Windows 7 64 Bit and Integrated Graphics Cards

[flubbernugget]

I installed Windows 7 32 Bit recently on my laptop and it is taking a toll on my integrated graphics card (Not even GLBoom will run smoothly). I know that 64 Bit Operating Systems can use more RAM then 32 Bit, and since integrated graphics cards pull from system RAM, will upgrading to 64 Bit make my graphics card any more powerful?

System Specs:

Operating System:

MS Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit
CPU:

Intel Pentium T4200 @ 2.00GHz
Penryn 45nm Technology

RAM:

4.0GB Dual-Channel DDR2 @ 398MHz 6-6-6-18

Motherboard:

TOSHIBA Portable PC (CPU)

Graphics:

Generic PnP Monitor @ 1280x800
Mobile Intel(R) 45 Express Chipset Family (Microsoft

[Jodwin]

flubbernugget said:

will upgrading to 64 Bit make my graphics card any more powerful?

No. Integrated Intel graphics chips suck ass.

[CODOR]

I have a far suckier system (1.6GHz Atom N450, 2GB PC2-6400 RAM, GMA 3150) and GZDoom runs just fine (as well as Chocolate Doom and Eternity). I'll try some benchmarks in both GZDoom and GLBoom tonight to see what I'm doing wrong. (How does one get an FPS display in these ports, BTW?)

Also, inb4 Maes tells us that Intel Integrated Graphics are worse than an S3 Virge from 1997...

[Csonicgo]

Well, they are. they pull their own in the Driver department, which has some of the best ways to pull off effects using the CPU. Not even MESA can do that. That at least deserves some recognition.

[Maes]

CODOR said:

Also, inb4 Maes tells us that Intel Integrated Graphics are worse than an S3 Virge from 1997...

Oh no, dammit, CODOR chimed in before I had time to tell everyone that

flubbernugget said:

will upgrading to 64 Bit make my graphics card any more powerful?

No, since the data bus will remain the same: it's 64-bit regardless of the OS you're using. On the converse, everything will perform slightly worse, since you have the same exact data bus but increased overhead for instructions.

Get over it people: a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit architecture (which is what we've been using since the Pentium I) will ALWAYS be faster than a 64-bit OS on the same architecture. Less overhead. It's not like going from 8-bit NES to 16-bit SNES where EVERYTHING became 16-bit, not just the software.

[Gez]

CODOR said:

I have a far suckier system (1.6GHz Atom N450, 2GB PC2-6400 RAM, GMA 3150) and GZDoom runs just fine (as well as Chocolate Doom and Eternity). I'll try some benchmarks in both GZDoom and GLBoom tonight to see what I'm doing wrong. (How does one get an FPS display in these ports, BTW?)

In G/ZDoom: type this in the console:
vid_fps 1

Alternatively, use the "bench" console command (GZDoom only, not in ZDoom). Stay put somewhere and type it in the console. You'll see a little "benchmark" notice in the message and the FPS counter. It'll last for a few seconds, collection data over many frames so as to average it, and then will tell you "benchmark info saved" and remove the FPS counter. You can bench again in some other location if you want.

Anyway, once all that is said and done, you'll find a "benchmarks.txt" file in your GZDoom directory, with all the benchmark info, like this:

Map MAP01: "WINNOWING HALL",
x = -1088.0000, y = 464.0000, z = -64.0000, angle = 90.0000, pitch = 0.0000
Walls: 111 (0 splits, 0 t-splits, 1045 vertices)
Flats: 44 (175 primitives, 956 vertices)
Sprites: 35, Decals=0, Portals: 1
W: Render=0.121, Split = 0.000, Setup=0.066, Clip=0.054
F: Render=0.071, Setup=0.017
S: Render=0.026, Setup=0.034
All=2.248, Render=0.635, Setup=0.207, BSP = 0.036, Portal=0.137, Finish=1.375
DLight - Walls: 11 processed, 0 rendered - Flats: 18 processed, 0 rendered
Missing textures: 1 upper, 0 lower, 0.001 ms
316 fps