emperor D'Hoffryn
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:29:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Zeba
You guys are still arguing that a yugo runs better on premium. The facts are that right now this second he is better off with the 32bit version. End of story no matter how green the 64bit pasture will be tommorrow. Unless of course he replies in this thread that he indeed does have a 64bit program that requires a 64bit os to run. Also to the comment about the video memory getting mapped and leaving you with 3 gigs well so what? Its still using up part of the 4 gigs and unless you are running a really super memory hog program thats still about a gig more memory than you realisticaly need to run anything you want.

Sheese stop with the nerd rage already.. Laughing


While there are some app compat issues on 64-bit, they are actually quite few and far between, and there are no driver issues aside from the fact that hardware of a certain age and older wont be getting 64-bit support. Its up to every person to make the decision on if upgrading is right for them, but the fact that laptops with 4+ gig of ram that come with 64-bit windows7 are on display at best buy and are available for $600, there is nothing premium about it.

plus, due to the genius that is the AMD x64 instruction set, there is no overhead for running a 32-bit program on 64-bit windows, and actually can be faster, since each 32-bit process can have its own entire 32-bit address space.

As for video card memory mapping, it does matter. Its not "Using" that last 1 gig of memory you bought, that last 1 gig of memory is not being used at all...in other words, its wasted money.

Nocts
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:33:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Nocts on 26/11/2009 00:36:03
Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
but I'm sure you will be back to correct me, the guy with access to the entire windows source code depository, on what the real issue is.*sigh*

3.25 is the hard limit for XP32bit, and that's backed up by PAE. If you want to pull "I work for MS", I may be the wrong person to talk to. What is your MID number? I'll happily toss an email to say "hello".

edit: also - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778%28VS.85%29.aspx#memory_limitsThe limitation of what the OS is going to allocate versus what the OS is capable of detecting properly. You won't break 3.25 (PAE excluded) in WXP32Bit

Emperor D'Hoffryn
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:36:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Wyehr
Get different video drivers. Current generic is 190.62. Try those first.

P.S. Most of the 32bit/64bit discussion in this thread is nonsense. The 4 GB limit is address space per process, not physical memory. CPUs have been able to use 64GB of physical memory since 1995.


Not accurate. You can get around the 4gig limit using PAE, but you need application support, and hardware support. Desktop machines have and consumer software don't apply here. Chipsets from just 3 years ago (example, Intel P965 supporting Core 2 Duo) can only handle maximum 8 gig of physical memory.

but yes, this thread has gone completely off topic.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:39:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Emperor D'Hoffryn
As for video card memory mapping, it does matter. Its not "Using" that last 1 gig of memory you bought, that last 1 gig of memory is not being used at all...in other words, its wasted money.
Thats what I mean by nerd rage. That 1 gig that is mapped to video is no more wasted than the third gig of memory that never gets accessed under normal use unless you have a program with a bad memory leak. Call me back when Eve and most other general use software goes 64bit.

Burnharder
Posted - 2009.11.26 00:39:00 - [30]
 

This is a driver issue, pure and simple. It's nothing to do with 32/64 bit, or your memory address space. I run 3 clients on max with 32 bit 7 with 4Gb RAM and have no problem or slowdowns at all (ATI 4890 btw, 1Gb on board) and I can't see a situation in the near future where I will actually need to address more than 4Gb, hence I'm not running 64 bit.

The simple fact is that 32 bit drivers are more mature than the 64 bit variants, so these kinds of issues are more likely to crop up for you. Microsoft are pushing 64 bit quite hard now for the desktop, so I expect companies like NVIDIA are putting more man hours into their 64 bit drivers than they were previously. Even so, they still lag behind somewhat.



Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only