PDA

View Full Version : 64 bit



BM357_TinMan
03-21-2006, 09:55 PM
I was wondering, and maybe this has already been answered, but, is BoB going to be designed to take advantage of 64bit systems? I mean, being able to process twice the info in one cycle has got to be a major advantage right. And with Vista getting closer, it seems that, if this new series is going to have the monster longevity that the IL2 series has enjoyed, a 64bit engine is about a necessity, right?

HelSqnProtos
03-21-2006, 10:51 PM
S~!

Right.

Don't worry about it. The sim engine is being designed to last then next 5 years min. So you can bet multithreading and et all will be part of the design. Its clear 64bit is the future. Oleg won't miss it BE SURE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-22-2006, 12:38 AM
Oleg once posted that Intel talks to him and other developers about how to get the best from their cpu's, if you can call them cpus, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but AMD does not talk. Now, I am a fundamentalist AMD Semperon FB*, but am willing to admit the truth here.

* FB = FanBoy

ElAurens
03-22-2006, 05:39 AM
Microsoft announced this morning that the Vista OS release would be pushed back to January 2007, for various reasons.

I'd add 2 weeks to that...

Be sure.....


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
03-22-2006, 06:04 AM
I don't understand the Intel opssesion, OK Crusoe core looks promising but Intel has a lot to do/correct to convince me buying their CPU again. I wouldn't be suprised at all if in the end BoB will run better on AMD CPU's than on Intel ones although being optimized for Intel.
Currently it offers less and asks more($), Northwood was their last good CPU IMO...

VW-IceFire
03-22-2006, 02:18 PM
AMD's are generally considered the enthusiasts CPU choice. Quite a few simmers are in the same category...obviously it would make sense for BoB to take advantage of AMD Athlon 64 and 64 X2 features. But that shouldn't hurt supporting Intel's abilities either.

AMD64 and EM64T are the same instruction set fortunately...so not a big deal.

RAF238th_Soak
03-22-2006, 06:51 PM
Intel's Conroe chip crushes AMDs FX 60. Conroe leaves AMD far behind as much as 40 % on some benchmarks and an overall average of 20% across the board right now. The launch of the chip is still 6 months away. These test advantages were based on the 2.66GHz version. The extreme edition version of Conroe will likely be clocked at 3.0Hz which will extend the gap even further. AMD isn't going to close this gap anytime soon. This is good news for gamers and even better for us Intel fans. Oh buy the way the new Conroe chip runs cooler and uses 40 % less power. Conroe will be the chip of choice for Vista be sure. What a knock out punch...lol.

VW-IceFire
03-22-2006, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by RAF238th_Soak:
Intel's Conroe chip crushes AMDs FX 60. Conroe leaves AMD far behind as much as 40 % on some benchmarks and an overall average of 20% across the board right now. The launch of the chip is still 6 months away. These test advantages were based on the 2.66GHz version. The extreme edition version of Conroe will likely be clocked at 3.0Hz which will extend the gap even further. AMD isn't going to close this gap anytime soon. This is good news for gamers and even better for us Intel fans. Oh buy the way the new Conroe chip runs cooler and uses 40 % less power. Conroe will be the chip of choice for Vista be sure. What a knock out punch...lol.
Until I see tests done with actual retail hardware I'm not going to quite believe all of that. Conroe looks like the break Intel has needed...but until I see Toms Hardware and Hard[OCP] with the two side by side with retail chips and motherboards I'm going to be very leery of beliving anything. I'm also looking forward to what AMD brings to the table with socket AM2.

I'm not saying that Conroe won't be a success either. The pre-release hype is always greater than the actual product in my experience.

RAF238th_Soak
03-22-2006, 07:17 PM
Look here IceFire

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

VW-IceFire
03-22-2006, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by RAF238th_Soak:
Look here IceFire

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713
I know...I visited and read the full report the day it came out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm fairly well informed. Its still pre-production silicon. We'll see how it pans out.

SeaFireLIV
03-22-2006, 10:28 PM
So those of us with a cool 64 athlon aren`t really getting the full potential out of our PCs. A bit like having a souped-up engine but the right fuel`s not been released yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Immermann
03-23-2006, 01:26 AM
I mean, being able to process twice the info in one cycle has got to be a major advantage right.

It would (will?) also mean bigger and more detailed maps.

WOLFMondo
03-23-2006, 03:52 AM
Before asking for BoB to take advantage of 64bit processing, you need to know what that does for a game, basically nothinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Allot of the 64bit technology takes advantage of difference facets of memory managment etc which is great for large servers but for the home PC its a little overated with not too much benefit. Dual core chips have allot more potential to be taken advantage off.

mazexx
03-23-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Before asking for BoB to take advantage of 64bit processing, you need to know what that does for a game, basically nothinghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Allot of the 64bit technology takes advantage of difference facets of memory managment etc which is great for large servers but for the home PC its a little overated with not too much benefit. Dual core chips have allot more potential to be taken advantage off.

As an old DBA and gamer I fully agree... 64bit CPU:s are great for running massive databases but the hype for the desktop versions of these CPU:s was rather funny. The Conroe with fat floating point performance is a comletely different issue. The problem for us gamers is the dual/quad core approach that seems to be the path of the future. I guess it must be very hard to code a game to take advantage of four cores. I guess that some low level split of the instructions between the cores is needed to get all the horse power out of these beasts...

/Mazex

VW-IceFire
03-23-2006, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
So those of us with a cool 64 athlon aren`t really getting the full potential out of our PCs. A bit like having a souped-up engine but the right fuel`s not been released yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif
Until there is a true 64bit OS, with 64bit drivers, and applications that take advantage of 64bit...you aren't going to see any difference. That said...the Athlon64's are still faster than their AthlonXP predecessors...has little to do with the 64bit stuff and alot more to do with how the processor was designed.

Its going to take years for the 64bit element to truly pan out. Same with Dual Core. There are benefits you can have right now...but others will take time.

rfap
03-23-2006, 01:18 PM
You'll start to see the benfits of the 64Bit memory model when Vista finally appears. The Inquirer showed some screenshots of Vista's memory usage today. It seems that Vista wants around 800MB befor you start to use any apps. Now PF likes around 1GB when you're on a heavy map so you're touching 2GB there easily. What will BOB be looking for? I can see 4GB machines coming down the line pretty soon, thats when 64Bit starts showing its muscle with the one addressable memory space without having to use PAE or some silly workaround.
As regards the Conroe chip, it looks like a very nice piece of silicon, something worthy of what Intel designers are capable of, which is something we have not been able to say for quite a while. Strange however that they benchmark their latest chip with a 32bit OS only, especially when this chip family will be in the transition from 32bit to 64bit... Even stranger that I have not seen any website mention this either.
Saying that. I've a 3800+ X2 Athlon 64 running at 2600Mhz with a max temp of 35 Degrees C. I've been using AMD stuff for over 7 years now and Intel may jump ahead temporarily but I have every confidence in Mr Meyers team to claw that back and perhaps even reclaim the performance crown.
I have a 64bit partition setup to monitor developments. I've drivers for everything including my HOTAS setup (Thank you Mr Church) and I have to say that I have not had a single problem with it. IL2 / PF runs on it very well and while the FPS monitors may show that it is not as fast as on a 32bit OS, it just seems smoother...
My 2C

Regards All

Sergio_101
03-24-2006, 04:10 AM
Back of the buss for Intel...
Currently no Intel windows based
offerings touch a FX-57 or FX-60.

Think AMD will let Intel catch up?

Remember when the 3.2EE chips were introduced
and touted as the answer to the AMD64s ?
-----NOT!-----

As usual the Intel offering fell short.

The "conroe" chip, the P5, will certianly
out class the current lot of AMD and Intel
chips on the market.

Not to worry AMD Fanboy's, AMD will out perform
Intel by the traditional 25% or more when the
P5 is introduced.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Sergio

WOLFMondo
03-24-2006, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Until there is a true 64bit OS, with 64bit drivers, and applications that take advantage of 64bit...you aren't going to see any difference. That said...the Athlon64's are still faster than their AthlonXP predecessors...has little to do with the 64bit stuff and alot more to do with how the processor was designed.

Even with a true 64bit OS with drivers you won't see any real appreciable advantage unless your running servers. You simply won't see any advantage as the home user or gamer. Most of the benefits of 64bit are to do with large amounts of memory i.e. servers with 16GB Ram. The 64bit thing is really nothing more than a marketting gimic by AMD where the home user is concerned. 64bit chips in a home system offer very little more than a 32 bit chip.

Sergio_101
03-24-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Until there is a true 64bit OS, with 64bit drivers, and applications that take advantage of 64bit...you aren't going to see any difference. That said...the Athlon64's are still faster than their AthlonXP predecessors...has little to do with the 64bit stuff and alot more to do with how the processor was designed.

Even with a true 64bit OS with drivers you won't see any real appreciable advantage unless your running servers. You simply won't see any advantage as the home user or gamer. Most of the benefits of 64bit are to do with large amounts of memory i.e. servers with 16GB Ram. The 64bit thing is really nothing more than a marketting gimic by AMD where the home user is concerned. 64bit chips in a home system offer very little more than a 32 bit chip. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Maybe, but the AMD64's SMOKE the current offerings
from Intel.
I build both.
I never argue with fanboys.
But as a result I have tried a bunch of high end
video cards and both Intel and AMD processors.

For most applications involving Windows, AMD64's
are totally dominant.

I still find the FX-57 to be a bit faster than the
FX-60.

Sergio

GerritJ9
03-25-2006, 10:29 AM
As far as I know, there IS a 64-bit OS available......... Windows XP Professional x64 edition. But will FB/PF run well on that?

VW-IceFire
03-25-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
As far as I know, there IS a 64-bit OS available......... Windows XP Professional x64 edition. But will FB/PF run well on that?
From what I understand...it will but driver support is abysmal.

WOLFMondo is as usual correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Servers see a much larger benefit from the 64bit architecture. Still...since its becoming standard anyways its not a bad thing. Especially since the AMD 64's do well in 32bit anyways.

Scrappy_D
03-25-2006, 11:46 AM
I was just going to say .... running the game on a 64bit processor wont help a bit if your using a 32bit OS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Half the CPU registers are never used http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ZG77_Nagual
03-25-2006, 12:25 PM
Speculation about Intel's Conroe chip is just that - bench's or no it remains to be seen exactly what amd's offering will be. We've seen this game played before - the information is barely interesting - certainly not the basis for even a tenative conclusion.

Intel has changed their direction - having realized the way they were going with the ridiculous prescott core leads only to space heaters. Their best processor to date is the Pentium M - which blows the doors off all their other cpus per mhz for gaming. This is the basis of their new chips (based on the Pentium III - by the way) and it does indeed show alot of potential across the board - low power, great gaming performance etc. I was sold on the pentium M when I watched my 1.7 gig Pentium M laptop blow the doors of a 3 gig p4 laptop in FB.

AMD has shown a talent for really efficient processors though - the conroe test may - MAY show some potential - but it is certainly rash to bring it out as if the battle has been won.

p1ngu666
03-25-2006, 06:06 PM
tbh for me, it would need intel to produce a cracker of a cpu and mobo's need tobe good too..
the ultra high end stuff is unatainable for me, for the cost of one of them u can build a decent pc and clock the badgers off it...

AMD have had the performance crown for years, with a few blips. they've probably been the better buy for even longer. back to the thunderbird/duron era.

RAF238th_Soak
03-25-2006, 07:41 PM
Well competition is a good thing. Whether it be ATI or Nvidia.....Intel or AMD. Nobody stays out front forever. Ask the auto makers in Detroit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

codeseven7
03-29-2006, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
As far as I know, there IS a 64-bit OS available......... Windows XP Professional x64 edition. But will FB/PF run well on that?

I've been running FB/PF on an XP x64 Pro/AMD Athlon 64 3700+ combo for several months now. Since it's been awhile since running it on a 32bit system I honestly cant say I see any difference anymore. It runs and looks fine. Though many of my other apps load and run much faster on 64bit, I cant say it is worth the upgrade just for playing FB/PF.

However, BOB may be a different story.


DFI LP NF4 SLI-DR (BIOS 623-3)
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 939 90nm 1mb L2 cache
2GB (2x1GB) Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC4000
1-BFG GeForce 7800 GTX OC 256mb
WD 74 Gb SATA 10,000 rpm Raptor
NEC 3540A DVD RW
Mitsumi Floppy 7 in 1 USB Card Reader/Smart Media
Creative X-FI Fatality
PC Power & Cooling Turbo-Cool 510 SLI
Lian Li PC-60B Plus case
XP x64 Pro

WOLFMondo
03-30-2006, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Maybe, but the AMD64's SMOKE the current offerings
from Intel.


No argument there, the current AMD 64's are good chips and cheap too.

WOLFMondo
03-30-2006, 04:59 AM
Don't say that Icefire, you'll jinx me!


Originally posted by GerritJ9:
As far as I know, there IS a 64-bit OS available......... Windows XP Professional x64 edition. But will FB/PF run well on that?

yes it will. But. I tried it out at home and my CH hardware won't run on it and some applications do have problems with it.

Personally do not bother with it, try out 64bit Vista when it arrives. Vista is already a good 32bit OS in beta and should get full support immediately from hardware manufacturers for its 64 bit version.

Scen
03-31-2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by RAF238th_Soak:
Intel's Conroe chip crushes AMDs FX 60. Conroe leaves AMD far behind as much as 40 % on some benchmarks and an overall average of 20% across the board right now. The launch of the chip is still 6 months away. These test advantages were based on the 2.66GHz version. The extreme edition version of Conroe will likely be clocked at 3.0Hz which will extend the gap even further. AMD isn't going to close this gap anytime soon. This is good news for gamers and even better for us Intel fans. Oh buy the way the new Conroe chip runs cooler and uses 40 % less power. Conroe will be the chip of choice for Vista be sure. What a knock out punch...lol.

Actually that test you're referring to used an older AMD chipset so it wasn't running up to todays standards. Plus your right you won't see conroe for another 6 months. But there is no doubt AMD has their work cut out for them. I believe their answer will be AM2 DDR2 and better manufacturing process (increased clock speeds).

Either way it's going to be an interesting fight and we as consumers will win in the end.

Scendore

p1ngu666
04-02-2006, 09:00 AM
running xp64 here now, seems nicer and faster than normal xp. havent tried PF yet.

drivers arent as good as for xp32, but only my webcam has no drivers at all

TooCool_12f
04-03-2006, 01:52 AM
saying that games can't use 64bit architecture reminds me of the times when the SEGA Megadrive was the best and nices console, with its 32bit chip...

"you'll never need 64bit graphic chips, it would be an overkill" said people at that time. shortly after that, the next gen console used 128bit graphics.. they just zapped 64bit graphics...

databases use 64bit architecture simply because they are designed for that, running on 64bit OS. No actual game has been designed to run in 64bit environment, so you won't see any real difference in using it on a 64bit processor.

If BoB has efficient 64bit code version, and is ran on a 64 bit processor, with 64bit drivers the difference between that version and a 32 bit one would be really significant


But as long as one part of the chain is not there (either CPU, or the game or the OS), it won't benefit trom 64bit architecture

Odranoel1
04-03-2006, 08:03 AM
Some time ago, our systems engineering manager showed me a technote about Windows XP Pro or 2003 Server (cant remember) stating that the 32-bit flavor of the OS was not able to allocate more than 1.5 GB of memory in a single block to any given app. This being a limitation of 32 bit addressing (2 GB total).

If BoB only doubles the memory requirements versus FB, the justification for 64 bits is there.

Also, 64 bit computing, if properly implemented, i.e. with adequate coding and compilers, should increase performance on a clock by clock basis.

I think 64 bit in gaming brings massive additional potential, but the game developer community will need time to grow into it.

Imagine a quad or eight core system with 8-16 GB of memory. This is what we may expect in 2007! :-)
Now imagine what Oleg and team could do with that computing power :-))

-S- Odranoel1

Treetop64
04-03-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by RAF238th_Soak:
Intel's Conroe chip crushes AMDs FX 60. Conroe leaves AMD far behind as much as 40 % on some benchmarks and an overall average of 20% across the board right now. The launch of the chip is still 6 months away. These test advantages were based on the 2.66GHz version. The extreme edition version of Conroe will likely be clocked at 3.0Hz which will extend the gap even further. AMD isn't going to close this gap anytime soon. This is good news for gamers and even better for us Intel fans. Oh buy the way the new Conroe chip runs cooler and uses 40 % less power. Conroe will be the chip of choice for Vista be sure. What a knock out punch...lol.

Interesting. Will the Conroe run on a motherboard using the 945P Chipset? I hope so. I'd hate to have to buy another mobo just to run a faster cpu. But, that's part of the game sometimes...

timholt
04-03-2006, 09:27 PM
yes it will. But. I tried it out at home and my CH hardware won't run on it and some applications do have problems with it.

I'm about to upgrade including 64 bit XP. But. I am running CH stick, throttle and pedals. Are you saying these won't work with the 64bit XP???

WOLFMondo
04-04-2006, 12:43 AM
When I tried it at the end of last year, CH software did not work correctly with XP64. I couldn't get the stick or pedals to work with it.

I'd ask over at CH Hanger if this has been resolved yet.

rfap
04-04-2006, 03:48 AM
There have been working 64bit drivers for CH Products since Oct last year. Even with the first beta release I did not see any problems with IL2 / FB / PF....

darelc
04-04-2006, 04:30 AM
The immediate advantage to be gained with the x86_64 and EMT architectures are the extra general registers that they provide (x86 is very limited in its register support and alot of cycles are used just shuffling data from memory to the cpu registers). To get these gains the compiler support needs to be there and most developers still use microsoft compilers that don't support _64 EMT properly yet.

There are plenty of 64 bit operating systems out there, but most run in compatibility mode, not in pure 64 bit mode too.

stubby
04-04-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by mazexx:
As an old DBA and gamer I fully agree... 64bit CPU:s are great for running massive databases but the hype for the desktop versions of these CPU:s was rather funny. The Conroe with fat floating point performance is a comletely different issue. The problem for us gamers is the dual/quad core approach that seems to be the path of the future. I guess it must be very hard to code a game to take advantage of four cores. I guess that some low level split of the instructions between the cores is needed to get all the horse power out of these beasts...

/Mazex

I hear ya Mazex. I manage Oracle DBs on Enterprise Servers running under Solaris. The path to gaming nirvana is multiprocessor environments, not this dual core path we are going down. Of course, you to have an OS that truly allows parallel CPUS to run as separate entities. I"m not sure Vista supports this like say Unix. Ultimately, if Microsoft released a home OS that supported hardware w/ one to four cpus and games were coded likewise to allow parallel degrees of processing, no more problems. Imagine a quad cpu motherboard w/ 4 AMD 64bit processors only running at 2.2 Ghrtz w/ 4 gigs of and a killer Nvidia GPU. Flight sim software would allocate CPU 1 to physics, CPU 2 damage modeling, CPU 3 and CPU 4 for rest of gaming needs. On top of that, a GPU to further distribute work load. Imagine running the Black Death track w/ 254 FPS!

WOLFMondo
04-05-2006, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by rfap:
There have been working 64bit drivers for CH Products since Oct last year. Even with the first beta release I did not see any problems with IL2 / FB / PF....

Where did you get these from?

rfap
04-05-2006, 04:31 AM
Go to http://www.ch-hangar.com On the front screen is a request looking for 64bit beta testers. Inform Bob Church of your interest and he'll mail you a location to download from.

WOLFMondo
04-05-2006, 05:45 AM
Cheers!

WTE_Galway
04-06-2006, 08:06 PM
A number of reviewers are saying the "low end" 3800+ dual core AMD is as good as the equivalent Intel offerings even on single thread applications. Given that a lot of software including games will also use the dual cores over the next few years it seem sa good option.

Have a look here:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=15

" There is a tradeoff involved in the X2 3800+, because its 2GHz clock speed is relatively low, and as a result, its performance in single-threaded applications is decent, but not stellar. Still, the X2 3800+ plays today's single-threaded games better than any form of Pentium 4 or D. "

BM357_TinMan
04-06-2006, 10:10 PM
For those that say that 64bit won't do a thing for games, I don't know anything about the way cpu's and stuff work, but, I was under the impression that, in addition to being able to allocate and utilize general ram better than a 32bit cpu, a 64bit cpu could do almost twice the calcs per cycle of a 32bit cpu, maybe that's not true.

However, it seems to me that if a game were designed to run in a true 64bit environment,(which is exactly what I was asking about) then it certainly would be able to take advantage of what a 64bit cpu has to offer. If not, why are vpu's 128bit and not 32bit? I mean, a game built for 32bit would, obviously, not benifit much from a 64bit cpu in a 64bit environment, but a 64bit game....

Seems like this "64bit won't help a bit for gamers" guys are kind of saying that the earth is flat.......