ArmA II and 64bit

[Batstat 10]

... and believe me, there is a big difference running Crysis in 32 compared to 64..

I presume that Suma and Kegetys did correct me, and that they both tell the true tale, then I find it hard to belive that 64bit Cryses run better than 32bit Cryses on the same HW. Google search do not inidicate that 64bit Cryses is better or faster than 32bit Cryses.

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=468

Quote[/b] ]As far as we can tell, there is no real performance difference between the two versions of Crysis. If your system is not fast enough, moving to 64-bit will not help you.

[Pyronick 21]

Those with all 64bit pc's, would get more out of their system, and believe me, there is a big difference running Crysis in 32 compared to 64.

Yes, I heard that aswell.

But wasn't that with like huge resolutions and 8 GB+ RAM?

[suma 8]

I'll say this again....it would be nice to have both 32 and 64 exe's as Crysis offers.

Those with 32bit pc's would not have any issues.

Those with all 64bit pc's, would get more out of their system, and believe me, there is a big difference running Crysis in 32 compared to 64.

I do not know about Crysis in particular, but what has been done with various technologies in past (MMX, SSE, PhysX, DX10) was this:

- you create a basic version of the game for the lowest denominator

- you try to create an enhanced version using the new technology XYZ

- you realize the version is not as enhanced as you hoped, because the technology is not as stellar as it sounded

But: you have already advertised your version will be XYZ enhanced, or you are promised to receive some bonus from some HW vendor if you make your version XYZ enhanced therefore ....

- you deliberately limit the lowest denominator version to not include some effects so that those effects are only present in the XYZ version

One particular example of such artificial limits:

Annandtech about 64b Far Cry

[echo1 0]

My only problem is Armas huge use of the virtual memory in x64. I always get pop-ups telling me to increase the page file. No matter how big it was I kept getting those errors.

How much RAM do you have?

[Spokesperson 0]

6 Gigabytes

[Alex72 1]

Good news that there are no problems with 64bit. Want make use of my 4gb and will go Win7 for ArmA2 as everyone so far reports great performance improvements over XP and VISTA in games (even ARMA1).

Dual boot that is. Win7 for games only.

Alex

[Supernova 0]

No, we will not provide a native x64 application for ArmA II. That said, x64 configurations including 8 GB RAM are included in the compatibility testing for ArmA II to make sure it runs well and there are no issues like there were with ArmA.

What about i7 systems with 6GB,12GB and eventually 24GB of memory. If there is going to be as much problems as Arma had upon launch then Arma II won't even be worthy of my time. Arma II needs a rigorous testing cycle to ensure it works on various hardware ranging from mid-end (maybe even low-end) to ultra high-end (i7, Phenom II).

[suma 8]

No, we will not provide a native x64 application for ArmA II. That said, x64 configurations including 8 GB RAM are included in the compatibility testing for ArmA II to make sure it runs well and there are no issues like there were with ArmA.

What about i7 systems with 6GB,12GB and eventually 24GB of memory. If there is going to be as much problems as Arma had upon launch then Arma II won't even be worthy of my time.

8 GB should be enough to test for all possible 32b overflows. We cannot reasonably test for all future systems (like it is next to impossible to test on 32 CPU + 64 GB of RAM, but it is quite likely such computers will be commonplace 10 years from now). Going from 2 GB to 4/8 GB is much bigger change than going from 8 to 80 GB.

That said, we take compatibility with future HW seriously and we want to make sure you will be able to play the game 10 or 20 years from now (if you are still interested).

[echo1 0]

6 Gigabytes

That's really odd. Error messages about running out of virtual memory only really happen (at least in my experience) when you don't have enough RAM. I'd be interested to know how much memory it's using (check using the process manager in task manager)

[Spokesperson 0]

When I got that error the process used up about 400-500MB. PF a little less than 3GB. The PF seems to increase very slowly. But it is reduced rapidly when I change my texture settings.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

. http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=468

Quote[/b] ]. If your system is not fast enough.

That is the point I posted prior.

My 2 year old pc is fast enough to show a difference between Crysis 32 vs 64bit.

It didn't take 1 minute into playing the 32bit mode to notice launching it was a mistake.

Edit

But wasn't that with like huge resolutions and 8 GB+ RAM?

hmmm, I'm 2560x1600, but only 4 gig ram (which I never see maxed out)

Edit #2

One particular example of such artificial limits:

Annandtech about 64b Far Cry

Wow, those mouse over images is about the difference I see with Crysis. The one of the hang glyder is the best.

Edit #3, which I did ponder over making.......

What about i7 systems with 6GB.........

If there is going to be as much problems as Arma had upon launch then Arma II won't even be worthy of my time.

pffft!

This person has no problems playing Armed Assualt.

http://www.swatgaming.net/forum/showthread.php?t=360

[echo1 0]

What about i7 systems with 6GB.........

If there is going to be as much problems as Arma had upon launch then Arma II won't even be worthy of my time.

pffft!

This person has no problems playing Armed Assualt.

http://www.swatgaming.net/forum/showthread.php?t=360

Guy in that thread never mentions running ArmA. In fact, he'd probably have problems considering he's using one of those dual-GPU ATI cards...

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

Guy in that thread never mentions running ArmA. In fact, he'd probably have problems considering he's using one of those dual-GPU ATI cards...

Actually, he does have to run -window, but I was refering to the i7+6gb memory which I quoted.

The ATI issue is a known issue, that should get fixed.

Don't ya think I should/would know if he plays a game on my server?

[4 IN 1 0]

but how about dedicated server? can servers be benefit for going 64bit?

[echo1 0]

That said, we take compatibility with future HW seriously and we want to make sure you will be able to play the game 10 or 20 years from now (if you are still interested).

Hey Suma, have you done any testing with the Beta copies of Windows 7?

[Placebo 29]

I've tried ArmA2 with the beta of Windows7 and it worked very, very well

[bravo 6 0]

Thanks, good to ear that

[7 0]

I've tried ArmA2 with the beta of Windows7 and it worked very, very well

and

T____T;

[tomservo 0]

Bunch of reasons why a 64bit version might be good:

- Mode switches and thunking crossing from 32bit user mode to 64bit kernel mode and back aren't necessary anymore.

- More registers and specialty instructions allowing the compiler to speed up various calculations and memory copy operations.

- More address space.

Also, the 10-40% total increased memory usage from doubling pointer width is a crap argument. If your game has such a footprint in pointers in relation to overall memory usage (especially with huge textures in memory), something's really wrong.

[suma 8]

Also, the 10-40% total increased memory usage from doubling pointer width is a crap argument. If your game has such a footprint in pointers in relation to overall memory usage (especially with huge textures in memory), something's really wrong.

Crap?

Textures and vertex buffers are not held in the system RAM at all, as they are stored in VRAM (Video card memory).

[echo1 0]

- More registers and specialty instructions allowing the compiler to speed up various calculations and memory copy operations.

I'm confused by this - are you trying to say that it will compile faster? Because that isn't really a concern for the end user as none of us will be compiling the code. Or are you saying that the code will be more efficient if its compiled in a 64bit compiler?

Edited April 12, 2009 by echo1
Quote tags messed up

[Maddmatt 1]

I'm confused by this - are you trying to say that it will compile faster? Because that isn't really a concern for the end user as none of us will be compiling the code. Or are you saying that the code will be more efficient if its compiled in a 64bit compiler?

No, he means when it is compiled the compiler will be able to make a more optimised program in 64-bit than if it was a 32-bit program.

Although I don't really know if that's true. I remember the 64-bit version of Far Cry, absolutely pointless :p

[bravo_01 0]

I've tried ArmA2 with the beta of Windows7 and it worked very, very well

Placebo

what ver.. of win 7 32 bit or 64 bit

[Zerst0ren 0]

Well since ArmA works well on Win7 64, I don't see any reason why ArmA 2 wouldn't.

[Placebo 29]

I use 64bit Win7 as I have a 64bit CPU + 6gb Ram :)