64 bit D3?

[In the name of Zod]

Has anyone been utilizing 64-bit vista or xp and had any success. Its just that with a little fore thought its likely that most PC's sold next year will have 6 gig ram as these systems will be based on intel new i7 core architecture that sport tri-channel memory controllers (2 gig modules per channel).

It certainly perks ones curiousity as to whether or not Blizzard are planning a pure x64 coded version of D3 or if they are counting on the x64 OS being capable of running in an emulated mode to support the game. This would really suck imo!

From my personal experiences, x64 has been a difficult transition to make if not solely due to poor video drivers currently provided by nVidia. I've also noticed that programs are a lot more stable if they are purely written for x64. Can someone else shed some light on this subject, I'm very interested in hearing your points of view and experiences about this transition and what you think the impact will be like for games shortly released. Thank you very much.

[sevencreature]

Do a little research - how big percentage of PC gamers is using 64bit OS? How many of them has systems with over 4 GB RAM?

And then you can guess - will Blizzard develop game natively for 64bit system to look "cool" in the eyes of few PC enthusiasts, or will they settle for 32bits just to sold few milion D3 copies more?

[Teleportation]

The Nehalems will be ridiculously expensive when released (the most expensive one is over 1k euro, methinks), do you really believe most people will own one next year? When few have quads right now?


Also, the i7 isn't going to be that much better than a clocked e8600... Although that is another matter :D

[In the name of Zod]

The Nehalems will be ridiculously expensive when released (the most expensive one is over 1k euro, methinks), do you really believe most people will own one next year? When few have quads right now?


Also, the i7 isn't going to be that much better than a clocked e8600... Although that is another matter :D

For the i7's specifically you may be correct teleportation, but lets not forget the many others too. The mainstream bloomsfield desktop is set to retail at $284 (probably US). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

Certainly people have commented on what this will do to the prices of the current core processors on the market. There's also the issue that soon we will be getting some 4 gig ram modules which means people will have a minimum of 8 gig on their rig.

I guess what I'm really saying is that imo we have passed the point of being on the fence with 64 bit, we are now being pushed into it. That assumed (if you agree or not) it would be pretty stupid to be planning the release of a 32 bit game that a company would want to see people playing for another 5-8 years from its release date. Release date still pending.

[Teleportation]

I have 4gig RAM right now and I don't intend to let go of my computer yet.. Who knows in 1½ year, though..

And I certainly agree that in 2010, most people will have 4gig+.

Oh, and everything is a lot more expensive here in northern Europe ;)

[In the name of Zod]

http://www.dailytech.com/Majority+of+Windows+7+Installations+Will+Be+64bit/article13983.htm

Can't say I didn't tell you guys so. Looks like D3 will be another dated game like Half-life 2 on release. Pity really I was looking forward to it too. :coffee:

[Knight_Wolf]

http://www.dailytech.com/Majority+of+Windows+7+Installations+Will+Be+64bit/article13983.htm

Can't say I didn't tell you guys so. Looks like D3 will be another dated game like Half-life 2 on release. Pity really I was looking forward to it too. :coffee:


No it won't be outdated or anything, you are just a minority of a minority that likes extremely high end graphics and geeky tech stuff, if you want a game that has crazy graphics, needs lots of ram and has 64bit support go play Crysis. :crazyeyes:

And 25% of Vista installations in USA being 64bit doesn't mean anything, it will always be the geeky minority that gets the latest tech world wide, and a gaming company would be extremely retarded if it caters to them and leave out the majority of gamers who have a 2 or 3 years old machines ... that's the most stupid thing to do. :coffee:

[Nukeman8]

not sure what the problem is i got 64 bit vista and 90% on my games work anyway.
Of course blizzard is going to make sure it runs on 64 bit machines, we know its going to replace 32 bit completely eventually so it only makes sense to have it 32 and 64 bit compatible

[Srikandi]

Working on a 64 bit machine isn't the same as taking advantage of the 64 bits for improved performance, Nukeman :)

What folks with 64 bit systems want is for it to run better on their machines than on 32 bit machines, justifying the extra expense.

[Brother Laz]

it will always be the geeky minority that gets the latest tech world wide, and a gaming company would be extremely retarded if it caters to them and leave out the majority of gamers who have a 2 or 3 years old machines ... that's the most stupid thing to do. :coffee:

Other game companies do it. You know, those companies that whine about low sales and blame piracy.

Like Crysis, which actually sold badly because it wasn't worth playing unless you rocked two 8800s in SLI and the gameplay was nonexistent.

[Akse]

I've been running 64-bit vista business for 2 years soon with 4GB memory, not really a single problem so far. Some old games(all 16-bit) like fallout 1 don't work.. probably some emulator would help.

Imo Microsoft should have thrown out the whole 32-bit support for Windows 7.. people that need it for their old CPU's probably would rather use XP anyways rather than Vista or 7 (even when 7 is lighter its not as light as XP).

I really wonder some manufacturers that sell their laptops and pcs with big numbers 4GIGS of MEMORY.. and with 32-bit OS.

Anyways I haven't seen an advert of a computer for long time with less than 4GIG mem.. it seems to be the standard since ddr2 is really really cheap.

What makes i7 expensive is the chipset and ddr3.. but ddr3 is ought to be a lot cheaper next year.. same goes for the motherboards too when they get more popular I guess.

[MYK]

http://www.dailytech.com/Majority+of+Windows+7+Installations+Will+Be+64bit/article13983.htm

Can't say I didn't tell you guys so. Looks like D3 will be another dated game like Half-life 2 on release. Pity really I was looking forward to it too. :coffee:

I guess you better not buy it, then.

In fact, don't ever buy a game, it might become dated!



Stick around for Duke Nuken: Forever. Wait...

[In the name of Zod]

What makes i7 expensive is the chipset and ddr3.. but ddr3 is ought to be a lot cheaper next year.. same goes for the motherboards too when they get more popular I guess.
Yes absolutely and for the nah sayers here that means 64bit only. Let me repeat that - 64 bit ONLY. 32 bit is finished, at last. DDR3 6gig kit info (http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3529) for those who don't want to live in ignorance.

[sevencreature]

32 bit is finished, at last. DDR3 6gig kit info (http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3529) for those who don't want to live in ignorance.
Those who don't live in ignorance already know everything written in comments below that article...

[Fists of War]

Yes absolutely and for the nah sayers here that means 64bit only. Let me repeat that - 64 bit ONLY. 32 bit is finished, at last. DDR3 6gig kit info (http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=3529) for those who don't want to live in ignorance.
Leave the 64-bit exclusitivity for the rest of the Crysis trilogy, and maybe tech demos (or are they the same thing :P). Blizzard is definately a company that considers the demographic of gamers, unlike Crytek, who just aim for maximum impact.

Although I wouldn't really care, I'd just upgrade to 64-bit and i7.

[Klose]

I guess you better not buy it, then.

In fact, don't ever buy a game, it might become dated!

I only buy games released in the future, myself!

[In the name of Zod]

@Klose: Yes. Why would you go out and buy a 16bit game for a 32bit computer? You wouldn't so yes I follow your point. :)

[Vang]

Working on a 64 bit machine isn't the same as taking advantage of the 64 bits for improved performance, Nukeman :)

What folks with 64 bit systems want is for it to run better on their machines than on 32 bit machines, justifying the extra expense.

64 bit OS is cheaper than 32 bit, by about 20bucks when I bought mine. Your going to have 4gig of ram at minimum, regardless on almost anything new, and most that are being sold are 64bit with 6-8gig of ram off of store shelves now, at least in my area.

As for it being only 64bit, I highly doubt that. The average PC user upgrades probably every 4-6years. Now, I don't doubt it will require at least a dual core, but 64bit is a quite a way off for total mainstream, now thats not to say they won't have both versions, as I see that as a possibility.

[Nukeman8]

think i must of put my point across wrong.

64 bit is the future. 32bit will be fazed out soon not any time soon but it will be.

[Ishtor]

i am sure that they will make the game the same for everyone, and will be able to play on a 32 bit system. If not i will be mad. most come gigs of ram right now i would say be hardcore pc people like me tend to max it out, unfortuanly 32 bit max is 8.

[In the name of Zod]

32bit machines have a maximum of 4 gigs of ram readable. Although 1 gig of that will be dedicated to system only use so applications/games will only have access to 3gig at most. Probably won't be long until video cards come with 2 gig come to think of it. I'm seriously in doubt that pc's will come with 4 gig or less when d3 comes out.

What one has to understand here is that its not a matter of system requirements for d3. If you own a 6gig, 8gig or 12gig machine you can still run a 32bit OS. However, you will own a 64bit OS too and you will by buying 64bit games. There will come a point where the only game you play on your old 32bit OS is d3 at which point most people will be blaming blizzard for not making it 64bit. Yes you can run 32bit applications on a 64bit system but those old 32bit games will not be in any-way as capable as your newer 64bit games are.

Just to clear up a point I just made. Why will d3 be the only 32bit game you still play on your 64bit OS? Because blizzard make very highly replayable games that last one heck of a lot longer than most other games imo.

[Crowd Control]

Isn't a dual boot a decent solution to this, whatever how much bit the system needs to be?

[crazybs]

Maybe it's just me, and I've been out of the loop on PC upgrades, but I don't see the point of 64bit versus 32.

I know it might get you an extra 5 points on the newest benchmark test, but I don't really see how it helps, especially if your video card(small overheated computer from 2002) is doing all the work. :p

Either way, 32 bit would be the smart way to go at this point. They can always port it or put in emulation later on, like others have said.

[PReP]

Seeing as this game probably won't be enjoyable to play (if possible) on old hardware like pentium 4, and old amd's, the fact is that dualcore and upwards are all 64-bit already, so how can people be so against it?
But of course they can make executables and dll's for both 32-bit and 64-bit, that isn't the parts that would take up space anyways.

[Alexcstrassa]

this is all pretty much a non-issue. most 32-bit code is compatible with 64-bit operating systems & processors, (except the Intel Itanium).

[Coleridge]

What one has to understand here is that its not a matter of system requirements for d3. If you own a 6gig, 8gig or 12gig machine you can still run a 32bit OS. However, you will own a 64bit OS too and you will by buying 64bit games. There will come a point where the only game you play on your old 32bit OS is d3 at which point most people will be blaming blizzard for not making it 64bit. Yes you can run 32bit applications on a 64bit system but those old 32bit games will not be in any-way as capable as your newer 64bit games are.

Just to clear up a point I just made. Why will d3 be the only 32bit game you still play on your 64bit OS? Because blizzard make very highly replayable games that last one heck of a lot longer than most other games imo.
What's the point in adding 64bit support for a game that will barely use it? If there is no perfomance boost in giving Diablo 3 64Bit support its completely unnecessary and would be a waste of development and money, it would be like giving Tetris 64 bit support, what's the point when the today's 64 Bit OS allready can simulate 32Bit support perfectly?
And as for newer games being more capable? Is that so strange? Ofcourse Crysis will have better support in XP/Vista rather than lets say Warcraft 2 (although i can run Warcraft 2 just fine, in a 64bit OS too! Strange huh?).

[Coleridge]

doh double post

[In the name of Zod]

In relation to dual boot. Well you could but why would you want to for just 1 game. As said by the time D3 comes out more people will have 64 OS. Microsoft are porting Office to 64 despite the fact that its 32bit version could run on 64bit OS. Its true that 32bit apps run ok in 64bit but the 32bit compilers used don't do a perfect job.

64bit will be the only OS's being sold when a D3 expansion is released. The idea of running the game virtually would work but then again its such a dodgy way of solving a problem that should not be a problem to start with if it is 64bit.

If a game utilises the complete capability of a 64bit processor you will get significant performance improvement which will mean we get to look forward to possible engine upgrades with patches. 64bit code can also provide higher degree's of accuracy for computing vector's. On top of this since 64os's will be the upcoming standard so the question remains as to whether or not the new cpu vector instructions will be set to manipulate 64bit code only (see ivybridge).

Sticking with 32bit right now isn't a bad option for users since that's where the software still is but for a developer its suicide.
edit: I think D3 will be a bit more advanced than tetris :p

[Krugar]

Zod, It took around 15 years for 32bit to become the norm. The projections say 64bit can take twice these many years. And they have only entered the consumer market 5 years ago.

You are completely wrong on your assumption that 64bit will be the norm sometime in the next 5 years. If you were a programmer you would know this by heart since our current programming models cannot really take advantage of the platform except for specialized software (which has already been served by 64bit architectures since the early 90s). I'm talking here of weather prediction software, certain advanced CAD applications and advanced 3D rendering software for the movie industry, and the likes.

Meanwhile, parallel technologies need themselves to evolve to for a computer game to fully take advantage of a 64bit architecture. And in the game industry we are still far from graphics cards that demand this type of processing, from number crushing demanding high floating point precision, or for that matter any type of game processing demanding the wider 64bit registers on these processors.

The final, bigger problem is of legacy software. 32bit was (is) a de facto standard during the golden years of computing -- during the times of software explosion and internet planting. The world turns everyday on a 32 bit motor. You just can't ever hope to have 64bit established before this software is made 64bit.

Today you are seeing software being shipped for 32bit architectures. Next year that will be just the same. And the year after that too, And for the next... So what makes you think in 5 years (by the time D3 ships its expansion pack) everyone will have a 64 bit machine, when 32bit software runs slower on 64bit architectures?

[5zigen]

64 bit is something blizzard is likely not interested in particularly.

For one reason, it's not necessary now as most people don't have more than 4gb of ram, and that's the main draw for 64 bit addressing.

For two, D3 is not likely the type of game that will need that much Ram. Typically, to my knowledge, that much Vram is required for super high resolution textures, or playing something at a ultra high native resolution, typically with high resolution textures.

I may be off here, but I don't think screens are going to increase much in resolution in the near future for a few reasons. #1 there is a push for using 1080p as the standard, for better or worse, a lot of monitors being produced are 1080p. #2 1920x is very high resolution even on a larger screen. There might be room for a step up I suppose, but on these screens you have to have very sensitive eyes to notice the dot pitch.

In all I suppose it could keep scaling up, with the scaling up of cameras, but I hope people realize at some point that it isn't improving their viewing experience.

In D3, blizzard will not want to be putting in the super high detail models and characters, for 2 reasons likely. #1 to accomidate you have to have very good downscaling in the engine, which might be more trouble than they want to go to, particularly when the game isn't really a "close up" experience but more of a birds eye view experience #2 these models / textures increase the amount of work that blizzard has to do to add new assets to the game, which also increases the amount of money they have to spend producing it.

In all, I suppose it would be nice for 64 bit support, for those people who have 16gb of ram and want to run the game on dual 22 in monitors or whatever, but that is going to be such a niche market that it just isn't likely to be a priority for blizzard.

Remember most people don't even have 48xx / GT 2xx series cards at this point, and their adoption will probably be only slightly higher when D3 comes out. If blizzard wants to have a smooth running game, they are going to focus on the lower end systems first, particularly the 9500-9600 range, to make sure it's playable on a broad range of systems (Apple/Consumer grade systems with GPU's).

[FreshMeat]

I have a big question: If i were to go to windows7 64 bit from my Xp-pro 32 bit, would my 512meg vram video card still waste the 512+megs of "address space"? I have 2x2 = 4 gigs ram on a p45 asus board.

or would I actually GAIN usable ram? This would then negate anyones argument for loading a 32 bit os.

To make matters worse, my next video card is a passive 4850 1gb card. This COULD eat up more ram than I currently have eaten up. However, my friends 8800gtx ultra card (was super pricey, but he's rich) takes up the same amount of space on vista 32. This card has 768 megs vram on it. Both our OS's show 3.25 usable.

My current card is a 3870 ATI.

(the 1 gig 4850 does get more frames over the 512, dont bother posting that it doesnt, I also OC and have watercooling for gpu, it clearly does get better frames and will even more so oc'd and memory bandwidth pumped. Sad how lately I have to add these blurbs of pre-nullifying info.)

Thank you much!

[Krugar]

I have a big question: If i were to go to windows7 64 bit from my Xp-pro 32 bit, would my 512meg vram video card still waste the 512+megs of "address space"?

Yes. Your GPU would run under 32bit compatibility mode drivers (assuming they work).

or would I actually GAIN usable ram?

There's never a gain. physical address space is never changed by the operating system. It's intrinsic characteristic of the hardware.

[FreshMeat]

If i load up Stalker, 2 gigs of ram, and my 512 meg vid card, I see 2 gigs in windows, my os and programs take up 300 megs, and stalker takes up like 1.5. I still have room left.

if i have 4 gigs of space on that xp pro machine, I see 3.25 gigs of space and i can only use 3.25 gigs of space.

so..... what then will 64 bit do? if my vid card will be forcing out memory chunks out of the last 1 gig anyways for itself?

[PReP]

You seem to be confusing the correlation between System RAM, and the VRAM of "ordinary" graphics cards, which are not onboard, and don't use the system ram.

a 32-bit os/system has a ram-cap at around 3.2 GB for _system_ ram.
The VRAM (video cards ram) has nothing to do with this. :)

[Risingred]

You seem to be confusing the correlation between System RAM, and the VRAM of "ordinary" graphics cards, which are not onboard, and don't use the system ram.

a 32-bit os/system has a ram-cap at around 3.2 GB for _system_ ram.
The VRAM (video cards ram) has nothing to do with this. :)

Vista counts GPU RAM against the running total of system RAM. That's how it's calculated. So yes, it is getting wasted, at least according to diagnostics. It addresses the memory gap by having a 64-bit infrastructure.

And don't tell me that these machines aren't going to be mainstream. I went to a freakin' officemax the other day and every single machine they had there (desktop) were running 64-bit Vista, either AMD XX or intel dual/quad cores with 4gb~ of RAM. These are commercial boxes, running 64-bit, which is coded natively and not a simple emulation. I'm sure they still sell x86 boxes but, with the resource hogging that is getting worse and worse in Windows, it's only natural that they would switch to natively coding x64.

I have had one conflict with Vista 64-bit, and that was for some program that came on a CD for a text book. Then again, I don't use Vista for work. That would be foolish. This is my box at home (although I'm currently running Windows 7).

For Diablo III? I see no reason why it would need to be natively coded for 64-bit. The emulation runs fine. There's nothing wrong with it. Now, with x64 XP? I don't know. I wouldn't bother with that, to be honest. If you want a 64b machine, and you are a gamer, then get Windows 7.

[PReP]

Vista counts GPU RAM against the running total of system RAM. That's how it's calculated. So yes, it is getting wasted, at least according to diagnostics. It addresses the memory gap by having a 64-bit infrastructure.

And don't tell me that these machines aren't going to be mainstream. I went to a freakin' officemax the other day and every single machine they had there (desktop) were running 64-bit Vista, either AMD XX or intel dual/quad cores with 4gb~ of RAM. These are commercial boxes, running 64-bit, which is coded natively and not a simple emulation. I'm sure they still sell x86 boxes but, with the resource hogging that is getting worse and worse in Windows, it's only natural that they would switch to natively coding x64.

I have had one conflict with Vista 64-bit, and that was for some program that came on a CD for a text book. Then again, I don't use Vista for work. That would be foolish. This is my box at home (although I'm currently running Windows 7).

For Diablo III? I see no reason why it would need to be natively coded for 64-bit. The emulation runs fine. There's nothing wrong with it. Now, with x64 XP? I don't know. I wouldn't bother with that, to be honest. If you want a 64b machine, and you are a gamer, then get Windows 7.

You missed the actual question of his, which i replied to.

On another note, i agree with your view that 64-bit will become the standard, most of the processors already are, so there is no point in not following when the time to jump onto the next windows comes (which for my own part is when win 7 is fully released)

[Risingred]

You missed the actual question of his, which i replied to.

On another note, i agree with your view that 64-bit will become the standard, most of the processors already are, so there is no point in not following when the time to jump onto the next windows comes (which for my own part is when win 7 is fully released)

My mistake...I was just trying to clear it up a bit since it's become even more complex. The term "memory gap" has even changed meanings.

I was an early adopter of Vista and I think I'm the only person who was ever actually happy with it. :p
I'll get W7 though, as it is already better, especially in terms of performance. I built an i7 machine, and I have no reason to not be on a 64-bit OS. I tried a couple different linux distros 64-bit and those were nothing but trouble, but it's been pretty much smooth sailing on Vistax64 besides the absolutely atrocious DRM and customer support.

[Akse]

64-bit XP has terrible driver support.. dont bother. You might be lucky and get it run well if your rig is right.. but AFAIK xp 64 is worse than vista 64.

[Risingred]

64-bit XP has terrible driver support.. dont bother. You might be lucky and get it run well if your rig is right.. but AFAIK xp 64 is worse than vista 64.

It is much worse than vista 64, because vista 64-bit was natively coded where XPx64 is an emulation.
XPx64 is still better than many of the linux distro 64s. :(

[MoonRunX]

Hello ,

i wanted to know is it possible to run the 32 bit outpost firewall on a 64 bit system or it would not work corectly ? because the 64 bit firewall i am not happy with ...

on my other mashine is the 32bit working very good but 64 some things are missing , that makes me nervios :-/

greetings

SirNonny

[StrikexForce]

Blizzard is known for releasing games which support a wide range of PC's. however, by the time D3 does come out 64bit OS and 6+ gb of RAM will be the norm in all consumer PC's.

even today, it is already getting close to being the norm, but a year from now it will be for sure.