64 bit ?

[gonk 0]

Is there going to be a 64bit version of OFP2 ? Just curious, because OFP2 is due for release at the end of 2004 and by then AMD and INTEL should of had their 64 bit processor on the market for 6-12 months. I know it will take a while for the 64 bit PC to reach the consumer, however it just might be an option to consider to keep ahead of the pack. I remember how much OFP changed from conception to production due to improvements in PC's, just might be worth aiming very high from the start.

Thx

[Azatoth 0]

99% - No

64-bit for games it's too... early

[Milkman 1]

Im sorry, can someone clue me in on what 64 bit means? All I know is my windows 98se is 32 bit...

[grayghost 0]

Its the width of the computer bus and the size of the processor registers. Nothing you need to worry about, 64 bit hardware right now is only used on servers (And I do NOT mean game servers. I mean the real thing ... huge databases and so on)

Anyway, as I said...you shouldn't even need to think about it - it isn't a factor at this point for consummer computing.

[Speeeedy 0]

Well i personally think it would be an smart move. In september AMD comes with an 64 Bit cosumer CPU which im going to buy as soon as its out and its expected to become an hot selling CPU by Analysts

And for insteads EPIC already said that as soon as the HAMMER (thats what the 64 BIT CPU is nickname is =) that they will have special 64 Bit codes for that CPU. Now thats one developer, but a real big one.

So i think when OFP 2 comes out in 2004 you like to have all advances for giving better peformence to your costumers. 64BIT support is one of those

[Milkman 1]

Alright cool, but when 64bit processors come out, what will be their Ghz rate? Will other pieces of hardware be compatible?

[grayghost 0]

Short answer: No.

Longer answer:

In order to play OFP on a 64-bit system you'd need to have OFP2 compiled for it. But this implies your OS would also need to be 64-bit.

And you'd need a new GFX card, new sound, new EVERYTHING.

And it would be expensive.

And people aren't going to to just switch over to 64-bit platforms overnight, so no, it wouldn't be a smart move since people don't need 64-bit windows, 64-bit Microsoft Office, and ... need I go on?

As far as OFP2's time frame is concerned, 64-bit platforms are NOT a factor. Not at /all/.

[mads bahrt 0]

This is getting pretty off-topic but:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In order to play OFP on a 64-bit system you'd need to have OFP2 compiled for it. But this implies your OS would also need to be 64-bit.<span id='postcolor'>

The Hammer runs "normal" 32 bit binaries just as it will run 64 bit and old 16 bit dos programs. Like today you are able to run old 16 bit programs on your 32 bit machine. Your OS doesn't need to be 64 bit to run on the hammer either, though it makes sence to do this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And you'd need a new GFX card, new sound, new EVERYTHING.<span id='postcolor'>

Why? 64 bit pc's will still be expanded using PCI and AGP. It should still be able to use the old 32bit drivers though it would probably improve performance to use new 64 bit versions. The only problem with current hardware might be that the OS might require you to use 64 bit versions of the drivers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And it would be expensive.<span id='postcolor'>

Not neccesarily. You need a new processor and a new motherboard. The rest of the equipment is the same as today. The motherboard shouldn't have to be any more expensive than today. The processor core are larger than current ones, but if canging to a smaller fabrication technology that might be eliminated.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And people aren't going to to just switch over to 64-bit platforms overnight, so no, it wouldn't be a smart move since people don't need 64-bit windows, 64-bit Microsoft Office, and ... need I go on?

As far as OFP2's time frame is concerned, 64-bit platforms are NOT a factor. Not at /all/.<span id='postcolor'>

They don't need to switch overnight. They might switch just because it might offer a performance increase for their 32 bit programs. And then suddenly there would be a base of 64 bit systems. When OFP2 hits the market 64 bit consumer systems would have had a year on the market.

There might be no advantage in releasing a 64 bit version of OFP2. That depends on the type of operations performed in the program. But if it offers increased performance the program might be released with dual-mode binaries, just as it might support SSE2 without sacrificing compatitibility with computers that doesn't have this extension. There might never be a 64 bit MS Office, but if it offers perfomance enhancements, there is no problems in making a version which would also be able to take advantage of this.

[Guest]

Rough estimate of the speed of the Hammer is 1.65Ghz. Not fast, and early trials show a P4 3.06 still out performs it...but that's not really the point of having 64-bit. The main reasons is that 32-bit can access a maximum of 4Gb of RAM...and that's it. Eight years ago that was a lot.....but now 64-bit can access some huge amount of RAM...I forget exactly how much. This is why 64-bit will be VERY useful for servers.

[WhoCares 0]

It would surprise me, if they implement a 64Bit address bus. This would make 2^64 = ~18Million GB... Talking about overkill. I guess 40Bit = 1TB is sufficient for any platform those machines will run. They would also be able to implement direct addressing modes...

Edit: I have to correct myself (partially), as they indeed use 64Bit virtual addresses (implementation may have less). Just reading the Specs

Edit2: The Hammer family will have a 48Bit virtual address. (Page 36 in above Spec)

Edit3: The physical address range is 40Bits. (Page 37 of the pdf)

[theavonlady 2]

OFP could then offer a time acceleration option of 256x.

You could then finish the After Montignac mission in 7 seconds.

[Speeeedy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @ 06 May 2003,06:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rough estimate of the speed of the Hammer is 1.65Ghz. Not fast, and early trials show a P4 3.06 still out performs it...but that's not really the point of having 64-bit.<span id='postcolor'>

Im not sure where you get this data but most of it is falls. The Sledgehammer that runs on 1.65 GHZ outpeformce an Intel 3.06 in most tests i have seen.

But lets not discuss if its better or not then P4. Fact is that the feature will be 64BIT maybe not next year. But in time (i think max of 3 years) all CPU's will be 64 bit.

It was the same with 32 bit. No one saw the use of that at first to.....

So i say support 64 BIT in Flashpoint 2. It gives an nice peformence boost (even if its an little one)

[awdougherty 0]

Personally, I don't see why they wouldn't. Hopefully it won't be a complete ordeal to recompile the code into 64bit compatible files.

Also, I don't think you'd need new hardware, but it would help to have 64bit compatible software.

I think Microsoft already has running 64bit versions of their OS, that shouldn't be a big deal.

But if not, the AMD chip runs 32bit code just fine. I might wait a little to get a 64bit chip, but my next CPU will definitely be a 64bit AMD unless something very weird happens

[Schoeler 0]

What are the projections for eventual processor speeds with 64 bit systems? I know the current systems have pretty much maxed out at 3Ghz right?

[Speeeedy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 06 May 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are the projections for eventual processor speeds with 64 bit systems?  I know the current systems have pretty much maxed out at 3Ghz right?<span id='postcolor'>

no the P4 can go up to 10 GHZ

and AMD does not work with GHZ, or atleast thats what they say because they say GHZ nowadays doesnt tell the peformence anymore

[awdougherty 0]

My understanding is that the current architecture can go much higher than 3 gig (someone said the P4 can go to 10gig). The physical construction with the .13 die is starting to max out around 3 gig (I think). I heard that AMD and Intel are getting ready to a .10 die or a .09 die but I'm not sure.

[Baron von Beer 0]

.09 micron, you are correct. Intel is developing such a chip for the next series of P4s, and AMD is starting to toy with what they can do with it. (Will be there next "line" of chips). Smaller size=better heat characteristics, which is the bottleneck they run into as each set matures.

As for 64 bit, I think most are correct in that we won't see it actually used outside of business for some time. As an example, look at Hardware T&L that the Geforce 256 introduced. It was quite some time before ANY game took advantage of that, and even longer before it became "standard". And that was something that could be implemented but "optional" in use (if your card supported it, it's used, if not, then it wasn't) 64 bit programs are something that have to be done to run exclusively on 64bit platforms. Hence, extra dev work for a customer base that will be much smaller in the immediate future than the 32bit crowd. Now, years from now, things will be different. Right now though, the only 64 bit software your likely to see is in business, where massive database servers will enjoy the wider "roadways" given to them.

[kegetys 2]

I dont think there is much need for 64bit computing in gaming for quite a long time. With 32bits you can address up to 4GB of memory, which should be plenty for any gaming system for a few more years. While x86-64 does also give some extra registers which can improve even gaming performance, I dont think the difference is big enough to be worth the trouble of having to have both 32 and 64bit versions of the game available.

In business level high-end applications (where also 64bit addressing is useful) its different since there is a need for 64bit even without the performance gain, so you can just make a 64bit software and market it to businesses who will buy 64bit compatible hardware for it. For games its the other way around, most people have a computer already and your game must run on it.

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Baron von Beer @ 07 May 2003,23:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As an example, look at Hardware T&L that the Geforce 256 introduced.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, as far as I know, business level products (from SGI for example) had hardware T&L support many years before the geforce. Then again, also 64bit computing has been used for years already, its just now coming to PC computers too.

[Speeeedy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Baron von Beer @ 07 May 2003,22:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">.09 micron, you are correct. Intel is developing such a chip for the next series of P4s, and AMD is starting to toy with what they can do with it. (Will be there next "line" of chips). Smaller size=better heat characteristics, which is the bottleneck they run into as each set matures.

As for 64 bit, I think most are correct in that we won't see it actually used outside of business for some time. As an example, look at Hardware T&L that the Geforce 256 introduced. It was quite some time before ANY game took advantage of that, and even longer before it became "standard". And that was something that could be implemented but "optional" in use (if your card supported it, it's used, if not, then it wasn't) 64 bit programs are something that have to be done to run exclusively on 64bit platforms. Hence, extra dev work for a customer base that will be much smaller in the immediate future than the 32bit crowd. Now, years from now, things will be different. Right now though, the only 64 bit software your likely to see is in business, where massive database servers will enjoy the wider "roadways" given to them.<span id='postcolor'>

Well that aint exactly right. Like i said UT2003 will soon support both 64 bit as 32 bit

[tracy_t 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ 07 May 2003,22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont think there is much need for 64bit computing in gaming for quite a long time. With 32bits you can address up to 4GB of memory, which should be plenty for any gaming system for a few more years. While x86-64 does also give some extra registers  which can improve even gaming performance, I dont think the difference is big enough to be worth the trouble of having to have both 32 and 64bit versions of the game available.

In business level high-end applications (where also 64bit addressing is useful) its different since there is a need for 64bit even without the performance gain, so you can just make a 64bit software and market it to businesses who will buy 64bit compatible hardware for it. For games its the other way around, most people have a computer already and your game must run on it.<span id='postcolor'>

I work as a developer myself, and I know 80x86 assembler- I KNOW I'd love 64 bit registers!

Look at it from this point of view:

memcpy's from system RAM to VRAM memory would be faster, as would applications (memcpy again, copying those large structs) and I know integer math (outside of the FPU) would be less hassle (ie: wouldn't use DX/EDX register.)

I also think 64bit would afford greater precision in integer math, meaning greater precision in 3D graphics, meaning better looking Flashpoint. With DirectX, don't always assume the GPU will be doing the math

EDIT: And don't always expect an FPU to do it

I demand  64 bit - I want 64 bit registers!

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Speeeedy @ 07 May 2003,07:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 06 May 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are the projections for eventual processor speeds with 64 bit systems?  I know the current systems have pretty much maxed out at 3Ghz right?<span id='postcolor'>

no the P4 can go up to 10 GHZ

and AMD does not work with GHZ, or atleast thats what they say because they say GHZ nowadays doesnt tell the peformence anymore<span id='postcolor'>

Mhz doesnt tell the truth anymore. Intel designed an architecture that scales fairly well in terms of 'speed' but on average does not perform much better than processors several hundred Mhz slower. I judge processors on performance in benchmarks not by speed, and in that arena, for gaming, AMD still holds the price/performance crown.

If I were a 3D artist, I'd likely look at Intel more, as the SSE2 implemetations do speed up rendering significantly.

The makers of Unreal Tournament 2K3 have said they will have a 64 bit port of UT2K3 when the Athlon 64 (Since Linux looks to be the only 64bit platform that will be available by September, that means Linux Gaming Goodness as well! ) is released. And Microsoft is working on a version of Server 2003 for the AMD 64bit platform. That tells me that Longhorn will likely be available in a 64 bit flavour at release as well.

I think it would be cool if there could be a linux port of OFP2, compiled in both 32bit and 64bit modes.

[HellToupee 0]

u can get 64bit cpus at home, dunno how much it would cost but you need an OS. Linux has 64bit support in many distros, theres a 64bit mandrake OS. By the time OFP2 comes who knows what could have penetrated the market.

[Yoshiro 0]

The people at Sierra are also making 64 bit Half Life and Counter Strike servers. They have said it provides much better performance and an increase in number of players. So 32 bit clients can run awsome on the 64 bit servers. And if you have a 64 bit client, more power for you to mess around with. The last I saw, the current Opterons/AMD64(betas) where hitting 1.8-2ghz. I belive AMD wants the AMD64 to be about 2.4ghz on release. As stated before the 1.6Ghz AMD 64 is competition for an Intell P4 3.02 machine. But with the new 800 meg FSB of the new P4's who knows how performance is going to scale.

[M60 0]

Hey everybody, yes I'm new   .

AMD has 2 versions of it's 64 bit CPU.  The server version (called Opteron), and the desktop version (Athlon 64).  Opteron was introduced in April.  It tops out at 1.8GHz today, though  2.0GHz version is expected in August.  At 1.8GHz it is about on par with the P4 3.0Ghz (for gaming).  

Anyway, in September Athlon 64 comes out.  It should debut between 2.0-2.2GHz.  This shouldn't be a problem considering AMD already has an Athlon XP that runs at 2.25GHz, and the Athlon 64 is designed to be more scalable.  

Now to the question.  Will there be a 64 bit version of OFP 2?  It depends.  If there is a large enough 64 bit market, and if the game can noticably(sp?) benefit from a 64 bit version, then maybe there will be.  We really can't tell right now.

BTW, Intel has no interest in 64 bit desktop CPUs for the time being, or so they say.  (They already have a 64 bit server CPU called Itanium, BTW).  However, there are rumors of a CPU called "Yamhill" being developed by Intel that will compete with AMD's Athlon 64, if it's a success.  Otherwise, only expect to see Intel's "Prescott" (unoffically named Pentium 5, really origional aren't they? lol) this Fall, which will be strictly 32 bit.

For more information about K8 (Opteron and Athlon64) check out this site.

http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1815

Or if you want to learn about any computer parts (including K8/Prescott) check out this message board.

http://www.sharkyforums.com/

Have a nice day!