64-bit version

For all Wasteland 2 discussion that does not fit elsewhere, suggestions, feedback, etc. No spoilers allowed.

Moderator: Ranger Team Alpha

Vyse
Initiate
Posts: 4
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 5:53 am

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Vyse »

Stingray wrote:
blacklightofday wrote:Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the point of this topic. Of course there should be a x64, given the year the game's coming out. Now, x84 (or whatever it was) is a different thing. :lol:
Not really, there's very few 64-bit games out. Because most aren't using more than 2GB RAM and have no need for it. Do people really expect this game to need >2GB RAM when the "blockbuster" AAA games full of stupid amounts of graphics don't even need it? You can even use up to 4GB with a 32-bit executable by using the LAA flag, as someone already pointed out in this thread. There's absolutely no way Wasteland 2 needs >4GB RAM. What is the point of this topic?
^This. I think many people yelling for 64bit support don't really understand what it actually means.
The main point of 64bit is being able to access more than 4GB RAM. I doubt Wasteland 2 will ever need that much. Remember people, allthough 1-3m seems like a lot to us, it is NOT much for making a 3D Open World RPG. In fact I'd even expect (and be content with) isometric perspective Sprites. Graphics are NOT the point of this project and if you thought so then you will most likely be in for a mighty disappointment.
User avatar
blacklightofday
Novice
Posts: 27
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 7:28 am

Re: 64-bit version

Post by blacklightofday »

I immediately admit, that before you guys, I had absolutely no idea what the whole thing was, technically speaking. :lol: Now, when I finally do, I think you guys have a good point.
User avatar
Quanti
Novice
Posts: 32
Joined: March 12th, 2012, 4:14 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Quanti »

I do understand that actual tangible differences from a 32 bit executable will be non-existent, I ask for this feature only to satiate my vain appetite for always being absolutely bleeding edge and up to date- benefits or not. To infinity, and beyond! :D
Grampy-bone be doing da killin' right now.
Mockdot
Initiate
Posts: 1
Joined: March 16th, 2012, 10:21 am

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Mockdot »

I agree, we need to start moving everything to 64-bit, it's the future, and it brings even if few or little, still good additions and performance gains.
User avatar
enderandrew
Scholar
Posts: 171
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 12:29 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by enderandrew »

It depends what the assets are like.

Modern games CAN run with 32-bit limitations at the cost of constantly swapping out resources to and from disc, which is slow. Keeping more assets in memory improves stability and performance. And a well coded 64-bit executable will have other direct performance gains as well.
geezer
Explorer
Posts: 256
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 5:13 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by geezer »

The per process (user space) memory limit of 32 bit Windows is 2 GB. The total user space memory limit is also 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used and the application is compiled with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch. So if you are running any other programs, like say Firefox, while you are running the game you will probably only have like 1.4 GB available which is not really an overwhelming amount, especially if you are not using the most efficient compiler and memory saving compiler settings.

It's probably enough, but it is a limitation, and if you are running a 64 bit OS and have more than 3 GB of RAM it is a completely unnecessary limitation. I have 8 GB of RAM. Why have all that RAM if you're never going to use it? I can understand the argument of an OS like Vista using over a gig of RAM itself. That's just a waste. But for applications? I say let them use all the RAM they can. I've written programs in 32 bit XP that failed with out of memory errors. It's not that hard to do. I'm not going to argue that the additional gigabytes of available memory space is absolutely essential, but it sure is nice to have.

Also 32 bit programs running in a 64 bit OS are emulated. Microsoft's implementation is highly efficient, but it is still emulation. Why use emulation if you don't have to? You can also make full use of the 64 bit registers in our 64 bit CPUs.
User avatar
Hiver
Adventurer
Posts: 743
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 4:17 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Hiver »

I thought its just a given.
Even if the game doesnt get to be graphically heavy in some ways it will still benefit from 64bit support.

Better, more complex Ai is one of the things more easily reachable i think, especially when dealing with large groups of NPCs on the screen. or other similar stuff like daily routines, NPCs doing their own things, traveling over the map... whatever.
General stability and performance is always good and after all it is very likely they will go for a 3D engine with all bells and whistles that gives.

I dont see how it can hurt at all.
A lot of hardware and software is based on 64 bit support these days. i dont see why devs should avoid it.
It isnt as if its hard to do.
luckz
Acolyte
Posts: 55
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 8:17 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by luckz »

I love how people go and passionately argue "DON'T WASTE ANY IMPORTANT DEV HOURS ON LETTING PEOPLE HAVE FUN WITH A FRIEND OR TWO OVER LAN", while "develop & compile everything for both x86 and x86_64/amd64" somehow makes sense.
User avatar
Alaseur
Acolyte
Posts: 95
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 10:29 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Alaseur »

Correct me if I'm wrong but for a game to utilize textures with a resolution of 2,048 to 4,096 they require more ram that what can be allocated on a 32 bit operating system. Even if you have 8 gigabytes of ram, but have a 32 bit operating system you're still only going to use at most 4 gigabytes of that ram regardless what application you're running. If the game were modded or included support for HD textures and was not limited to 32 bit you could allocate more memory to the game to be able to run with HD textures of 2,048 or even 4,096 resolutions.

Since the highest I've seen come of most games today is a mix of 512 by 512 up to 2,048 by 2,048 (2,048 only being included on important objects or characters/creatures) I'd have to agree with Stingray. Even Skyrim sits below 2 gigabytes of ram without any modded textures.

It jumps up to almost four with HD textures installed playing on ultra high at 2,048 by 1,152 screen resolution.
Stingray
Initiate
Posts: 19
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 1:36 am

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Stingray »

geezer wrote:The per process (user space) memory limit of 32 bit Windows is 2 GB. The total user space memory limit is also 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used and the application is compiled with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch. So if you are running any other programs, like say Firefox, while you are running the game you will probably only have like 1.4 GB available which is not really an overwhelming amount, especially if you are not using the most efficient compiler and memory saving compiler settings.

It's probably enough, but it is a limitation, and if you are running a 64 bit OS and have more than 3 GB of RAM it is a completely unnecessary limitation. I have 8 GB of RAM. Why have all that RAM if you're never going to use it? I can understand the argument of an OS like Vista using over a gig of RAM itself. That's just a waste. But for applications? I say let them use all the RAM they can. I've written programs in 32 bit XP that failed with out of memory errors. It's not that hard to do. I'm not going to argue that the additional gigabytes of available memory space is absolutely essential, but it sure is nice to have.

Also 32 bit programs running in a 64 bit OS are emulated. Microsoft's implementation is highly efficient, but it is still emulation. Why use emulation if you don't have to? You can also make full use of the 64 bit registers in our 64 bit CPUs.
First of all, when you use /LARGEADDRESSAWARE on a 32-bit executable and run it on a 64-bit OS, the app can use up to 4GB of RAM, not 3GB.

Second, there's no reason to care about a limitation if it's a limitation that you're never going to hit anyway.

Third, 32-bit programs running on 64-bit Windows are not "emulated" (unless you are talking about using an Itanium CPU). They run directly on the hardware because the x86_64 instruction set includes 32-bit compatibility. There is really no performance penalty.
geezer
Explorer
Posts: 256
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 5:13 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by geezer »

Good point about texture loading. Although texture size is also limited by video RAM which is certainly not going to be more than 2 GB even in 2013. Just a minor quibble. 32 bit addressing does not support 4 GB in practice. It would be 3.2 GB at the most and in many cases only around 2.7 GB total. That would be the total available to both the operating system and user programs of course. If you are running Vista or Windows 7 you are talking about at least another gig for the OS. Probably more. So the real total would probably be something like 1.5 GB for Vista/Win7 and more like 1.9 - 2.0 GB for XP. In any case it certainly is a limitation which is not necessary for anyone with more than 3 GB and a 64 bit OS.
User avatar
Alaseur
Acolyte
Posts: 95
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 10:29 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Alaseur »

geezer wrote:Good point about texture loading. Although texture size is also limited by video RAM which is certainly not going to be more than 2 GB even in 2013. Just a minor quibble. 32 bit addressing does not support 4 GB in practice. It would be 3.2 GB at the most and in many cases only around 2.7 GB total. That would be the total available to both the operating system and user programs of course. If you are running Vista or Windows 7 you are talking about at least another gig for the OS. Probably more. So the real total would probably be something like 1.5 GB for Vista/Win7 and more like 1.9 - 2.0 GB for XP. In any case it certainly is a limitation which is not necessary for anyone with more than 3 GB and a 64 bit OS.
Damn 7 ultimate taking up so much ram... I usually turn everything off so that I get back that old windows xp look. Got to love Registry Mechanic for having that feature.

I've never had trouble running RAGE with 4,096 textures though.
User avatar
Namfoodle
Initiate
Posts: 17
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 12:43 am

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Namfoodle »

Alaseur wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but for a game to utilize textures with a resolution of 2,048 to 4,096 they require more ram that what can be allocated on a 32 bit operating system.
You're wrong. Of course they take up more ram, but the resolution of a single texture doesn't matter, as long as the total ram usage of the program is under 4GB (which it probably will be).

The whole question about this having to be in 64-bit is pretty pointless. Unless the memory use of the game is very poorly optimized, it won't need to use that much ram.

And Windows 7 doesn't really use that much ram, even with everything turned on.
User avatar
Alaseur
Acolyte
Posts: 95
Joined: March 13th, 2012, 10:29 pm

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Alaseur »

Only 1 gigabyte at the moment.

Edit: What I mean is running a game with multiple textures at 2,048 by 2,048 or even 4,096 by 4,096.
Stingray
Initiate
Posts: 19
Joined: March 15th, 2012, 1:36 am

Re: 64-bit version

Post by Stingray »

geezer wrote:32 bit addressing does not support 4 GB in practice. It would be 3.2 GB at the most and in many cases only around 2.7 GB total. That would be the total available to both the operating system and user programs of course.
That only applies if you are running a 32-bit OS. This is a thread about someone wanting a 64-bit version of the game, so obviously people running a 32-bit OS are pretty much irrelevant.

If you use /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag on a 32-bit executable on a 64-bit OS, the 32-bit process can use a full 4GB RAM.
Post Reply

Return to “Wasteland 2: General Discussion”