The 64 bit difference?

[Nightstorm]

AMD Zone (http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=125&page=1) has some screens and benchmarks up from the 64 bit version of Farcry.

"Now will Far Cry bring the performance gains we are hoping for?

Well in a word no. The 64 bit version adds more content to maps, better textures, and two new multiplayer maps designed for the 64 bit version of the game."

The texture detail and view distance improvements seem good. In my view they warrant the slight drop in fps. What do you guys think?

[Nightstorm]

Zounds! I noticed Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2411) has their own preview after I posted this. They actually see a perfomance gain. In addition they have some nice screenshot comparisons which are a lot more vivid, shall we say, than AMD Zone's.

[morose]

I just wish they would release the update for 32-bit processors as well. It is a nice visual improvement and none of the added features really required 64-bit at all.

[Rirath]

I have an AMD64... but there's just no way I'm moving to the XP64 OS until at least Longhorn. It's just not time to switch platforms yet.

And before someone asked "then why did you get a 64bit processor?"... because I don't plan to upgrade for a long time and want to use 64bit when it because viable, because the price was right and there is no preformance loss running 32bit apps, and because I can run Linux distros in 64bit.

[president_fred]

the screenshots are sexy, I did not expect that big of a difference. I may pick this up although that would mean updating to XP64 but I do have the cd here so it may be time to take the plunge.

[bapenguin]

I have an AMD64... but there's just no way I'm moving to the XP64 OS until at least Longhorn. It's just not time to switch platforms yet.

And before someone asked "then why did you get a 64bit processor?"... because I don't plan to upgrade for a long time and want to use 64bit when it because viable, because the price was right and there is no preformance loss running 32bit apps, and because I can run Linux distros in 64bit.

What's wrong with XPx64?

[Deadend]

I do not see how the graphic improvements relate to a 64 bit processor, and all the enhancements are most likely due to an extra year to slightly tweak the game. I was more impressed when about a year ago, one of the vid-card makers showed off Far Cry using Shader 2.0 or 3.0, and the graphics looked amazing. This stuff mostly seems to be setting the Max draw distance higher and adjusting the LoD and a few texture tweaks.

[koorb]

This is all BS. The ONLY improvement that a 64Bit CPU gives you is that it allows you to have more than 4GB of ram. In those tests FarCry.exe is only using 469MB and the visual improvement will be provided by some tweaking.

Don't be fooled people, a 64Bit CPU is a wast-of-cash unless you plan to use the chip with more than 4GB of ram. There is ZERO performance difference with under that amount of ram.

[ÜberJumper]

This article is helpful re: 64Bit CPU+64Bit OS vs 64Bit CPU on 32Bit OS.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY1

Here's another article that shows NO difference (or less) when using 64 Bit Far Cry on a 64Bit OS+CPU. There is more content AND quality without (overall) losing performance however.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY3

[Wayfarer]

Koorb gets a gold star.

He's right, what 64bit buys you is much more addressable memory space. The difference in games made for 64bit is going to be things like loading the entire world into your 8GB of RAM at the beginning of the game, and never seeing a load screen from there (using a "load around the edges" scheme).

For the average power user, slapping a 64bit processor onto your system with a gig of RAM is equivalent to putting a V10 500HP engine into your VW Bug.

[Nightstorm]

My understanding is that the x86-64 spec calls for more registers/bigger register width, among other improvements. Wouldn't a game specifically made from the ground up to take into account the extra horsepower show off either better performance on the same quality graphics, or much improved graphics. Technically we could make the same arguement that the only real difference between the Geforce FX and the Geforce 6x00 is that the Geforce 6x00 have access to bigger frame buffers. But nobody in their right mind would argue that. Sure going from say the vanilla Athlon to an Athlon 64 may not show such an extreme boost in power as going from the GF FX to the 6x00, but the potential is there. Also keep in mind, Farcry is a x86 game primarily, these are x86-64 extensions, not a built from the ground up x86-64 game. And we're quite fortunate that AMD decided to make an x86-64 processor that still rocks at 32 bit apps and games.

[A Lusty Alien]

I'd go for an AMD 64 processor just to get the full security protection in XP Service Pack 2.

[netcraazzy]

This is all BS. The ONLY improvement that a 64Bit CPU gives you is that it allows you to have more than 4GB of ram. In those tests FarCry.exe is only using 469MB and the visual improvement will be provided by some tweaking.

Don't be fooled people, a 64Bit CPU is a wast-of-cash unless you plan to use the chip with more than 4GB of ram. There is ZERO performance difference with under that amount of ram.

Man, sounds like somebody has a chip on their sholder. I recently upgraded to an athlon 64 3200+ knowing full well that the 64bit capabilites of the chip will mostly go unused by me, at least in the near future. But that does not mean they are a waste of cash. For less than the price of a comparably performing P4 I got a nice gaming CPU that has the added, read bonus, feature of supporting 64bit processing. As for FarCry64, I'd say it's a step in the right direction even if there aren't any huge performance inprovements. Nobody expects 64bit computing to be the 2nd comming, it's simply the logical progression of the consumer CPU market.

[chechenepiphany]

This is all BS. The ONLY improvement that a 64Bit CPU gives you is that it allows you to have more than 4GB of ram. In those tests FarCry.exe is only using 469MB and the visual improvement will be provided by some tweaking.

Don't be fooled people, a 64Bit CPU is a wast-of-cash unless you plan to use the chip with more than 4GB of ram. There is ZERO performance difference with under that amount of ram.
get an education
This article is helpful re: 64Bit CPU+64Bit OS vs 64Bit CPU on 32Bit OS.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY1
no, it is irrelevant. this has nothing to do with 64bit games. It is a comparison of the same game on 64bit and 32bit OSes.

Here's another article that shows NO difference (or less) when using 64 Bit Far Cry on a 64Bit OS+CPU. There is more content AND quality without (overall) losing performance however.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY3
your post makes no sense. you say,
Here's another article that shows NO difference (or less) when using 64 Bit Far Cry on a 64Bit OS+CPU.
and then turn around with
There is more content AND quality without (overall) losing performance however.
does that make sense to you? oh, and the following is a quote from the article listed above.
As you can see in the two tables above, the performance between both versions of FarCry is very similar. One version is not any faster than the other is. This is important because the 64-bit version of FarCry actually has added content and has added Offset Mapping to the supported features in the game.

We found that all the hitching that we had experienced with Patch 1.3 of 32-bit FarCry on the GeForce 6800 Ultra was now completely gone with patch 1.32 of the 64-bit version of FarCry. Therefore, the overall gameplay was smoother and more consistent than with patch 1.3 on 32-bit FarCry on the GeForce 6800 Ultra.
then we get hit with this:
For the average power user, slapping a 64bit processor onto your system with a gig of RAM is equivalent to putting a V10 500HP engine into your VW Bug.
and dont forget this:
Don't be fooled people, a 64Bit CPU is a wast-of-cash unless you plan to use the chip with more than 4GB of ram. There is ZERO performance difference with under that amount of ram.
is there no end to this stupidity? there is absolutely nothing wrong with 64 bit hardware or software. aside from needing new drivers, there is nothing wrong with 64bit windows either. on top of that, a 64 bit processor from AMD comes at no extra cost to the user. the 3200+ is the equivalent of 3.2 ghz pentium 4. it costs about $180. pentium 4s at this speed start at around $220 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116201).
sound like a waste of cash? maybe not so much. Admit it, an athlon 64 is not only a reasonable purchase, the prices are comparable to or lower than those of traditional processors.

[Rirath]

on top of that, a 64 bit processor from AMD comes at no extra cost to the user. the 3200+ is the equivalent of 3.2 ghz pentium 4. it costs about $180. pentium 4s at this speed start at around $220 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116201).
sound like a waste of cash? maybe not so much. Admit it, an athlon 64 is not only a reasonable purchase, the prices are comparable to or lower than those of traditional processors.

Exactly. I'm running a 3200+ and the price couldn't be better, honestly.

What's wrong with XPx64?

What I have against Windows XP 64bit at the moment is simply that it's more than it's worth to me, right now. I can't get the free upgrade because I've been an XP user since launch, and I build my own computers so it's not a OEM type. I have no desire to pay for a new version of XP with Longhorn less than a year and a half away, which will probably make better use of 64bit to boot.

On top of that, hardware support as I understand it is not 100% in WinXP 64bit right now. It works for most, but some older hardware gets left behind. This is NOT a big deal, but it's just one more reason for me to wait. Switching Linux distros is easy... switching Windows takes time I'd rather spend elsewhere.

[woodentaco]

Jeeze, so hostile chechenepiphany. I'm not seeing the contradictions that you are pointing out, though. "NO difference (or less) when using 64 Bit Far Cry" seems consistent with "without (overall) losing performance." They are simply arguing that there is no loss or gain of performance in FarCray 64, even though there is more content. That seems to be what the article says too...

Later, you say that there is "nothing wrong" with a 64-bit CPU. Nobody is arguing that - there is nothing necessarily lost by getting one other than a lot of money. The argument being presented is that there is virtually no gain except for extreme power users, so it's not worth it at this point. You assert that the 3200+ is the equivalent of the 3.2 ghz pentium 4, but you don't specify which 3200+ you are referring to (Clawhammer, Newcastle, or standard socket 939), and you don't cite any sources comparing the two as equal. A quick google search and I already found a cite comparing the Pentium and the Athlon64 which would appear to lean to the Pentium in virtually every category, available here (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundupmobo/pentium4-32ghz-ee.html). And, your price comparison doesnt factor in the extra cost of motherboards to handle 64 bit processors.

The bottom line is, we have yet to see any evidence that the Athlon64 provides a significant benefit for the cost associated with it.

[[HATE]MyLife]

A quick google search and I already found a cite comparing the Pentium and the Athlon64 which would appear to lean to the Pentium in virtually every category, available here (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundupmobo/pentium4-32ghz-ee.html). And, your price comparison doesnt factor in the extra cost of motherboards to handle 64 bit processors.

The bottom line is, we have yet to see any evidence that the Athlon64 provides a significant benefit for the cost associated with it.

Umm... These benchmarks are using the FX-51 and Socket 940 (No longer available) and the P4 3.2EE (No longer available). Using that as proof is specious at best.

Oh, and the cheapest available socket 939 mobo is $68.00 vs $75.00 for a P4 478 according to Newegg. Now go away with your unsupportable arguments.

[baz]

The Athlon 64 brings a lot more to the table than support for huge quantities of RAM. Significant portions of the chip have been redesigned. Its handles heat much, much better than AMDs 32bit chips. The memory control is integrated into the CPU and it makes use of the new HyperTransport crap.

In a purely 32bit environment, no other chip can touch its gaming performance. I'm still happy enough with my 2500+ at the mo, but when the dual core processors start being useful, I'm going to pick myself up one of those badboys.

[Mason]

Umm, have you even looked at the screenshots of the brick tunnel? FarCry 64 looks a ton better, really "next gen" if you will. It adds a whole new render feature, that is not an insignificant change. And if it adds rendering complexity while maintaining performance, that means it is more powerful.

32-bit x86 instructions have been a hinderance to PCs for a long time. The instruction set is fundamentally unable to handle many common algorithms without register renaming. The biggest benefit of the 64-bit revolution is that we're finally dumping x86 for a moderately more efficient instruction set. The only thing that kept x86 workable for so long was its extensions and the very mature compilers. A64 doesn't require them to exactly reinvent the wheel on compiler technologies, but then again things will only improve in time.

woodentaco: The results on that site involved the Athlon 64 processors running 32-bit code. Want a great 32-bit processor? You've got several good options. But that's a very myopic view of A64 as a platform. We could benchmark processors on how well they handle 16-bit DOS apps, too, but that would seem in many ways to be missing the point. And the review you cite is very biased: Intel is praised for every benchmark it wins, and when AMD has a large lead it is written off as bad compilers or ignorant programmers. Yeah, that's how things work.

[bobbler]

It seems some of you forget the fact that an Athlon 64 is purchased because its a powerhouse -- not because its 64 bit.

The 64 bit is PR fluff (currently), you buy an athlon 64 because for the price you cannot find a better cpu. The athlon 64s are unbeatable for games (and very respectable for everything else), an athlon 64 3200 can often beat a 3.4-3.6ghz P4 for 2/3 the price.

How you can claim its a waste of money is beyond me... it costs nothing extra, especially considering the fact that there is no other way to get an athlon 64 without the 64 bit.

Also the registers were extended in 64 bit, so a game fully written for 64 bit, that wouldn't work on 32bit OS', would show improvements much greater than this, but since 32 bit OS' are still the vast majority this wont happen for a while.

Now... on the intel side of things, it is sort fo a waste of money -- since they have P4s that are cheaper without the EMT64... why you'd want a P4 for gaming is another absurdity entirely.

Some of you need to open your eyes a bit...

[Wayfarer]

Look, I'm not one to feed a flame fest, so I'll say that I think everyone is on the same page. Athlon 64 is a kick butt processor for the price. Itanium is an astounding processor and can make SQL 2000 64bit do some amazing shit on a server with 8 Gb+ of RAM. I'm talking slice and dice over a terabyte of data like its nothing. All I'm saying is that it does that because it makes a ton more memory available (addressable). Graphics-wise I'm sure we will see some improvement, but since video acceleration on the CPU and memory side has been so segregated from the CPU, it's not going to be the quantum leap you are expecting.

64bit CPU = good, just not fantabulous bonuses to graphics. If you are thinking of getting one cause you need a new CPU, go for it. If you are getting one because you think it will revolutionize your rig, hold off a bit. No sense throwing cash away.

[bobbler]

Look, I'm not one to feed a flame fest, so I'll say that I think everyone is on the same page. Athlon 64 is a kick butt processor for the price. Itanium is an astounding processor and can make SQL 2000 64bit do some amazing shit on a server with 8 Gb+ of RAM. I'm talking slice and dice over a terabyte of data like its nothing. All I'm saying is that it does that because it makes a ton more memory available (addressable). Graphics-wise I'm sure we will see some improvement, but since video acceleration on the CPU and memory side has been so segregated from the CPU, it's not going to be the quantum leap you are expecting.

64bit CPU = good, just not fantabulous bonuses to graphics. If you are thinking of getting one cause you need a new CPU, go for it. If you are getting one because you think it will revolutionize your rig, hold off a bit. No sense throwing cash away.

There we go, thats the truth.

[chechenepiphany]

Jeeze, so hostile chechenepiphany. I'm not seeing the contradictions that you are pointing out, though. "NO difference (or less) when using 64 Bit Far Cry" seems consistent with "without (overall) losing performance." They are simply arguing that there is no loss or gain of performance in FarCray 64, even though there is more content. That seems to be what the article says too...

Later, you say that there is "nothing wrong" with a 64-bit CPU. Nobody is arguing that - there is nothing necessarily lost by getting one other than a lot of money. The argument being presented is that there is virtually no gain except for extreme power users, so it's not worth it at this point. You assert that the 3200+ is the equivalent of the 3.2 ghz pentium 4, but you don't specify which 3200+ you are referring to (Clawhammer, Newcastle, or standard socket 939), and you don't cite any sources comparing the two as equal. A quick google search and I already found a cite comparing the Pentium and the Athlon64 which would appear to lean to the Pentium in virtually every category, available here (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/roundupmobo/pentium4-32ghz-ee.html). And, your price comparison doesnt factor in the extra cost of motherboards to handle 64 bit processors.

The bottom line is, we have yet to see any evidence that the Athlon64 provides a significant benefit for the cost associated with it.

I enjoy being hostile. As for the contradiction, I guess I didnt make it clear enough. The first thing he says is that there "NO difference (or less)". He didnt say there wasnt very much. Our scholarly friend said there was none or... less. He then states that it is actually of higher quality and contains more content. Now, I could be wrong, but I suspect that when he says "NO difference (or less)", and immediately points out two considerable differences, he is contradicting himself. But maybe I'm wrong. Oh, and I think we've already established that Athlons 64's are cheaper than comparable processors.

[codswallop]

64bit CPU = good, just not fantabulous bonuses to graphics.
I really think these sorts of comments need to end with yet (i.e. "just not fantabulous bonuses to graphics yet."). 64-bit computing on the desktop is extremely immature right now, and of course the benefits will be minimal.

I'd be willing to bet than in 12-24 months (if take-up is adequate), people will be calling anyone who insists on using a 32-bit CPU for gaming an idiot.

[bobbler]

In 12-24 months there won't be any x86 cpus sold (from AMD or Intel at least) that aren't x86-64 =o

[Wayfarer]

I really think these sorts of comments need to end with yet (i.e. "just not fantabulous bonuses to graphics yet.").


Everything needs to end with "yet" and 42 if that's not enough. :D

[Pumped'Up]

People who use a P4 for gaming are completely uneducated.

The AMD 64 cpus have been the king for gaming for the past 2 years and continuing - all at a fraction of the cost of P4 cpus.

Intel chips are a complete waste of $$$. There really is no reason to get P4 chips when you look at the performance vs cost comparision.

[chechenepiphany]

In 12-24 months there won't be any x86 cpus sold (from AMD or Intel at least) that aren't x86-64 =o
i agree. although intel might keep churning out some 32bit p4s for low end computers.
People who use a P4 for gaming are completely uneducated.

The AMD 64 cpus have been the king for gaming for the past 2 years and continuing - all at a fraction of the cost of P4 cpus.

Intel chips are a complete waste of $$$. There really is no reason to get P4 chips when you look at the performance vs cost comparision.
I totally agree. P4's blow. Plus you have to consider that AMD hasnt just produced a line of 64s off to one side. theyve made it their main line of cpus and managed to provide it at better prices than similar 32bit pentiums.

Kudos to both of you for bringing a little sense into this thread.

[deimos420]

get an education

your post makes no sense. you say,

and then turn around with

does that make sense to you? oh, and the following is a quote from the article listed above.

then we get hit with this:

and dont forget this:

is there no end to this stupidity? there is absolutely nothing wrong with 64 bit hardware or software. aside from needing new drivers, there is nothing wrong with 64bit windows either. on top of that, a 64 bit processor from AMD comes at no extra cost to the user. the 3200+ is the equivalent of 3.2 ghz pentium 4. it costs about $180. pentium 4s at this speed start at around $220 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116201).
sound like a waste of cash? maybe not so much. Admit it, an athlon 64 is not only a reasonable purchase, the prices are comparable to or lower than those of traditional processors.


wow, it sounds like chechenepiphany is a lil whiney bitch that thinks that he knows it all, when actually he's just a dumb ass punk loser that gets NO pussy, so he has to try (poorly, by the way) to put everyone elses' opinions down to make himself feel more intelligent than what he really is. stop whining, you 26 year old dumbass virgin that lives in his mommy's basement, and get a life, pussy. and if you wanna step to a real man in real life and get your white little marshmallow ass kicked instead of being a punk bitch and insulting people online to pump your tiny nutz up, then feel free to contact me with an address and i'll be glad to show you how real men, unlike yourself, solve their problems, you whiney ass faggot. you seriously sound like a female. a smart ass bitch.go ahead and take about 10 tampons, chechenepiphany, and shove them up your ass, you female-acting pussy boy, and shut the fuck up before you get your bitchy feminine ass kicked.

[bobbler]

...what?

You revived a 9 month old thread just to shit on someone?

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say... Good bye!

[deimos420]

...what?

you care that much to reply to a comment not even directed at you?
i think it's safe to say "go fuck yourself".

[deimos420]

oh, and goodbye.

[Xerxes]

Nobody care's about you lame ass comment it's the reviving of a old as post for no reason that's the issue.

[Schnoogs]

What's wrong with XPx64?

I had issues getting it to work with my X1900XT.

I ended up putting regular XP back on.