bit-gamer.net

DICE's Frostbite engine goes 64-bit only

DICE's Frostbite engine goes 64-bit only

Future versions of the Frostbite engine will be 64-bit exclusive, DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson has revealed.

Johan Andersson, rendering architect at Battlefield developer DICE, has warned that users will need to ensure they are running a 64-bit operating system for future versions of the Frostbite engine.

While not directly naming the Battlefield series, Andersson took to microblogging service Twitter earlier this week to declare 64-bit a requirement for his company's future games.

'We'll have Frostbite-powered games in 2013 that will require a 64-bit OS,' Andersson told his followers (his emphasis.) 'If you are on 32-bit, [it's a] great opportunity to upgrade to Windows 8.'

Responding to the barrage of questions that followed, Andersson explained that Windows 8 wouldn't be a requirement - merely a version of Windows which can run 64-bit software, including previous releases Windows 7 and Windows Vista 64-bit editions.

The company's current flagship title, Battlefield 3, has no 64-bit support - a decision Andersson defends. 'There's no need for [64-bit support] in [Battlefield 3,]' he told followers. 'Just running on a 64-bit OS gets you 4GB which is plenty enough for it.'

Asked for performance details regarding the decision to go 64-bit only in future Frostbite releases, Andersson was somewhat quiet. '[We] don't have any perf[ormance] data to share at this time, but the main drivers [for a move to 64-bit] are larger VA-space [Virtual Address space] and access to RAM.'

A move to 64-bit will, in theory, allow DICE to vastly improve an already impressive game engine - but a move to 64-bit exclusivity is a surprise. Previously, games companies have released 64-bit and 32-bit versions of their titles simultaneously, or added 64-bit support in a later patch following a 32-bit only launch.

In recent years, it has become common to see PCs sold with a 64-bit build of Windows - but prior to that the 32-bit version ruled the roost. Making a game engine 64-bit only has the potential to exclude a not-inconsiderable number of gamers on older hardware.

DICE itself has yet to comment on Andersson's revelation.

83 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Landy_Ed 23rd May 2012, 13:15 Quote
I think they'd be mad to exclude 32 bit versions, though I'd very much like to see a 64 bit version of BF3
faugusztin 23rd May 2012, 13:28 Quote
Finally, something forcing XP lovers to upgrade :D.
scott_chegg 23rd May 2012, 13:30 Quote
About flippin time!
feathers 23rd May 2012, 13:31 Quote
I think they're smart not staying stuck in the past and catering to a small minority of numpties.
r3loaded 23rd May 2012, 13:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
I think they'd be mad to exclude 32 bit versions, though I'd very much like to see a 64 bit version of BF3
Who exactly would be running a computer capable of running the next Battlefield but with 32-bit Windows? All OEMs have shipped computers with Windows 7 64-bit, enthusiasts have adopted 64-bit Windows for much longer, and any computer with a 32-bit only processor won't have the performance necessary to run the game in the first place.
3lusive 23rd May 2012, 13:34 Quote
32-bitters make me cringe now. It's 2012 for pete's sake :)
Gareth Halfacree 23rd May 2012, 13:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
I think they're smart not staying stuck in the past and catering to a small minority of numpties.
It's a minority, but hardly a small one: according to the most recently published Steam Hardware Survey results, 35.14% of users were running a 32-bit OS.
SpAceman 23rd May 2012, 13:37 Quote
Stuff like this needs to happen. It's about time.
Landy_Ed 23rd May 2012, 13:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
I think they'd be mad to exclude 32 bit versions, though I'd very much like to see a 64 bit version of BF3
Who exactly would be running a computer capable of running the next Battlefield but with 32-bit Windows? All OEMs have shipped computers with Windows 7 64-bit, enthusiasts have adopted 64-bit Windows for much longer, and any computer with a 32-bit only processor won't have the performance necessary to run the game in the first place.

Not everyone upgrades at the same frequency as many of the users here. As per Gareth's comment above, the article here : http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2012/05/22/how-old-is-your-has-your-hardware/ says enough. And that's just for steam users, many people do not use steam.
Showerhead 23rd May 2012, 13:42 Quote
Surely this will depend on the spec the next generation of consoles have. If they've <=4GB RAM or run 32 bit OSs it seems a bit pointless.
Gunsmith 23rd May 2012, 13:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead
Surely this will depend on the spec the next generation of consoles have. If they've <=4GB RAM or run 32 bit OSs it seems a bit pointless.

from what ive been hearing the new toy boxes are still 2 generations behind us
DriftCarl 23rd May 2012, 13:55 Quote
The steam hardware survey is not a good representation of people who will be buying DICE games in 2013.
A lot of those steam gamers would be people who play CS and other old games that work perfectly fine on a since core Xp machine on 32 bit.
I have steam installed at my parents house and they play the casual puzzle games, they are never going to be playing counter strike or l4d.
This is a good move, it will give a performance boost to any enthusiast that is running 64 bit and has more than 4 gig ram, I personally have had 8 gig for 18 months now.
faugusztin 23rd May 2012, 13:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
It's a minority, but hardly a small one: according to the most recently published Steam Hardware Survey results, 35.14% of users were running a 32-bit OS.

35.14% ? Let's see http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey :

Windows XP 32 bit 14.90%
Windows Vista 32 bit 5.48%

When i add these numbers together, i get 20.38%. Or you consider the items labeled as "Windows 7" and "Unknown" as 32-bit as well ? Because that is the only way you can get up to 35.14%.

And 18% of people can't use DX10. We will stop making DX10 then ? Will we stop making DX11 games then ?
Phalanx 23rd May 2012, 13:56 Quote
This will push people to upgrade their OS, making things better all round. Good on DICE for doing this.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd May 2012, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
When i add these numbers together, i get 20.38%. Or you consider the items labeled as "Windows 7" and "Unknown" as 32-bit as well ? Because that is the only way you can get up to 35.14%.
Yes, I consider the item labelled as "Windows 7" to be 32-bit - mostly because, if you'd bothered to look closer instead of being contrary, you'd see "Windows 7 64-bit" as a separate entry at the top of the survey results. I also added "Unknown" for the same reason - "Unknown 64-bit" is a separate category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
And 18% of people can't use DX10. We will stop making DX10 then ? Will we stop making DX11 games then ?
You're being an aggressive dick for no readily apparent reason: sit back and think for a minute about what 'exclusivity' means. Making a game which supports 64-bit? A good thing. Making a game which is 64-bit exclusive? Excludes a chunk of the market. It's what 'exclusive' means.
runadumb 23rd May 2012, 14:03 Quote
Microsoft really pussied out releasing a 32-bit version of windows 7. Luckily most resellers seemed to know better and only use the 64bit version.
warejon9 23rd May 2012, 14:07 Quote
I would like to point out you can get 64bit xp :P also, anyone that has bought a cpu since, athlon 64 (not sure when intel started doing 64 bit in desktop computers) will be able to run the OS, but as has been mentioned here, if you don't have support for 64 bit, your computer probably wouldn't play the game anyway.
Krikkit 23rd May 2012, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
*Snip*

Taking the big players:
Windows 7 64 bit 53.86%
Windows Vista 64 bit 6.28%
Total: 60.14%

Windows XP 32 bit 14.90%
Windows Vista 32 bit 5.48%
Windows 7 14.65% (i.e. 32-bit)
Total: 35.03%

It's not much of a contest, but that is a significant exclusion. Not that I'm saying it shouldn't be done - that's fine by me, more pretty for the rest of us. :)
GeorgeStorm 23rd May 2012, 14:10 Quote
I must admit I also think you're being a bit rude in your tone faugusztin.

I'm personally not overly bothered since I almost certainly won't be buying whatever game they make, currently using a 64bit W7 I think, not sure what the family is on, but I don't think it's a great idea to make it 64bit exclusive, making people pay more money for a new OS if they don't have one already.
wuyanxu 23rd May 2012, 14:12 Quote
i thought it was already 64bits only......
Phalanx 23rd May 2012, 14:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
i thought it was already 64bits only......

Erm... Not sure if trolling, or... ;)

Does BF3 run on a 32-bit OS? :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
I'm personally not overly bothered since I almost certainly won't be buying whatever game they make, currently using a 64bit W7 I think, not sure what the family is on, but I don't think it's a great idea to make it 64bit exclusive, making people pay more money for a new OS if they don't have one already.

They're not making people upgrade. No one is forcing people to upgrade, or even buy their product(s). :)
thogil 23rd May 2012, 14:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Making a game which supports 64-bit? A good thing. Making a game which is 64-bit exclusive? Excludes a chunk of the market. It's what 'exclusive' means.

If they are wanting to use 64-bit because they do not have access to enough memory with 32-bit, then it just won't be possible to run the program on 32-bit. They must either limit how much memory they can use, or require 64-bit.

DICE have clearly decided that advancing the engine is more important than supporting old OSs. They probably also believe they have enough clout to somewhat overcome this old install base by pushing 64-bit, as they did with DX11.

On a related note, they probably want the extra memory for storing higher resolution terrain textures, which they currently stream onto the graphics card with a system similar to megatextures.

I would be surprised if many of DICEs' customers are still on 32-bit.
3lusive 23rd May 2012, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
35.14% ? Let's see http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey :

Windows XP 32 bit 14.90%
Windows Vista 32 bit 5.48%

When i add these numbers together, i get 20.38%. Or you consider the items labeled as "Windows 7" and "Unknown" as 32-bit as well ? Because that is the only way you can get up to 35.14%.

And 18% of people can't use DX10. We will stop making DX10 then ? Will we stop making DX11 games then ?

You try to be cocky, but you fail.

Why would they list Windows 7 as two separate categories (one with 64 bit next to it) if they didn't mean 64 and 32 bit separately?

Gareth is correct obviously.
faugusztin 23rd May 2012, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You're being an aggressive dick for no readily apparent reason: sit back and think for a minute about what 'exclusivity' means. Making a game which supports 64-bit? A good thing. Making a game which is 64-bit exclusive? Excludes a chunk of the market. It's what 'exclusive' means.

Aggresive ? Let's think about your words first then.

And yes, a exclusively 64-bit game is a good thing, otherwise we will never get rid of 32-bit OS. If they decide that they need 64-bit for performance or memory reasons, it's their choice.

And think a bit about it - Battlefield series is already a DX10/DX11 game only. That excludes Windows XP, OS X and Unknown categories. So we end up with 53.86% (W7-64)+6.28%(WV-64) on one side and 14.65% (W7-32)+5.48%(WV-32) on other side. 60,14% vs 20,13%, converted to 100% base it is 75% for 64-bit DX10+ capable vs 25% for 32-bit DX10+ capable.

Is 25% of the market force big enough for them not to advance the engine ? Seems like not. We can slowly buy 8-16GB RAM for few tens of euros, but we have no use for them because everything is 32-bit. That means only 2GB adressing space. DICE simply decided that 25% of the potential buyers is market not big enough to stop the switch to 64-bit.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd May 2012, 14:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Aggresive ? Let's think about your words first then.
You mean the post to which you replied? The one where I said, and I quote: "It's a minority, but hardly a small one: according to the most recently published Steam Hardware Survey results, 35.14% of users were running a 32-bit OS."

Yeah, clearly I started this with my aggressive tone and belittling attitude. ;)
faugusztin 23rd May 2012, 14:33 Quote
First of all, my post was not meant to be in agressive tone at all, i just didn't agree with your numbers - which i accept i misunderstood from the steam website; then you called me with the words "You're being an aggressive dick". Who is "aggressive" then ?

And read above why Windows XP number doesn't matter either.
wuyanxu 23rd May 2012, 14:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx

Does BF3 run on a 32-bit OS? :p

not sure if trolling or...... :p

but seriously, i don't think BF3 runs on XP in the first place.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd May 2012, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
First of all, my post was not meant to be in agressive tone at all[...]
Stop. Take a breath. Count to ten. (Don't worry, I'm doing exactly the same.)

Three separate people in this thread (myself, GeorgeStorm and 3lusive if you want to check my maths) read your post as "aggressive," "rather rude," or "cocky." If you didn't mean it to be, that's fair enough - what we have here is a failure of communication (to misquote Cool Hand Luke.)

I apologise for calling you an aggressive dick, but that is honestly how you came across in your post. I'm willing to accept that you didn't mean to, and that the phraseology was just off.

Now we've taken a ten-count and caught our breaths - can we agree that this was a misunderstanding of tone and cease the bickering? I will if you will.
Phalanx 23rd May 2012, 14:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
not sure if trolling or...... :p

but seriously, i don't think BF3 runs on XP in the first place.

It doesn't. However that doesn't mean Vista/7 can't be 32-bit. :)
faugusztin 23rd May 2012, 14:44 Quote
@Gareth: fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
but seriously, i don't think BF3 runs on XP in the first place.

There is no DX10/DX11 on XP. That is 14.90%+0.11%=15.01% of market already excluded now, with DX10/DX11 BF3. What are we talking about now is another 20,13% (WV&W7 32-bit) of market to be killed off in next Frostbite engine. When they killed of XP with DX10/DX11 BF3, there was 21.31% XP-32 bit, 1.07% XP-64bit users (April 2011 Steam survey) - that is a higher number of users not being able to play BF3 at the time it got released than number of 32-bit WV and W7 users now.
Dwarfer 23rd May 2012, 14:50 Quote
Yes about time.
RichCreedy 23rd May 2012, 14:53 Quote
i look forward to developers doing 64bit only software/games in the long run, it will be better than trying to support 32 and 64 bit software.
Nikumba 23rd May 2012, 15:35 Quote
Isnt it the case that BF3 will not run on XP as it only supports DX10+?

So saying x% of people will be excluded is rubbish from a DICE point of view as their latests game does not support XP.

I would imagine the ones with 7 32bit would have been sold by likes of HP etc to people who do not know any better.

Kimbie
Bede 23rd May 2012, 15:45 Quote
Most gamers use pre-built systems. Most of those are on 32-bit Windows. While I would love to see a game that actually requires uses my silly amount of RAM, odds are it won't happen for a decade or so, if at all.
Coltch 23rd May 2012, 15:58 Quote
I have 4 systems running 32-bit.

XP on an archaic P4
Win8 on my netbook
Android on my phone
Vista in a dual boot.

The only one which would be able to play BF3 is the one in dual boot- the only reason that's still on there is because of GTL not liking a 64-bit OS.

Most people that game are running 64-bit so from a developer's point it makes sense to concentrate on the majority.

Sent from Bittech Android app
IvanIvanovich 23rd May 2012, 16:11 Quote
I think EVERYTHING should now be 64bit only. It was like the people that had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from 16bit. It just needs to be done for progress sake.
Valinor 23rd May 2012, 16:15 Quote
I think it's a good idea; remember that BF3 excluded everyone not on Vista/7, and XP has a market share of around 15.4% (steam survey, other figures have it at around 27%, but this would include a load of non-gamers) atm, which has already fallen from around 20% in December (also steam survey). It's not like people are unprepared to upgrade if they need to.

Also, the benefits would be great; developers would no longer have to rigorously stick to the RAM limit imposed by 32-bit OSes, and they wouldn't have to spend any time converting their game to make it work on 32-bit OSes.
dyzophoria 23rd May 2012, 16:19 Quote
sometimes its puzzling where people keep on saying "death to consoles, pc graphics are awesome coz it haz the latest tech out there" and yet they are stuck with windows xp :p,if that 35% is accurate, i doubt they will take it that hard, im betting a about 50% or more of that number, are planning on upgrading, if these people are playing games made in the past year or so, I doubt their systems have less than 4gb of RAM, and if you have 4GB, its pretty silly you are using a 32 bit OS for it.
Arghnews 23rd May 2012, 16:37 Quote
Wooooooow, dude...........................

:D Looks like we might finally have a legit reason to HAVE to have 8GB of RAM, not 4. Now all we need is for this 64bit only game to truly take advantage of 4 cores, and all that stuff that everyone always says about "future-proofing" will actually of finally come true :D ! Yeay!!!
rollo 23rd May 2012, 16:46 Quote
question id ask

could a 32bit processer even run battlefield 3 to begin with

would bf3 run of 2gb of ram as thats how much ram you got left after you delete your vid card if you got a 680

you got 1gb ram if you have a 7970 ( which is bearly enough to run windows lol)

and if i remember correctly

you need vista or windows 7 to run battlefield 3 to begin with
nchhabs 23rd May 2012, 17:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
@Gareth: fine.



There is no DX10/DX11 on XP. That is 14.90%+0.11%=15.01% of market already excluded now, with DX10/DX11 BF3. What are we talking about now is another 20,13% (WV&W7 32-bit) of market to be killed off in next Frostbite engine. When they killed of XP with DX10/DX11 BF3, there was 21.31% XP-32 bit, 1.07% XP-64bit users (April 2011 Steam survey) - that is a higher number of users not being able to play BF3 at the time it got released than number of 32-bit WV and W7 users now.

Yeah, tbh I think your reasoning is spot on - there's no need to be up in arms over DICE retracting 32 bit support because, in effect, they had already done so with not supporting XP (due to its lack of DX10/11). Thought your tone was just misperceived due to the number of rhetorical questions in your first post, I just read it as you trying to clarify the numbers.
fdbh96 23rd May 2012, 19:04 Quote
It makes me laugh how people moan when Game companies go console only or whatever to make their lives easier, yet when a company tries to make their game better and move with the times everyone moans aswell :)

Also Battlefield isn't on steam ;)
phuzz 23rd May 2012, 19:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by runadumb
Microsoft really pussied out releasing a 32-bit version of windows 7.
At least Server 2008R2 [ie the version of Server released alongside Win7] is 64 bit only, so at least most server software, and more importantly drivers, are being pushed that way.
Although when asking our support company about moving a piece of software off a W2003 server and on to a VM we were told to use 2008x32 "just to be on the safe side". Pussies ;)
feathers 23rd May 2012, 19:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
I think they're smart not staying stuck in the past and catering to a small minority of numpties.
It's a minority, but hardly a small one: according to the most recently published Steam Hardware Survey results, 35.14% of users were running a 32-bit OS.

So perhaps it is good incentive for said crusty pies to update? If they want Dice engine that is. If not they can stay in 32bit land but what I don't want them doing is bitching at Dice to keep the engine limited because I know that's the kind of thing crusty pies do.
ssj12 23rd May 2012, 20:31 Quote
This is good news as long as Origin doesnt come packaged with whatever game they release!
r3loaded 23rd May 2012, 21:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landy_Ed
Not everyone upgrades at the same frequency as many of the users here. As per Gareth's comment above, the article here : http://www.bit-tech.net/blog/2012/05/22/how-old-is-your-has-your-hardware/ says enough. And that's just for steam users, many people do not use steam.
The Steam demographic does not correspond completely with the hardcore gamer demographic since there are many Steam users who play less demanding titles. The type of gamer who wants to play Battlefield (or many other FPS games) will already have high-end hardware and a 64-bit OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
This is good news as long as Origin doesnt come packaged with whatever game they release!
I've got bad news for you, bub..
s1n1s 23rd May 2012, 21:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead
Surely this will depend on the spec the next generation of consoles have. If they've <=4GB RAM or run 32 bit OSs it seems a bit pointless.

apparently Microsoft are planning for their next console to use what ever operating system comes after win 8, as they want to unify all the devices running their software e.g. mobile phones, tablets, netbooks, laptops and desktops, as they want to combat apples approach . you can already see that they're preparing for this with the metro UI which is used by windows phone and win 8 plus xbox's UI is suspiciously similar, couple this with the fact that even arm is now looking to 64bit it would be safe to say that microsofts os after win 8 will most likely be 64-bit. so i guess we are still a fair ways off the next generation of consoles.

p.s. not sure where I heard, read or watched about this but i do remember findings it out, however this is just speculation
faugusztin 23rd May 2012, 21:52 Quote
Well, for Metro apps the 32-bit/64-bit thing doesn't really matter, as they are all .NET apps.
3lusive 23rd May 2012, 21:57 Quote
I would think the next round of consoles would be out around next xmas (Dec 2013), if not early 2014, but I doubt Win9 will be released by then. Would make more sense for it to run Win8, no? But so far I haven't heard that it will be able to do so.
s1n1s 23rd May 2012, 22:14 Quote
well apparently their next os after win 8 won't be a windows at all, and considering that they have said they want ten year console cycles that would put the next console around 2015. considering that windows 8 is slate for a late 2012 or early 2013 and considering its been about 3 years since win 7 and i believe that Microsoft stated they wanted to shorten the time between releasing os'
sakzzz 23rd May 2012, 22:45 Quote
Why consider steam hardware results ? The would have probably looked at origins database and figured out the math..
DC74 23rd May 2012, 23:22 Quote
At last a developer that gets it.

How many times have we heard from hardware manufacturers that games developers are holding back the PC? Finally a software developer that is going to drag games into modern times, hopefully this is the start of an avalanche and others will soon follow.

I've been using 64-bit OS for 3-4 years now and been awaiting someone to step upto the plate and say I'm gonna be first to make something thats 64-bit only. Hopefully this will also sort out some of the issues that surround games as they only have to be programmed for 64-bit.
ssj12 24th May 2012, 04:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
This is good news as long as Origin doesnt come packaged with whatever game they release!
I've got bad news for you, bub..

Not totally true, there is a chance that EA has realized their titles are selling pretty sluggishly on origin and could pull its plug. I am sure that numbers on Steam for ME2 are way higher than ME3 on Origin.
nchhabs 24th May 2012, 04:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Not totally true, there is a chance that EA has realized their titles are selling pretty sluggishly on origin and could pull its plug. I am sure that numbers on Steam for ME2 are way higher than ME3 on Origin.

Tbh, Origin isn't bad at all - I use both it and Steam, and Origin has faster downloads and hasn't caused an issue for me once. It's as unintrusive as Steam is - I don't get what all the complaining is about.
ssj12 24th May 2012, 06:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by nchhabs
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Not totally true, there is a chance that EA has realized their titles are selling pretty sluggishly on origin and could pull its plug. I am sure that numbers on Steam for ME2 are way higher than ME3 on Origin.

Tbh, Origin isn't bad at all - I use both it and Steam, and Origin has faster downloads and hasn't caused an issue for me once. It's as unintrusive as Steam is - I don't get what all the complaining is about.

1. I hate EA as a corporate. There is a reason they were rated the worst company in the USA.
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/06/150112251/the-last-word-in-business

2. I do not want another piece of software running on my PC in order for me to play games. It is either with Steam, F2P like Tribes Ascend, or from a retail disc with no client attached. Origin does not fit in those three categories.

3. F EA. I'd rather get their titles through other methods if I cannot get them without Origin. Like GameFly or GameStop used for PS3.
Elton 24th May 2012, 06:21 Quote
You know what this means to me?

More RAM usage. That's the first thing I can think of. Origin isn't bad, just a tad annoying, so is steam.
SexyHyde 24th May 2012, 07:19 Quote
yeah this is good news! we have pandered to 32-bit long enough, lets push things forward.

i was a little surprised at the tone of the article especially when BT/CPC were saying win7 32bit was unnecessary.

steam surveys are not the best as i have steam installed on family members 'rubbish' pc's to play some of my less demanding games, so i think the lower spec'd results can't be taken too seriously. i play tf2 on numerous pcs and bf3 on one.
fluxtatic 24th May 2012, 07:52 Quote
Good on them, I say. While I couldn't care less about the Frostbite engine atm (never played any BF games), I hope this is the beginning of dragging everyone along into porting everything to 64-bit. I greatly look forward to the day when I have no need for a "Program Files (x86)" folder.

Nobody likes to get left behind, but if it's important enough to you, upgrade....from your 8-or-more-year-old platform. This isn't exactly Apple and their "5 years old? Guess you're out of luck" attitude. Given the number of prefab systems I see shipping with 6GB (and really, 6? why not 8, you cheap *******s?), I dearly hope they're on 64-bit (but I don't put it past Dell and HP to ship systems that are specced retardedly - 6GB ram and 32-bit OS.)
dark_avenger 24th May 2012, 08:04 Quote
About time this started to happen.
Software has a lot of catching up to do with hardware.
CowBlazed 24th May 2012, 08:45 Quote
Excluding 32bit is not a problem for a new high end game. PCs running 32bit will either be incapable of running the game anyways, or if they are, upgraded to a 64bit OS.
Valinor 24th May 2012, 09:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by nchhabs
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Not totally true, there is a chance that EA has realized their titles are selling pretty sluggishly on origin and could pull its plug. I am sure that numbers on Steam for ME2 are way higher than ME3 on Origin.

Tbh, Origin isn't bad at all - I use both it and Steam, and Origin has faster downloads and hasn't caused an issue for me once. It's as unintrusive as Steam is - I don't get what all the complaining is about.

And there I was thinking I was the only one who didn't mind Origin. In my experience, Origin has always maxed out my download speed (around 40 MBits), but Steam? Not so much. Steam's got better community features atm though.
Elton 24th May 2012, 09:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowBlazed
Excluding 32bit is not a problem for a new high end game. PCs running 32bit will either be incapable of running the game anyways, or if they are, upgraded to a 64bit OS.

Not necessarily. However they will be bitten by the RAM limit.

In fact that was Oblivion's (and other Gamebryo engined games) problem. It ran out of RAM to use and due to the 2GB limit in 32-bit it was limited in resources. That and the 4GB patches did not necessarily work.

Mind you, this will mean larger worlds hopefully. Or at least more stuff. :D
Harlequin 24th May 2012, 10:02 Quote
32bit has a 4gb ram limit (reality is 3.7 or so) -

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_xp

and video cards effect the 32 bit limit

therefore an xp machine with 2 gb ram which has a 2gb video card is allready above the limit
faugusztin 24th May 2012, 10:24 Quote
The 4GB RAM limit is not that huge problem, the much bigger problem is that a 32-bit process can only use 2GB RAM.
Harlequin 24th May 2012, 10:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
The 4GB RAM limit is not that huge problem, the much bigger problem is that a 32-bit process can only use 2GB RAM.

no thats incorrect - the LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag alows an application to access up to 3GB on an X86 system and up to 4GB on an X64.
faugusztin 24th May 2012, 10:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
no thats incorrect - the LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag alows an application to access up to 3GB on an X86 system and up to 4GB on an X64.

Ok, i say it with different words - a standard 32-bit application can't use more than 2GB of RAM per process. I don't consider applications using more than 2GB of memory using "hacks" like LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE as a standard 32-bit applications. By "hack" i mean stuff which exists to patch errors in platform design - i guess some of you will remember stuff like base memory, XMS and EMS from the DOS times - that was exactly the "hack" stuff like LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE is now - aka "we need more memory, we will scratch out some extra memory using this additional program, that additional program,...".

Still, you can be sure that DICE is not fighting for that one or two additional gigabytes you can get using that flag. I am pretty sure they want to use as much as they can - i wouldn't be surprised by a 8GB RAM requirement, while the game will use 6GB of RAM.
Harlequin 24th May 2012, 12:05 Quote
how can a flag in a process be a hack when its authorised by microsoft?

do you actually know what the flag is and how it works??

i would suggest you start with

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366527%28v=vs.85%29.aspx

also get familiar with PAE , all of which are part of memory management API within the windows kernel
Phalanx 24th May 2012, 12:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valinor
And there I was thinking I was the only one who didn't mind Origin. In my experience, Origin has always maxed out my download speed (around 40 MBits), but Steam? Not so much. Steam's got better community features atm though.

You're not the only one. Personally I have no problem with Origin. As mentioned, it's faster than Steam, allows you to keep the install files once downloaded and now they've sorted out the start minimised thing, it seems to sit there quite happily. The updates they add seem to be fixing one thing after another, so personally I quite like it.
faugusztin 24th May 2012, 12:18 Quote
Reread what i wrote. What you describe for 32-bit OS is on similar level as XMS was for DOS. It was a "hack" for the OS by OS manufacturer to support more memory than you could normally access. And by "hack" i don't mean modification of OS, i mean it is more like workaround for a problem than a solution. Solution for being able to use more than 2GB RAM per process is 64-bit, not 32-bit PAE stuff.
Harlequin 24th May 2012, 12:37 Quote
please stop posting until you have a better understanding of windows memory management - this is yet another thread where your little knowledge is proving dangerously stupid.
faugusztin 24th May 2012, 13:56 Quote
1) DOS time. We have 640kB RAM acessible. We want to use more memory. Meet protected mode. But we can't use protected mode in standard DOS applications. Meet XMS - paging of memory above 1MB to memory block bellow 1MB, so it can be acessed by DOS applications. MS made an assumption (640kB adressing), then they found out that it is not enough, so they made a ugly solution.
2) Windows 32-bit. We have 2GB max per process, because MS reserves 2GB for OS itself. MS finds out that it is not enough for some applications, introduces LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE to be able to give 3GB max (4GB on x64) for 32-bit process. MS made an assumption (2GB will be enough for user processes), then they found out that it is not enough, so they made a ugly solution (enable a boot flag and then applications which are correctly programmed with correct pointer arithmetics can use 3GB instead of 2GB).

Both are solutions for problems of their own making - that is what i try to point out. "Hack" = not an ideal solution for a problem they introduced by their own decisions.

And you still didn't explain why should DICE work with ugly solution which will give them 1GB extra above the 2GB instead of using the full 64-bit address space without an ugly solution.
nchhabs 24th May 2012, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
please stop posting until you have a better understanding of windows memory management - this is yet another thread where your little knowledge is proving dangerously stupid.

Completely unnecessary retort. The discussion between you two was informative and helpful up until that point.
Alecto 24th May 2012, 16:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Finally, something forcing XP lovers to upgrade :D.

Not really - simply something forcing me to ignore DICE's products alltogether, as I have been doing thus far for different reasons ;)
faugusztin 24th May 2012, 16:49 Quote
Unfortunately for you Alecto, Frostbite is not "DICE only" anymore. Command & Conquer: Generals 2 by Bioware (in 2013), Medal of Honor: Warfighter by Danger Close Games (in 2012) or Need for Speed: The Run by EA Black Box (in 2011) are non-DICE games with Frostbite 2 engine.
longweight 24th May 2012, 16:54 Quote
People still use XP?!
Farting Bob 24th May 2012, 17:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmith
Quote:
Originally Posted by Showerhead
Surely this will depend on the spec the next generation of consoles have. If they've <=4GB RAM or run 32 bit OSs it seems a bit pointless.

from what ive been hearing the new toy boxes are still 2 generations behind us
So... 16-bit?
B1GBUD 24th May 2012, 18:32 Quote
So BF3 PC sales should have been pretty poor for the following reasons:

People still using XP(no DX10), or having Vista/7 32bit but DX9 hardware or on a Single Core Processor or both, or the "I don't want Origin" whaaaahh brigade.....

They better pull their sh!t together if the BF4 is going to be successful, although I have no doubt it will be great for all those that can tick the required boxes.
nchhabs 24th May 2012, 19:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by B1GBUD
So BF3 PC sales should have been pretty poor for the following reasons:

People still using XP(no DX10), or having Vista/7 32bit but DX9 hardware or on a Single Core Processor or both, or the "I don't want Origin" whaaaahh brigade.....

They better pull their sh!t together if the BF4 is going to be successful, although I have no doubt it will be great for all those that can tick the required boxes.

BF3 sales on PC weren't poor *at all* - it's the flagship casual FPS on every platform, and it likely outsold every PC FPS title bar the classic competitive stalwarts in CS/CS:S. Unfortunately they don't release up-to-date digital distribution figures so we can only speculate.
Surrender_Monkey 25th May 2012, 00:14 Quote
About time, not sure why the games industry should always try to cater for the least common denominator. Less than a decade ago it was the games industry that drove hardware development now new hardware exceeds the tech specs of many games. XP is not supported by Microsoft anymore and I am not offended that BF3 does not run on my Windows Homeserver (2003).
If you want to play inferior quality games you can always buy a console. I do not hear anyone complaining that they will have to upgrade in 2013/14 to play the newest releases on the latest Xbox. You can buy a 64-bit Win 7 o/s for £68 on Amazon (full version not upgrade) which is far less than a new console. So the decision, if you have a 32bit o/s, is pay c£300 for the next generation of consoles to play inferior quality games costing £10 to £20 more or buy a 64 bit o/s for £68 and get more bang out of your existing hardware.
Given that DICE is not a charity they know that an engine that is 64 bit only will be a commercial success. That is why they are doing it, by taking a manageable risk they can have commercial advantage over the competition who will have to play catch up. Well done, I prefer technical innovation over catering to technical obsolescence. That is what I bought a PC for.
maverik-sg1 26th May 2012, 01:56 Quote
This had to happen sooner or later and I am pleased that someone has taken the decision to make it so.

64bit cpu's have been around long enough and the weight of people with 64bit OS's will only grow from now on I suspect - although, I suspect pull through on 64bit cpu's for phones/tabs and consoles would accelerate to process and ensure greater compatabily across all platforms - I speculate this without any facts to back it up, it just seems logical.
r3loaded 26th May 2012, 18:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverik-sg1
64bit cpu's have been around long enough and the weight of people with 64bit OS's will only grow from now on I suspect - although, I suspect pull through on 64bit cpu's for phones/tabs and consoles would accelerate to process and ensure greater compatabily across all platforms - I speculate this without any facts to back it up, it just seems logical.
Phones/tablets have a completely different architecture (ARM instead of x86) so 64-bit binaries are largely irrelevant for them. ARMv7 has some PAE trick to allow for a 48-bit memory address space, so they won't be hitting the 4GB barrier. Incidentally, ARMv8 is a future architecture that will bring true 64-bit instructions and addressing like we have in x86-64.

More interestingly, rumours suggest that the next Xbox and PlayStation consoles might be based on x86 processors, packing PC-like hardware instead of custom chips. So there's certainly potential there for devs to easily make high-quality games for PCs and consoles.
hyperion 26th May 2012, 19:46 Quote
If a game needs more than 4GB RAM to run properly then it's a waste of time to add support for an OS that wouldn't be able to play it anyway.
maverik-sg1 27th May 2012, 01:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by r3loaded
Phones/tablets have a completely different architecture (ARM instead of x86) so 64-bit binaries are largely irrelevant for them. ARMv7 has some PAE trick to allow for a 48-bit memory address space, so they won't be hitting the 4GB barrier. Incidentally, ARMv8 is a future architecture that will bring true 64-bit instructions and addressing like we have in x86-64.

Thats a good point because of the RISC Vs x86 it does make the rules separate - I was thinking along the lines of, if all computing tech was 64bit then maybe 64bit programming would be the norm and dev's would be making exceptions for 32bit systems..... accelerating the process...... I agree with you, it seems our 64bit fate will continue to be too closely tied to consoles for my liking then.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums