# EA-DICE Frostbite Titles in 2013 Will Require 64-bit Windows



## btarunr (May 24, 2012)

While content-creation and media transcoding applications have transitioned to native x86-64 applications that can take advantage of large amounts of system and video memory, a similar transition by game developers has been rather slow. Very few PC games ship with 64-bit executables, as most games are ported from game consoles anyway, which have slim system requirements. 

EA-DICE has been behind developing games that take advantage of the latest PC technologies (such as DirectX 11), and according to a lead developer and rendering architect with the studio, Johan Andersson, games that are driven by Frostbite engine, which are slated for 2013, will require 64-bit operating systems, these games will not run on 32-bit Windows, or in 32-bit mode, on 64-bit Windows, but with full-fledged 64-bit executables. The 64-bit address-space would allow games to take advantage of system memory over 4 GB, and more importantly, high amounts of video memory, as 2 GB and 3 GB become standard with performance-segment graphics cards.



<blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center"><p>We'll have Frostbite-powered games in 2013 that will _require_ a 64-bit OS. If you are on 32-bit, great opportunity to upgrade to Windows 8</p>&mdash; Johan Andersson (@repi) <a href="https://twitter.com/repi/status/204501258273427456" data-datetime="2012-05-21T09:17:54+00:00">May 21, 2012</a></blockquote>
<script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

The Push for Windows 64bit begins now!


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 24, 2012)

YEAH!!!!

....


its only taken how many years?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2012)

7 years.  Windows XP Professional x64 Edition was released in April 2005.  I've been running a 64-bit OS since June 2005.


----------



## seronx (May 24, 2012)

8GB DDR3 Single Channel + Windows 8 Pro + 512-GB/1-TB SSD: 2013 HERE I COME!!!


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> 8GB DDR3 Single Channel + Windows 8 Pro + 512-GB/1-TB SSD: 2013 HERE I COME!!!



i wonder if i will have 64/128GB of ram by then?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2012)

I think they should still provide 32-bit executables for those that don't have a 64-bit OS.  If you're running in a low resolution, it probably won't move into 64-bit territory in terms of memory usage.

They're going to get a ton of support calls and bad publicity from people that bought these games with a 32-bit computer and no option, whatsoever, to play them.


----------



## MikeMurphy (May 24, 2012)

I see it as more of an exception than a big trend.  When the next-gen consoles are out there will be a much bigger push for 64-bit resources.


----------



## seronx (May 24, 2012)

slyfox2151 said:


> i wonder if i will have 64/128GB of ram by then?


I don't do CAD workloads and I don't currently need more than 8-GB.  Nor, do I need dual/tri/quad channels...my applications show the best scores with single channel.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 24, 2012)

btarunr said:


> If you are on 32-bit, great opportunity to upgrade to *Windows 8*



What's wrong with Windows 7 x64 ???!?shadedshu


----------



## seronx (May 24, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> What's wrong with Windows 7 x64 ???!?shadedshu


Nothing,  but Windows 8 uses less memory than Windows 7.  (More memory for 64-bit games!)


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> Nothing,  but Windows 8 uses less memory than Windows 7.  (More memory for 64-bit games!)



we can only hope so, that Metro Interface is annoying as hell


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> Nothing,  but Windows 8 uses less memory than Windows 7.  (More memory for 64-bit games!)



Any real proof of that??!


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think they should still provide 32-bit executables for those that don't have a 64-bit OS.  If you're running in a low resolution, it probably won't move into 64-bit territory in terms of memory usage.
> 
> They're going to get a ton of support calls and bad publicity from people that bought these games with a 32-bit computer and no option, whatsoever, to play them.



I thought all CPUs had x86-64 anymore


----------



## seronx (May 24, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Any proof of that??!


http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx







Also, got a reason to get two monitors...(No more black screen in the second monitor yay!)


eidairaman1 said:


> I thought all CPUs had x86-64 anymore


All current CPUs support 32-bit and 64-bit, you are correct.


----------



## ShadowXP (May 24, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think they should still provide 32-bit executables for those that don't have a 64-bit OS.  If you're running in a low resolution, it probably won't move into 64-bit territory in terms of memory usage.
> 
> They're going to get a ton of support calls and bad publicity from people that bought these games with a 32-bit computer and no option, whatsoever, to play them.



Got to love it when people get so hyped up about games that they don't read the systems requirements. Besides, any computer old enough to NOT have 64-bit capability won't be able to run the game anyway. 

I think it's good, and about bloody time, that devs are starting to push for 64-bit games now, and start using the computing-power that most people have. It's annoying to be limited by 32-bit architecture.


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> I don't do CAD workloads and I don't currently need more than 8-GB.  Nor, do I need dual/tri/quad channels...my applications show the best scores with single channel.



i don't understand why you needed to say that lol?





ShadowXP said:


> Got to love it when people get so hyped up about games that they don't read the systems requirements. Besides, any computer old enough to NOT have 64-bit capability won't be able to run the game anyway.
> 
> I think it's good, and about bloody time, that devs are starting to push for 64-bit games now, and start using the computing-power that most people have. It's annoying to be limited by 32-bit architecture.





This.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx
> All current CPUs support 32-bit and 64-bit, you are correct.



Last time I seen a non 64bit part was SKT 478/ SKT 462, Excluding Sempron/Celeron/Pentium parts


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...windows-8.aspx



LOL. I don't have 1 or 2GB of RAM not even on my crappy laptop. And besides, until now even if you had 8 or more GB of RAM, the games were not using more than 3GB anyways. Now in the situation of x64 .exe files this will change. Hopefully the loading times will be significantly reduced!


----------



## Liquid Cool (May 24, 2012)

Windows XP x64 should be good right?



LC


----------



## Drone (May 24, 2012)

Another marketing bullcrap. How about making applications that utilize all cores/threads first?
Just another brainwashing like Halo 2 working under windows vista.


----------



## seronx (May 24, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> LOL. I don't have 1 or 2GB of RAM not even on my crappy laptop. And besides, until now even if you had 8 or more GB of RAM, the games were not using more than 3GB anyways. Now in the situation of x64 .exe files this will change. Hopefully the loading times will be significantly reduced!


32-bit -> 2GB
32-bit ext -> 3GB
32-bit on 64-bit -> 4 GB
64-bit probably user tweakable -> 4 GB -> Infinite GB(Get that game in the RAM!)


----------



## Perra (May 24, 2012)

seronx said:


> Also, got a reason to get two monitors...(No more black screen in the second monitor yay!)



Black screen on second monitor? What? Have I missed something? Been running more than one screen for ages and can't recall ever having that.


----------



## Lionheart (May 24, 2012)

Command & Conquer : Generals 2 should be well coded then


----------



## hellrazor (May 24, 2012)

Lionheart said:


> Command & Conquer : Generals 2 should be well coded then


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> I thought all CPUs had x86-64 anymore


VIA C7 isn't.  What I was getting at though is that a lot of laptops and even cheap desktops are still selling with 32-bit Windows 7.  There's also a ton of people still running Windows XP 32-bit.  Even if their computer has otherwise been upgraded to play newer games, the fact they don't include a 32-bit executable will mean they can't run the game at all.  For example, Frostbite 2 engine is used on Need for Speed: The Run and I know Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 is based on Frostbite 2 and scheduled for release in 2013.  Those games don't need more than 4 GiB of memory to run.  Even BF3 can run within that threshold if the settings are turned down far enough.

What I'm getting at is that it is a mistake for EA to not provide both executables.



Liquid Cool said:


> Windows XP x64 should be good right?
> 
> 
> 
> LC


No, Frostbite 2 is DirectX 10+.  XP supports nothing higher than DirectX 9.0c


----------



## NC37 (May 24, 2012)

This has taken too long. I kinda wish M$ had done the Apple thing and just outright forced people into 64bit like how Apple forced OSX onto customers along with about a dozen other things they've done to tick their customers off in the last decade.


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 24, 2012)

EA made a good decision? It must be a mistake or a coincidence.


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 24, 2012)

Ferrum Master said:


> EA made a good decision? It must be a mistake or a coincidence.



How come this is a good decision?


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> VIA C7 isn't.  What I was getting at though is that a lot of laptops and even cheap desktops are still selling with 32-bit Windows 7.  There's also a ton of people still running Windows XP 32-bit.  Even if their computer has otherwise been upgraded to play newer games, the fact they don't include a 32-bit executable will mean they can't run the game at all.  For example, Frostbite 2 engine is used on Need for Speed: The Run and I know Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 is based on Frostbite 2 and scheduled for release in 2013.  Those games don't need more than 4 GiB of memory to run.  Even BF3 can run within that threshold if the settings are turned down far enough.
> 
> What I'm getting at is that it is a mistake for EA to not provide both executables.
> 
> ...



In All Honesty Who runs a Via C7 for gaming?

Plus Windows 7 64bit has emulation for old windows versions, and if you need a 32Bit OS you can always parallel install it


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 24, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> How come this is a good decision?



AMD64? Bigger executable, less crappy loading, better textures, maps, more things to proud PC user not a crappy console port gamer...

That's my opinion.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think they should still provide 32-bit executables for those that don't have a 64-bit OS.  If you're running in a low resolution, it probably won't move into 64-bit territory in terms of memory usage.
> 
> They're going to get a ton of support calls and bad publicity from people that bought these games with a 32-bit computer and no option, whatsoever, to play them.



I bet there would be quite a lot of people who would end up running the 32bit executable for one reason or another, along with playing on high settings. Crash-fests, ahoy!
That would probably lead to even more support calls. And trying to help them would be many times more work than simply not giving 32bit executables. (Also try to look from the eyes of those people that have to answer those calls and try to help the customers. I have some first-hand experience with such things, and I can say - I would be happy for this (64bit only) If I would be a tech-support-guy at EA)


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 24, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> In All Honesty Who runs a Via C7 for gaming?
> 
> Plus Windows 7 64bit has emulation for old windows versions, and if you need a 32Bit OS you can always parallel install it



Yep.

Although for myself I've made a philosophy. ARM should be used for web, productivity tasks - like writing and reading some stuff and watching videos/music. Less power heat etc... an ARM should replace x86 in mid and entry PC level. For the sake of green earth ecosystem and overall cheapness.

AMD64? That is the powerhouse of domination when we need a muscle car. Hardcore workstations, gaming machines and designer CAD and folding guys. RAM is cheap as hell, and it should be used at last.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2012)

Vinska said:


> I bet there would be quite a lot of people who would end up running the 32bit executable for one reason or another, along with playing on high settings. Crash-fests, ahoy!
> That would probably lead to even more support calls. And trying to help them would be many times more work than simply not giving 32bit executables. (Also try to look from the eyes of those people that have to answer those calls and try to help the customers. I have some first-hand experience with such things, and I can say - I would be happy for this (64bit only) If I would be a tech-support-guy at EA)


Simple solution: launcher detects platform and runs 64-bit when available, otherwise runs 32-bit.  Virtually every EA games has a launcher now so it would be completely transparent to the user.  It can even be handled entirely from the installer (if 64-bit OS, install 64-bit binaries; if 32-bit OS, install 32-bit binaries).




eidairaman1 said:


> Plus Windows 7 64bit has emulation for old windows versions, and if you need a 32Bit OS you can always parallel install it


Only software emulation, not driver/hardware. Nothing 16-bit will run on 64-bit and 64-bit OS's are bigger than 32-bit OS's so when space is limited, 32-bit is preferred.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Nothing 16-bit will run on 64-bit and 64-bit OS's are bigger than 32-bit OS's so when space is limited, 32-bit is preferred.



Actually...


----------



## Widjaja (May 24, 2012)

The question is...will these companies supporting only 64-bit OS make their games run properly?
Or is this to cut down programming costs by not having to make sure the game is 32 and 64-bit compatible?


----------



## Prima.Vera (May 24, 2012)

Ferrum Master said:


> AMD64? Bigger executable, less crappy loading, better textures, maps, more things to proud PC user not a crappy console port gamer...
> 
> That's my opinion.



No, I mean from the key word point "x64 only"


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 24, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> No, I mean from the key word point "x64 only"



I don't think so, it isn't such hard to compile an exe using x64 or x86 flags. The key moment is that the compiled program will grow out of the 3.2GB memory limit span...


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

Widjaja said:


> The question is...will these companies supporting only 64-bit OS make their games run properly?
> Or is this to cut down programming costs by not having to make sure the game is 32 and 64-bit compatible?



It appears to me they are going pure-64bit exactly because _they want to make sure that their games run properly._
So, myeah... the first option ;]

Also, going pure-64bit lets them fine-tune the program a little better, that way they can make the game run more efficiently. Keeping the code both 32bit & 64bit compatible sacrifices some fine-tuning opportunities, or at very least make them harder to pull off correctly. Thus I'd say: going pure 64bit will probably be a win for both the devs and the users.

More: keeping 32bit "alive" can be compared to "making new games while keeping the current consoles in mind, as it is planned to port the said games to consoles" (or vice-versa). And I think You all know too well where does this usually lead... :shadedshu


----------



## Filiprino (May 24, 2012)

Finally, 64 bits. More registers, more memory, bigger numbers, faster operations. Finally the extra bandwidth AMD64 archs have been gaining recently won't be wasted.
It only has taken over 9 years since the launch of Athlon 64 on 2003 with the appropiate Linux kernel.


----------



## Frick (May 24, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> What's wrong with Windows 7 x64 ???!?shadedshu



Windows 8 is out by 2013 so of course WIndows 8 will be the thing to buy.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 24, 2012)

Frick said:


> Windows 8 is out by 2013 so of course WIndows 8 will be the thing to buy.



If you are happy to pay for the windows 8 metro theme. I know there will be a lot of tweaks under the hood for Win8 but the metro theme is the 'face' of the OS and most people hate it.

when vista came out, i totally skipped it. I'll probably do the same here


----------



## ERazer (May 24, 2012)

ohh sweet baby jesus about time


----------



## Frick (May 24, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> If you are happy to pay for the windows 8 metro theme. I know there will be a lot of tweaks under the hood for Win8 but the metro theme is the 'face' of the OS and most people hate it.
> 
> when vista came out, i totally skipped it. I'll probably do the same here



I meant that is the thing that will be promoted and put on sale. Some retailers won't even sell WIndows 7 in a year. Like it or not, it's the way it is.

And given how many people use Windows I'm pretty sure "most" of them are not in majority. You have probably heard the opinions of hundreds or maybe even a few thousand people, and that is nothing.


----------



## Disparia (May 24, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think they should still provide 32-bit executables for those that don't have a 64-bit OS.  If you're running in a low resolution, it probably won't move into 64-bit territory in terms of memory usage.
> 
> They're going to get a ton of support calls and bad publicity from people that bought these games with a 32-bit computer and no option, whatsoever, to play them.



Just list my number, they can all be greeted by a recording of my farts.




Ferrum Master said:


> EA made a good decision? It must be a mistake or a coincidence.



Ha ha! As much as I'd like to play a fiddle while EA burns, I'll give props where it is due.

Good move EA /clap

Now, give us Dungeon Keeper 3 you bastards!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2012)

I think DK3 would be blasphemous to what Bullfrog made.  Just look what they did to Syndicate.  Two words: rape and pillage.

Now, if Lionhead somehow got back the rights to Dungeon Keeper and made #3, that I would be interested in. 

Wishful thinking.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 24, 2012)

Frick said:


> I meant that is the thing that will be promoted and put on sale. Some retailers won't even sell WIndows 7 in a year. Like it or not, it's the way it is.
> 
> And given how many people use Windows I'm pretty sure "most" of them are not in majority. You have probably heard the opinions of hundreds or maybe even a few thousand people, and that is nothing.



Reguardless - Unless retailers can 'sell' unsold copies of operating systems back to microsoft there will always be copies floating about If you know where to find them and thats not just a fact. you can quite often find unsold older versions of software floating about on the market even though most retailers stopped selling them and manufacturers stopped distributing that particular software.

Given that Microsofts Win8 statistics will be heavily skewed due to them 'forcing' everyone to adopt it by distributing through OEMs with their laptops and computers. Its no different then when they done the same thing with Vista - I know of hundreds of people who bought new netbooks, laptops and computers with Vista on it who wiped and installed XP on it as soon as it was unboxed.

as much as youd like to admit that there are a positive amount of people who like the metro look at the same time there are those (including many of this forum and other forums) that have declared their hate for it and also their hate over the removal of the start button button.

general consumers or the 'sheep' will be most likely be totally be indifferent to this when their new machine comes with Win8. Either 'adapt' and get on with it or seek ways which they can downgrade to Win7 like most people did with Vista.

---

:EDIT:

Just to add to the software arguement.... Windows 95 & 98. you can still find copies being sold so your point is invalid - If people really wanted to downgrade to Win7 there will always be copies floating about on the market, if not then theres always the non legit way of aquiring a copy that will work the same as a fully activated copy and it doesnt cost a penny. apart from you paying your regular internet bills.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 24, 2012)

I think Windows 7 is going to dominate desktops/laptops and Windows 8 will dominate devices with touch screens.  Windows 9 will probably achieve a happy medium in 2014-2015.


----------



## Frick (May 24, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> Reguardless - Unless retailers can 'sell' unsold copies of operating systems back to microsoft there will always be copies floating about If you know where to find them and thats not just a fact. you can quite often find unsold older versions of software floating about on the market even though most retailers stopped selling them and manufacturers stopped distributing that particular software.



Totally true, but Win8 will still be the main thing.



> Given that Microsofts Win8 statistics will be heavily skewed due to them 'forcing' everyone to adopt it by distributing through OEMs with their laptops and computers. Its no different then when they done the same thing with Vista - I know of hundreds of people who bought new netbooks, laptops and computers with Vista on it who wiped and installed XP on it as soon as it was unboxed.



Me too, but a lot of times that was unwarranted because it was the right "thing" to do. YOu were supposed to hate Vista even if you didn't know anything about it.



> as much as youd like to admit that there are a positive amount of people who like the metro look at the same time there are those (including many of this forum and other forums) that have declared their hate for it and also their hate over the removal of the start button button.



Aye it is, but as said earlier they/we (I share some of the concerns) are unimportant and they're still just a tiny tiny fraction of the market.



> general consumers or the 'sheep' will be most likely be totally be indifferent to this when their new machine comes with Win8. Either 'adapt' and get on with it or seek ways which they can downgrade to Win7 like most people did with Vista.



And there came the "sheep" comment. :shadedshu

EDIT: Wait, what's this thread about again?


----------



## Delta6326 (May 24, 2012)

Awesome its about time. I don't see how in this world we can progress technology when people are to stubborn to develop new things and make it main stream.


----------



## Recus (May 24, 2012)

Too bad in won't help not to be shitty console port.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 24, 2012)

man 16bit apps, livin in the past huh, only thing would be games mainly



FordGT90Concept said:


> Simple solution: launcher detects platform and runs 64-bit when available, otherwise runs 32-bit.  Virtually every EA games has a launcher now so it would be completely transparent to the user.  It can even be handled entirely from the installer (if 64-bit OS, install 64-bit binaries; if 32-bit OS, install 32-bit binaries).
> 
> 
> 
> Only software emulation, not driver/hardware. Nothing 16-bit will run on 64-bit and 64-bit OS's are bigger than 32-bit OS's so when space is limited, 32-bit is preferred.


----------



## Syborfical (May 24, 2012)

Pitty EA games look good but aren't much fun.


----------



## Syborfical (May 24, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think DK3 would be blasphemous to what Bullfrog made.  Just look what they did to Syndicate.  Two words: rape and pillage.
> 
> Now, if Lionhead somehow got back the rights to Dungeon Keeper and made #3, that I would be interested in.
> 
> Wishful thinking.



Id love to see DK3 and theme hospital.

I know if EA attempted them I would be utterly disappointed.

But if lion head bought the rights .. well who knows...
You only have to look at diablo 3 sales to figure out if a game franchise is good why change it?


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

@eidairaman1

Windows are quite bad when it comes to compatibility in general.
I have encountered many programs (most of those were games) that are [!] less than 5 years old and are 32bit, yet fail on 64bit windows, or on Vista&Win7 in general. From this, quite ironic situations arise: if I want to run there programs/games, if I am on windows at that moment _I have to boot into linux and use Wine_. I suppose it is pretty ironic when I end up having to use Wine and run those on non-native platforms _just because Windows rejects it's own native applications_. (Should I remind that in Windows, some parts of it are 32bit exclusive (NOT talking about 16bit program support) - MS has pruned some things in 64bit versions? And that some valid 32bit programs fail to work at all without those? Ba**s.
[That is one of the reasons I love Wine -  has much better compatibility with older code. Along with being able to run 16bit code on an 64bit OS. And do that with hardly any emulation involved, IIRC. =d ]


----------



## Aquinus (May 24, 2012)

Clinging to 32-bit is just moronic. It's going to get phased out one way or another like 16-bit did. 32 to 64 bit is no different. Also 64-bit doesn't mean more registers, it just means the registers are wider and the ALU is capable to calculating 64-bit words rather than 32-bit words. It just has to do with the size of addressable memory and the amount of size that memory pointers will take up (since addresses are twice the size.) So one one hand you can do larger integer calculations and have more space of them, but takes up more space for all the extra addresses. All in all, 64-bit is not slower or faster, it's just a difference on how memory and arithmetic operations are handled.

32-bit (4Gb space) 0x00000000 - 0xFFFFFFFF
64-bit (16EB space) 0x0000000000000000 - 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 24, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Also 64-bit doesn't mean more registers, it just means the registers are wider



I did read the x86-64 specification, and it says otherwise. (Has double the registers compared to x86; And IIRC, those extra registers are only accessible when running in 64bit mode)


----------



## aCeFr3aK (May 24, 2012)

please please please let the game be battlefield 2143, not a less expensive 15 dollar game like battlefield 1943 was but a full fledged game like battlefield 3 is costing 60 dollars. PLEASE DICE! PLEASE EA! Battlefield 2142 was my favorite game in the series!


----------



## Aquinus (May 24, 2012)

Vinska said:


> I did read the x86-64 specification, and it says otherwise. (Has double the registers compared to x86; And IIRC, those extra registers are only accessible when running in 64bit mode)



Yes! I'm not sure about the x86_64 spec, but a number of microcontrollers and processors I've used in the past will combine two registers to be able to do double-wide integer operations. Since you said that it has double as many registers, it is very possible that these extra registers are used to make the 32-bit ones double wide (64-bit words.) I know this from programming a couple HCS12 microcontrollers at the assembly level, and it had two 8-bit data registers and two 16-bit address registers, and two data registers have some supported operations that would use both registers as if it were one 16-bit word.

Edit: No, you're right, there are twice as many data registers. It's an optimization thing.


----------



## WarhammerTX (May 24, 2012)

Drone said:


> Another marketing bullcrap. How about making applications that utilize all cores/threads first?
> Just another brainwashing like Halo 2 working under windows vista.



I think your right thought I read somewhere that the next consoles were going to be 64-bit anyway and I have news for this douche bag the frostbite engine is still broke. They cant even fix bf3 so who cares about what he has to say EA/Dice = Liar


----------



## Aquinus (May 24, 2012)

WarhammerTX said:


> I think your right thought I read somewhere that the next consoles were going to be 64-bit anyway and I have news for this douche bag the frostbite engine is still broke. They cant even fix bf3 so who cares about what he has to say EA/Dice = Liar



64-bit has nothing to do with how buggy software is, it's just a matter of how it works.


----------



## Filiprino (May 24, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Clinging to 32-bit is just moronic. It's going to get phased out one way or another like 16-bit did. 32 to 64 bit is no different. Also 64-bit doesn't mean more registers, it just means the registers are wider and the ALU is capable to calculating 64-bit words rather than 32-bit words. It just has to do with the size of addressable memory and the amount of size that memory pointers will take up (since addresses are twice the size.) So one one hand you can do larger integer calculations and have more space of them, but takes up more space for all the extra addresses. All in all, 64-bit is not slower or faster, it's just a difference on how memory and arithmetic operations are handled.
> 
> 32-bit (4Gb space) 0x00000000 - 0xFFFFFFFF
> 64-bit (16EB space) 0x0000000000000000 - 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF



Here we are talking about AMD64 architecture. And that means more registers and double width of course. Also it means faster operations with bigger numbers because you can do quadwords in one row instead of two.
Also if you do a lot of bit manipulation, it means you can take more bits at once without going to SIMD instructions and their registers.

Anyway, the biggest gain is having more memory available, because having twice the registers does not affect a lot with the typical workloads, even in games. Although that was only tested with simple recompiles of 32 bit binaries to 64 bit binaries, both on normal aplications and games.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 25, 2012)

IDK ive only had issues with anything that is 16bit primarily and that being games. other than that no issues




Vinska said:


> @eidairaman1
> 
> Windows are quite bad when it comes to compatibility in general.
> I have encountered many programs (most of those were games) that are [!] less than 5 years old and are 32bit, yet fail on 64bit windows, or on Vista&Win7 in general. From this, quite ironic situations arise: if I want to run there programs/games, if I am on windows at that moment _I have to boot into linux and use Wine_. I suppose it is pretty ironic when I end up having to use Wine and run those on non-native platforms _just because Windows rejects it's own native applications_. (Should I remind that in Windows, some parts of it are 32bit exclusive (NOT talking about 16bit program support) - MS has pruned some things in 64bit versions? And that some valid 32bit programs fail to work at all without those? Ba**s.
> [That is one of the reasons I love Wine -  has much better compatibility with older code. Along with being able to run 16bit code on an 64bit OS. And do that with hardly any emulation involved, IIRC. =d ]


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 25, 2012)

Syborfical said:


> Pitty EA games look good but aren't much fun.



you must be a CoD player.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 25, 2012)

Heard of virtual pc ¿?


----------



## Makaveli (May 25, 2012)

Drone said:


> Another marketing bullcrap. How about making applications that utilize all cores/threads first?
> Just another brainwashing like Halo 2 working under windows vista.



maybe you should talk to some programmers about how hard is it to multithread an application.

Then you can also tell all those people on dual core machine to upgrade aswell.


----------



## Mussels (May 25, 2012)

finally!


I've been the guy pushing on TPU for everyone to go 64 bit for so long now, its time we saw the industry take heed.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 25, 2012)

Mussels said:


> finally!
> 
> 
> I've been the guy pushing on TPU for everyone to go 64 bit for so long now, its time we saw the industry take heed.



ive got old hardware so this isnt going to matter, the desktop with a 1950 Pro is just able to Play COD 4 MW at 1280x1024 Monitor.

Im definitely going to run 64bit WIndows next build and probably have a secondary drive for 32 bit OS for games that refuse to run on 64bit


----------



## Mussels (May 25, 2012)

64 bit + DX11 is the only way to maximise current video cards full potential, so if a game company didnt push it now, next gen GPU's with their 4/6GB of ram would seem quite pointless


eidairaman1: i've never ran into a single game that wont run on a 64 bit OS.


----------



## slyfox2151 (May 25, 2012)

Vinska said:


> @eidairaman1
> 
> Windows are quite bad when it comes to compatibility in general.
> I have encountered many programs (most of those were games) that are [!] less than 5 years old and are 32bit, yet fail on 64bit windows, or on Vista&Win7 in general. From this, quite ironic situations arise: if I want to run there programs/games, if I am on windows at that moment _I have to boot into linux and use Wine_. I suppose it is pretty ironic when I end up having to use Wine and run those on non-native platforms _just because Windows rejects it's own native applications_. (Should I remind that in Windows, some parts of it are 32bit exclusive (NOT talking about 16bit program support) - MS has pruned some things in 64bit versions? And that some valid 32bit programs fail to work at all without those? Ba**s.
> [That is one of the reasons I love Wine -  has much better compatibility with older code. Along with being able to run 16bit code on an 64bit OS. And do that with hardly any emulation involved, IIRC. =d ]





What games? name them.... i have never found one that doesnt work unless it was 16bit.


----------



## Frick (May 25, 2012)

Mussels said:


> eidairaman1: i've never ran into a single game that wont run on a 64 bit OS.





slyfox2151 said:


> What games? name them.... i have never found one that doesnt work unless it was 16bit.



I've found games that didn't work, but I can't recall them atm.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 25, 2012)

slyfox2151 said:


> What games? name them.... i have never found one that doesnt work unless it was 16bit.



Ya only game I had trouble with was Sonic CD in Windows XP (Expert Software Edition Disk) It required Dino 2D Libraries (API before Direct X). I Found a Patch for XP and apparently its been updated for Windows Vista/7 n That game runs great anyway

Oddity is it runs at the right frame rate whether fast or smooth compared to the Re Launch of it this Last year (Seemed to have like a PAL frame rate)


----------



## Syborfical (May 25, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> you must be a CoD player.



Not really a anything player.


Although I perfer Cod over anything greater than bF2..... 

I prefer counter strike over COD although its looking aged.... 


I know my passinate hatred for EA has alot to do with not liking BF3.  
And BFBC2 left a bad taste in my mouth.... 

If I wanted to paly a game where you need to lvl up for hours id play wow.
IMO BF 1942 excellent game everything else that followed is almost like a mod...






Mussels said:


> eidairaman1: i've never ran into a single game that wont run on a 64 bit OS.



Theme hospital and dungeon keeper the space quest series 
There is a huge list of classics that won't run.

Although they are old one good thing is most have fan made 3rd party executables or loaders so they will work


----------



## RejZoR (May 25, 2012)

I've been on 64bit system since the release of Vista. I also had 8GB of RAM back then and now i have 6GB (because it's tri channel). My next build will most likely be with 12GB or 16GB of RAM.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 26, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Last time I seen a non 64bit part was SKT 478/ SKT 462, Excluding Sempron/Celeron/Pentium parts



Core solo.




Mussels said:


> finally!
> 
> 
> I've been the guy pushing on TPU for everyone to go 64 bit for so long now, its time we saw the industry take heed.




Honestly had no idea people even ran the 32 bit windows 7 still.

Really? /facepalm

Every computer Ive interacted with on a daily basis [that is x86]for the last like... 2 years has been running x64.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 26, 2012)

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
more than 35% of _gamer's_ computers are running 32-bit Windows.  Nevermind all those gamers that never install Steam because they play strictly The Sims (from what I've seen, the majority are 3 GiB equipped laptops running 32-bit Windows).




eidairaman1 said:


> IDK ive only had issues with anything that is 16bit primarily and that being games. other than that no issues


Try running a 64-bit application on a 32-bit operating system.  EA is going to lose a lot of potential customers by not offering a 32-bit option--a lot more than they'll gain from switching to 64-bit (virtually none--who is going to buy a game just because it is 64-bit?).  EA, of all the publishers, should know that people want their purchased software to work above everything else.


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 26, 2012)

Well its expected to not work because an OS is not forwards compatible in the bit code. Only backwards. Its just like trying to run 32 bit apps on a 16 bit os n 16 bit apps on an 8 bit os etc etc. Its about time they moved fwd because potential is hindered by using 32 bit code to write programs. Weve had consumer 64bit cpus almost 10 years now its time to completely move code to 64 bit.




FordGT90Concept said:


> http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
> more than 35% of _gamer's_ computers are running 32-bit Windows.  Nevermind all those gamers that never install Steam because they play strictly The Sims (from what I've seen, the majority are 3 GiB equipped laptops running 32-bit Windows).
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## remixedcat (May 26, 2012)

This seems like a good idea and all but I think it's mostly a PR move for EA... They need to fix way more issues then this....


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 26, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Try running a 64-bit application on a 32-bit operating system.  EA is going to lose a lot of potential customers by not offering a 32-bit option--a lot more than they'll gain from switching to 64-bit (virtually none--who is going to buy a game just because it is 64-bit?).  EA, of all the publishers, should know that people want their purchased software to work above everything else.




Once again, confirming apples 32-64 bit transition model is utterly genuis. 

Really wish M$ would just kill 32 bit already. They have a severe dead horse beating issue they need to take out back and shoot in the head.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2012)

I don't call dictatorships genius.  I call them brutal.


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2012)

when over 60% of users now are running windows 64 bit (according to steam), then its  a safe bet for a game maker to make a game for that in 1-2 years time. the numbers are only increasing.


what they want is a PC exclusive that makes them stand out as having the most advanced game tech - the best visuals and performance, and a game they can market as using all of the ram your hardware has (seriously, anyone else find it daft to have a 3GB video card, 12/16GB of system ram, and be capped at 2 or at best 4GB of address space?)


this will work out well for them, because the community itself will just tell everyone to upgrade to 64 bit, just like they did with their high end GPU's and CPU's.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 27, 2012)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Really wish M$ would just kill 32 bit already. They have a severe dead horse beating issue they need to take out back and shoot in the head.



not possible.

Despite what you may think, there are still a lot of legacy hardware floating about that dont have x64 compatibilty. killing 32bit would mean that small businesses will suffer because they need to fork out money for upgrades.

the transition from x32 to x64 has been real slow. but things are slowly changing for the better.


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> not possible.
> 
> Despite what you may think, there are still a lot of legacy hardware floating about that dont have x64 compatibilty. killing 32bit would mean that small businesses will suffer because they need to fork out money for upgrades.
> 
> the transition from x32 to x64 has been real slow. but things are slowly changing for the better.



if no new 32 bit OS's were released, win 7 would last those businesses a decade or more. long enough for their apps to be updated. two days ago i upgraded my work machines from windows 98 (first edition 98, too)


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 27, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> not possible.
> 
> Despite what you may think, there are still a lot of legacy hardware floating about that dont have x64 compatibilty. killing 32bit would mean that small businesses will suffer because they need to fork out money for upgrades.
> 
> the transition from x32 to x64 has been real slow. but things are slowly changing for the better.



I have legacy hardware myself but trouble is no drivers for the Signature rig to get the right potential out of it


----------



## xenocide (May 27, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
> more than 35% of _gamer's_ computers are running 32-bit Windows.  Nevermind all those gamers that never install Steam because they play strictly The Sims (from what I've seen, the majority are 3 GiB equipped laptops running 32-bit Windows).



People who play just The Sims aren't going to be buying Frostbite powered games, so it's a non-issue.  Notice that DICE is the one that said this, since when has DICE made games that were marketed towards the same kind of people who only start up The Sims a couple times a week?  A transition to x64 is unavoidable, and continuing to support it is just prolonging the problem.  Almost all Computers come with 4GB+ RAM these days anyway, so having a 32-bit OS just doesn't make sense anymore.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2012)

Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 which is confirmed to be using Frostbite 2 has a broad appeal that could lure a lot of gamers from The Sims market; moreover, the game could likely be made to run on 32-bit easily.  I wouldn't be surprised if EA forces DICE to support 32-bit because, as I stated before, 64-bit only isn't going to help EA's bottom line.  DICE may want to drop 32-bit support but I can't see EA agreeing with that yet.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 27, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 which is confirmed to be using Frostbite 2 has a broad appeal that could lure a lot of gamers from The Sims market; moreover, the game could likely be made to run on 32-bit easily.  I wouldn't be surprised if EA forces DICE to support 32-bit because, as I stated before, 64-bit only isn't going to help EA's bottom line.  DICE may want to drop 32-bit support but I can't see EA agreeing with that yet.



Need for Speed: Most Wanted 2 isn't being developed by EA-DICE, so it doesn't apply here.  It is just EA-DICE titles that will require 64-bit, not every Frostbite 2 title made by EA.

But besides that, the game industry should move away from 32-bit.  I haven't seen a system sold with gaming as a main purpose that was still using a 32-bit OS. Yes, there are pre-builts that still come with 32-bit Windows installed, but they are also using onboard graphics.  People are willing to upgrade components or even their entire computer just for a game, and we want to argue that upgrading their OS isn't worth while?!

And, as you pointed out, 1/3 of the market uses 32-bit at this point.  They are the minority.  Progress shouldn't be held back because of the minority.


----------



## Frick (May 27, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> And, as you pointed out, 1/3 of the market uses 32-bit at this point.  They are the minority.  Progress shouldn't be held back because of the minority.



How many are there in that 1/3? Quite many I imagine.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2012)

I don't see where they list how many people took the survey.  That's pretty ridiculous they don't say.


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2012)

Frick said:


> How many are there in that 1/3? Quite many I imagine.



and how many of that 1/3, have low end hardware, mostly OEM machines? i'd bet most of them.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (May 27, 2012)

Mussels said:


> if no new 32 bit OS's were released, win 7 would last those businesses a decade or more. long enough for their apps to be updated. two days ago i upgraded my work machines from windows 98 (first edition 98, too)



Speak for yourself.... I still know business that are still using Win 98SE, Win 2000 & Win XP

 so the saying goes....If it aint broke. dont fix it. but of course their whole network could be a lot more efficient, reliable, more secure and possibly more productive if they upgraded both their hardware and software.


----------



## Raw (May 27, 2012)

64bit?
I want 128bit.


----------



## Mussels (May 27, 2012)

Raw said:


> 64bit?
> I want 128bit.



for what purpose? or do you not actually understand the difference, and just get excited by bigger numbers?


----------



## Kreij (May 27, 2012)

Mussels said:


> for what purpose? or do you not actually understand the difference, and just get excited by bigger numbers?



Who doesn't want quadruple precision floating point number accuracy and access to 3.4x10^38 bytes of RAM?


----------



## newtekie1 (May 27, 2012)

Mussels said:


> and how many of that 1/3, have low end hardware, mostly OEM machines? i'd bet most of them.



A very good point, just going over their video card survey, about 15% have integrated or totally bottom of the barrel video cards that would never even touch a EA-DICE Frostbite title.

Not to mention 15% are still running XP, which EA-DICE has already given the boot when they stopped supporting DX9.  So the actual percentage that are getting to boot by the 64-bit decision is more like 20%.


----------



## Raw (May 27, 2012)

Mussels said:


> for what purpose? or do you not actually understand the difference, and just get excited by bigger numbers?



I'm j/k'ing pal, j/k'ing.


----------



## btarunr (May 27, 2012)

Raw said:


> 64bit?
> I want 128bit.



You'll need it when 4096 TB of RAM becomes not enough (limits of EM64T and AMD64).


----------



## Disparia (May 27, 2012)

Damn, those of us on quad Xeon/Opteron are already a quarter to the limit!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2012)

btarunr said:


> You'll need it when 4096 TB of RAM becomes not enough (limits of EM64T and AMD64).


No, no.  x86-64 processors today (excepting enterprise) have 40-bit (1.099 TB) or 48-bit (281.474 TB) memory addressing capabilities.  As more RAM becomes common place, they'll increase that number up to 64-bit which is 18.446 EB (exabyte).  I think an extension to x86-64 could happen sooner, rather than later, to add more registers and standardized, specialized instructions (better compete with ARM).  128-bit memory addressing won't happen for a long time.




Kreij said:


> Who doesn't want quadruple precision floating point number accuracy and access to 3.4x10^38 bytes of RAM?


We already got 128-bit floating point decimals (.NET Framework calls it Decimal).

I struggle to find a use for 32 GiB RAM, nevermind that-to-the-38th-power RAM.


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 27, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I struggle to find a use for 32 GiB RAM, nevermind that-to-the-38th-power RAM.



You, maybe. Those who want to build a supercomputer with all the memory in one address-space,  might find 40-bit addressing a bit of a problem.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 27, 2012)

Frick said:


> How many are there in that 1/3? Quite many I imagine.



IMO, computers that are running a 32 bit OS, and do NOT meet the minimum system requirements(hardware wise) for a game are not considered part of the target market.

People just whining to whine. 

If EA/DICE support a simultaneous 32 bit executable, that means they have to split their dev team up even more than they already cut all the corners they can. (while the 32 bit exe becomes used by noone except hackers that are looking for a secondary exploit.)

seems to me, like a rock solid idea, RIGHT BF3? Completely bug free!

Windows x64 has been the same product package since vista x64, there really is NO reason not to be running windows 7 x64 if you have windows 7.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2012)

It's a series of #IFDEF in the code.  It isn't very difficult to write code to support compiling both.  Competent programmers have been doing this for many years.




Vinska said:


> You, maybe. Those who want to build a supercomputer with all the memory in one address-space,  might find 40-bit addressing a bit of a problem.


That's 128 sticks of 8 GiB (highest density available) RAM for ONE processor.  I don't know of any systems that even come close to that.  Systems with >1 TB RAM are clusters.  Each processor has a small pool of memory and they send requests amongst themselves to copy data between them.  A processor in one node of the cluster can't directly access the RAM of another without requesting it through the target node's processor(s).


----------



## librin.so.1 (May 27, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's a series of #IFDEF in the code.  It isn't very difficult to write code to support compiling both.  Competent programmers have been doing this for many years.



Yet it's doesn't take much for the code readability to become like this.
Thus, the less #ifdef and such needs to be used, the happier the devs are. That is a good thing for the users, if You know what I mean...


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 27, 2012)

its funny but there is no means of getting the 1 and 0 anymore efficient then they are lol


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (May 27, 2012)

seronx said:


> 8GB DDR3 Single Channel + Windows 8 Pro + 512-GB/1-TB SSD: 2013 HERE I COME!!!



single channel? Fail.

Why not dual channel for 16GB


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 27, 2012)

Vinska said:


> Yet it's doesn't take much for the code readability to become like this.
> Thus, the less #ifdef and such needs to be used, the happier the devs are. That is a good thing for the users, if You know what I mean...


The only thing that really bothers developers is feature creep.  It's gonna suck when EA tells DICE the number of support calls their getting and DICE has to go back to all the code they wrote specifically for 64-bit and add those IFDEFs retrospectively.  It would have been wise to do it in the first place.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 27, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's a series of #IFDEF in the code. It isn't very difficult to write code to support compiling both. Competent programmers have been doing this for many years.



Writing the code is probably not the issue, it isn't hard to program a game to use a DX9 rendering path either, but EA-DICE doesn't do it.  Beyond just writing the code, there is testing it.  Having a 32 and 64-bit exe means more QA time.  Especially with the 32-bit exe, because they are obviously writing the game to be 64-bit native, and are also assuming at least 4GB of RAM(otherwise why 64-bit?).  So to support 32-bit means they will have to do a lot of QA to make sure the game doesn't crash or freaks out when limited to less than 4GB.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 28, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's a series of #IFDEF in the code.  It isn't very difficult to write code to support compiling both.  Competent programmers have been doing this for many years.


Because that is an easy fix for actually utilizing >4gb of ram.  (among other possible 64 bit features.)


----------



## eidairaman1 (May 28, 2012)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> single channel? Fail.
> 
> Why not dual channel for 16GB



because performance gains are negligible between single and dual channel, machines like bigger frame buffers, it really doesnt care about what speed they operate at since now most FSBs run at a different speed than the Ram itself


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 28, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> because performance gains are negligible between single and dual channel



No, no they are not. Where did you get this information? If you're gonna argue this, you better provide some hard benchmarks.


----------



## Aquinus (May 28, 2012)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> No, no they are not. Where did you get this information? If you're gonna argue this, you better provide some hard benchmarks.





eidairaman1 said:


> because performance gains are negligible between single and dual channel, machines like bigger frame buffers, it really doesnt care about what speed they operate at since now most FSBs run at a different speed than the Ram itself



You're both right. Single threaded performance will see no benefit of memory running in *unganged dual-channel mode* where the channels are split in to two 64-bit memory interfaces enabling two separate memory operations per full dram read/write cycles, however applications that have long words in memory could benefit from dual-channel ganged mode (1 large 128-bit memory interface, rather than 2 smaller ones.) Dual-channel and unganged mode show their colors when you use two threads, like how quad-channel doesn't show its true colors unless you start using 3 or more threads. This is an excellent example of how the 2600k and 2700k compare to the 3820, where single-threaded memory tasks on SB takes off, but add a couple threads and the 3820 eats the 2600k alive beyond 2 threads of heavy memory usage. I've only owned AMD motherboards that have allowed me to run dual-channel memory in ganged mode, though, but I'm not sure if this is a AMD specific ability (I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.)


----------



## de.das.dude (May 28, 2012)

Finally!!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 28, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Writing the code is probably not the issue, it isn't hard to program a game to use a DX9 rendering path either, but EA-DICE doesn't do it.  Beyond just writing the code, there is testing it.  Having a 32 and 64-bit exe means more QA time.  Especially with the 32-bit exe, because they are obviously writing the game to be 64-bit native, and are also assuming at least 4GB of RAM(otherwise why 64-bit?).  So to support 32-bit means they will have to do a lot of QA to make sure the game doesn't crash or freaks out when limited to less than 4GB.


The extra QA is for 64-bit (troubleshooting usage of the extra registers), not 32-bit.  It is also quite simple to tell if a program ran out of memory and custom service already recommends upgrading computers frequently.  It represents very little change from the current  support model.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (May 29, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The extra QA is for 64-bit (troubleshooting usage of the extra registers), not 32-bit.  It is also quite simple to tell if a program ran out of memory and custom service already recommends upgrading computers frequently.  It represents very little change from the current  support model.




If you're going to cater to a game engine crippled by 32 bit, then why even code a 64 bit version? 

i.e. crysis 2. Made for xbox, plays like an xbox on PC. BF3, made for a PC, plays like a PC.


----------

