There are some cases where having a 32-bit application is superior, but they are ones where the app doesn't use that much memory. Subnautica isn't in that category.
...as I had known 32-bit versions of Windows to be able to address 3.5GB of memory. It turns out this value can vary based on the RAM of the video card installed! A PC with a video card that has 1GB of memory forces the PC to only use between 2.6 to 2.8GB, while a video card with a measly 256MB of memory allows the PC to address 3.3 to 3.5GB of memory. I find it super weird why more memory on the video card means less memory allotted to the system, but there it is.
So @TheLumberJack I'm afraid that's not correct... even in the reduced environment of 2.6 to 2.8GB of system memory, 32-bit operating systems don't have a hard limit of just 2GB of memory.
When a computer has more than 4GB and it allocates memory images to 32-bit processes, I believe it still has to either map video memory directly or use a memory mirror of it for that process's address space. That size was adjustable but still needed to leave an address range for the video memory.
Could Subnautica actually run on the old slow 32 bit processors? I have a top of the line I7 CPU and a NVIDIA GTX980, and I still get lag even on recommended settings (not max). Intel stopped making 32 bit processors in 2001. I wouldn't be caught dead running Windows 7 on a Pentium, much less Subnautica. Given that an X32 OS can't access more then 4 gigs, it seems like a no brainer to go 64 bit. A lot of gamers tend to be fairly cutting edge on hardware anyway - and 4 gigs is a big limitation for a game like this. Even running on a low end laptop it's generally an X64 OS. Why constrain the memory the game can use when it's not needed?
It's because Windows XP was faster than Vista for gaming (Vista was a resource hog), and XP x64 edition had problems with drivers (not a lot of manufacturers made x64 drivers available). So a lot of times, gamers would run XP x86 (32-bit) as it was the superior OS for a while. And I think, at first, it was even faster than Windows 7 until 7 got optimized better. But this is all if I recall correctly. In this day and age, Window 7+ are definitely the way to go, and x64 editions are fully driver-supported.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Mostly the transition period yeah, we had 64-bit CPU's but we didn't have proper support yet in terms of drivers and OS. WinXP 64-bits was an unstable piece of doodoo and the 4+Gb "hack" for WinXP 32-bits was even more unstable.
Comments
When a computer has more than 4GB and it allocates memory images to 32-bit processes, I believe it still has to either map video memory directly or use a memory mirror of it for that process's address space. That size was adjustable but still needed to leave an address range for the video memory.
https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-158
Win7 has settled the dust...