# Native 64-Bit ATITool.exe



## Plasmafusion (Sep 5, 2005)

When will atitool.exe be provided as a native x64 exe ?
Still atitool.exe runs as a 32-Bit exe under the Emulation layer in Windows 64.

Basically a simple recompile with Visual Studio 2005 using the x64 compiler setting and it should work fine !

Thx ...


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 5, 2005)

just a recompile: its not that easy

why do we need a native 64-bit version anyway?


----------



## shoman24v (Sep 5, 2005)

dood it's like so much cooler to run 64bit windows


----------



## REVHEAD (Sep 5, 2005)

Yes I to would like to put my hand up for a Native 64 bit version ,I am running soley on windows 64
and it would be better with the more native apps and programs running  ,rather than relying on WOW
emulation. 
 I can understand if its a big hassle to make 2 versions of ATI tool,but I think it would make a lot of pple even more Happy, I love ATI tool and swear By it keep up the great work ,I would be lost without this wonderfull piece of software.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 5, 2005)

atitool works fine on wow64 and there is nothing to be gained from a 64-bit build except for bragging rights .. so not worth the time


----------



## Anarion (Sep 5, 2005)

!


----------



## REVHEAD (Sep 6, 2005)

This will be my last post on this topic ,but with Windows Vista on the horizon,that will be 64 bit only ,wouldnt it make more sense to get a headstart on a 64 bit native ATI tool rather than wait till the time comes.Then when Vista gets here ,your app will aready run ,and the bugs worked out?


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

i would have to agree with going to a native 64 bit because i am getting my new HP xw4300 workstation/gaming computer (as seen in my signature) by next month. 64bit is, i repeat "is" faster than 32 bit not by 2X as much but more than that. ATI tool is a program that modifies the ATItool driver installed with ATItool which can modify the ATI Radeon Card (am i right?) therefore windows x64 needs a 64-bit driver, an emulation from 32 bit to 64 bit makes it still no better than a 32 bit, just like some hard drives that were original IDE and added a SATA chip to translate from IDE to SATA making it truely no better than an IDE drive. (if i know this why am i only in 9th grade and 14 years old?) actually by going 64 bit you enable to access 128GB of physical RAM (instead of 4GB in 32 bit), the virtual address space per 32 bit process is 2Gb in Win XP x32 Pro (less in Home) (3GB if booted with "/3GB" switch) and in Windows x64 Pro is 4GB (if compiled with "/largeaddressware"; 2GB otherwise) and virtual address space per 64 bit process is not available in x32 Pro or Home and in x64 is 8TB (8 terabyte(1 terabyte=1000GB)), and in x64 you can actually use AMD's "No Execute" or Intel's "Execute Disable bit" (which allows you to prevent the CPU buffer from overflowing from viruses and worms that make the buffer overflow) however x32 can't. plus the x64 kernal is more reliable because it wasn't based off the Windows XP kernal, it was based off the Windows Server 2003 SP1 kernal. the only downside of x64 i found was that there is no DOS support.


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

how come i am 14 years old and i know more about 64 bit than W1zzard. Not to be mean or anything i grew up around computers since my dad owns and runs a computer consulting business. Before you should be for or against something software or hardware related you need to do your research. I have actually found that games are slightly faster in windows xp x64 pro than in x32, there won't be a huge difference in game performance until games go 64 bit. ever since i tested a clients son's computer with simlilar specs to myn (his son wanted a workstation/gaming computer so he had me test Doom 3 on it for him and benchmark it, with the ECC RAM no tests failed even if the specs were crappier than myn, Intel 571 (half as good as my 670 because it has a 2mb cache instead of the 571's 1mb), 925XE, 2X512MB DDR2 533Mhz ECC, 3-160GB SATA HD's, ATI Radeon X800XTPE


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

sorry for the multiple messages but, Windows x64 isn't expected to be major like windows xp x32 is today until around 2006-2007, but it would make sense to have both 32 bit and 64 bit ATItools. There will be many bugs when the 64 bit ATItool finally does come out so why not have the bugs, and kinks fixed  and by the time windows x64 is major you will be kicking back on you desk relaxing while other maker of tools for ATI cards and Nvidia are hard at work trying to get a 64 bit version. otherwise i may have no choice but to go with the ATI native 64 bit catalyst overdrive system as much as it will hurt me to do it. I would proudly be one of the beta testers for the 64 bit version once i get my new computer of course, and have it all set up.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 6, 2005)

> ATI tool is a program that modifies the ATItool driver installed with ATItool which can modify the ATI Radeon Card (am i right?)


no. and atitool already has a 64-bit driver



> plus the x64 kernal is more reliable because it wasn't based off the Windows XP kernal, it was based off the Windows Server 2003 SP1 kernal. the only downside of x64 i found was that there is no DOS support.


lol

ok so vista is over 1 year away ... i dont think this is "on the horizon" but nm .. 

you pick: i will spend my time on 
[ ] 64-bit native binary
[ ] r520 support
[ ] xfire support
[ ] nvidia support


----------



## Jewfromdahood (Sep 6, 2005)

i mean ATI tool is good now but it would be at it's full potential in 64 bit. but i guess i would go with R520 support since i plan on getting the X900XTPE


----------



## Plasmafusion (Sep 10, 2005)

[X] 64-bit native binary


----------

