Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nathaniel Jackson
Spectrum Solutions INC
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:01:00 -
[1]
As all the new hardware is 64Bit enabled, and EvE being very cpu-intenssive, i was wondering why not build a 64Bit version of EvE. I'm shure the performance boost would be good.
|
Mickey Mouse
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:02:00 -
[2]
it require a lot of performance now cause all graphics are handled by cpu as well
the new engine will lighten the load on your cpu a lot
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:04:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Nathaniel Jackson As all the new hardware is 64Bit enabled, and EvE being very cpu-intenssive, i was wondering why not build a 64Bit version of EvE. I'm shure the performance boost would be good.
With the current 64bit hardware the performance increase would be very small and seeing as all the code would have to be rewritten, its simply not worth the time atm. Maybe in a year or 2 - 3.
i suck |
Ponderous Thunderstroke
Republic War Machine Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:04:00 -
[4]
And I am SO ready for that, I can't run two instances of Eve simultaneously without my CPU shooting from 130F to 175F. Hurry Trinity, we need you!~
|
Nathaniel Jackson
Spectrum Solutions INC
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:09:00 -
[5]
Actually, after testing several applications on 64Bit enviorment, the performance gain on a usual desktop computer is between 10% and 30%, and that's for start. Not only that there's a performance gain, but it enables the user to run multiple applications (2 eve accounts ?? :D ) more smoothly, with less delay and processor load. I've tested on several computer configurations and laptops, with various applications, and it ads up...64Bit is better.
|
Sleepkevert
Paradox v2.0
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:10:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Nathaniel Jackson As all the new hardware is 64Bit enabled, and EvE being very cpu-intenssive, i was wondering why not build a 64Bit version of EvE. I'm shure the performance boost would be good.
Meh, as said, the performance boost will probably be minor, only a small part of the eve community will be able to run it. And it will probably take even more time to write then Trinity2 as you need to rewrite all the underlying code too. Probably not worth the money.
(Also, Shure is an microphone brand, not an English word. "Sure" is the word you were looking for.)
Sign my sig |
Nathaniel Jackson
Spectrum Solutions INC
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:15:00 -
[7]
Thanks for the spelling advice. Note thou that english is not my native language
|
Asperger
Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:19:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Nathaniel Jackson Edited by: Nathaniel Jackson on 27/09/2007 08:13:55 As all the new hardware is 64Bit enabled, and EvE being very cpu-intenssive, i was wondering why not build a 64Bit version of EvE. I'm sure the performance boost would be good.
No it wouldn't be. 64bit is not automatically better that 32bit CPUs. Most people don't even know what the 32/64bit refers to.
|
Nathaniel Jackson
Spectrum Solutions INC
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:33:00 -
[9]
I did not said that all 64Bit cpu's are better that theyr 32 bit counterparts, but in a 64bit enviorment a 64Bit software runs better in any case. Also, a person is not required to understand exactly how a 64Bit processor works, as long as it performs better than a 32Bit one . I know the difference between a 32Bit and a 64Bit enviorment, but as i said a usual user is not required to understand the difference as long as it gives him better performance.
|
Asperger
Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:39:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Nathaniel Jackson I did not said that all 64Bit cpu's are better that theyr 32 bit counterparts, but in a 64bit enviorment a 64Bit software runs better in any case. Also, a person is not required to understand exactly how a 64Bit processor works, as long as it performs better than a 32Bit one . I know the difference between a 32Bit and a 64Bit enviorment, but as i said a usual user is not required to understand the difference as long as it gives him better performance.
But the question remains, does it give a better performance? In my opinion not really. Unless of course you have more than 4 GBs of memory and for some reason you can productively use twice as many registers.
|
|
Dred'Pirate Jesus
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:42:00 -
[11]
Yes.. CCP should focus on a custom OS version of Eve that about 2%(or less..) of the playerbase uses..
Originally by: David Hackworth ò If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.
|
ry ry
StateCorp The State
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 09:08:00 -
[12]
Edited by: ry ry on 27/09/2007 09:08:08
i think the real question is "Eve 64bit edition...why ?"
|
Bagdon
Radical Fighters
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 09:36:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Asperger
But the question remains, does it give a better performance? In my opinion not really. Unless of course you have more than 4 GBs of memory and for some reason you can productively use twice as many registers.
Compilers were invented around 50 years ago. They've been dealing with the problem of register allocation and usage since then. And yes, the amd64 architecture is much smarter and efficient than i386. Just from the new calling conventions and registers you get 10-20% for free.
|
KHEN
New Horizons
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 09:56:00 -
[14]
64 bits is good for systems holding more than 3 GBytes RAM
The Social Impact of EVE ?
Originally by: Nyphur I'm hungry and naked. That answer your question?
|
Dred'Pirate Jesus
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 10:02:00 -
[15]
Originally by: KHEN 64 bits is good for systems holding more than 3 GBytes RAM
Too bad nothing except professional productivity/development programs use that 3 gigs.. Games still default to the 1~2 gig expectancy of resources..
Originally by: David Hackworth ò If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.
|
Asperger
Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 11:23:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Bagdon Compilers were invented around 50 years ago. They've been dealing with the problem of register allocation and usage since then. And yes, the amd64 architecture is much smarter and efficient than i386. Just from the new calling conventions and registers you get 10-20% for free.
Yes, the architecture is much better, but the change required to utilize the new architecture mostly starts on the operating system level.
64bit mode is not widespread enough especially in the windows world to warrant a game providing a 64bit binary.
CCP's time is better spent correcting design mistakes instead of porting the game into a new architecture.
|
KHEN
New Horizons
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 07:04:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dred'Pirate Jesus
Originally by: KHEN 64 bits is good for systems holding more than 3 GBytes RAM
Too bad nothing except professional productivity/development programs use that 3 gigs.. Games still default to the 1~2 gig expectancy of resources..
Absolutely true, but I run several EVE accounts on a Quad Core cpu. Today 2 GB are fine but with the Trinity II engine, I wonder if I will need to use a 64-bits OS to adress more than 3,2 GB ram, due to the increased consumption of central memory by each EVE client.
The Social Impact of EVE ?
Originally by: Nyphur I'm hungry and naked. That answer your question?
|
Hilabana
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 07:22:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Nathaniel Jackson Edited by: Nathaniel Jackson on 27/09/2007 08:13:55 As all the new hardware is 64Bit enabled, and EvE being very cpu-intenssive, i was wondering why not build a 64Bit version of EvE. I'm sure the performance boost would be good.
Yes i like to see a 64 bit ver. I have this small system i use to play eve on. CPU - AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ CPU Speed 2.81 GHz Performance Rated at 8.40 GHz System RAM 4.0 GB Video Card NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT x2 SLI Video Card Features Video RAM 256.0 MB Video Card 3D Acceleration Video HW Transform & Lighting Vertex Shader Ver.3.0 Pixel Shader Ver.3.0 Video Card Driver Version 7.15.11.5842 PhysX System DirectX Version 10.0 Realtek High Definition Audio HD Audio ALC883 DirectX 10.0 Driver Version 6.0.1.5377 Hard Disk Capacity 232.9 GB x2 TSSTcorp CD/DVDW SH-S183L SCSI CdRom Device x2 OS: Windows 64 Vista Ultimate
|
Namtuk
Minmatar Dynaverse Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 11:39:00 -
[19]
I might be wrong but wouldn`t it be better to 1st make the client support Dual/Quad Core`s right.
|
J'Mkarr Soban
Amarr Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 12:57:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Namtuk I might be wrong but wouldn`t it be better to 1st make the client support Dual/Quad Core`s right.
I agree. I'd like a 64 bit version, but you're right - Windows support for 64bit is pathetic. Unfortunately, that's something that doesn't look as if it's going to change for a while. ----------------------------- "Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow." "Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?" "..." |
|
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 13:25:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Andrue on 28/09/2007 13:27:55
Originally by: Asperger
Originally by: Nathaniel Jackson Edited by: Nathaniel Jackson on 27/09/2007 08:13:55 As all the new hardware is 64Bit enabled, and EvE being very cpu-intenssive, i was wondering why not build a 64Bit version of EvE. I'm sure the performance boost would be good.
No it wouldn't be. 64bit is not automatically better that 32bit CPUs. Most people don't even know what the 32/64bit refers to.
Very true. The biggest advantage will probably come from the increase in address bus width. Once the 4GB barrier becomes a thing of the past we should see a bit of a performance jump.
Other than that there aren't really many operations that benefit from being performed using 64-bits. Even fewer for which doing it in one cycle (or whatever the newer CPUs allow) makes much difference.
The only time I've ever needed 64 bits is for addressing blocks on storage devices. For that it doesn't really matter how many bites of the cherry it takes to manipulate the value. The time lost during the I/O means you can probably do it as fast on a Z80
Edit:Yes the 64-bit CPUs have architectural enhancements but I imagine most of them apply to their 32-bit compatibility mode..or could be back ported to it. I suppose that CPU makers won't do that back porting for the same reason that DX10 isn't available on Windows XP. -- (Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 13:30:00 -
[22]
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban Windows support for 64bit is pathetic. Unfortunately, that's something that doesn't look as if it's going to change for a while.
I disagree. I have been using Windows x64 Edition since it was released, and support it fine.
It saddens me that so many people are sucked in by adverts for the latest dual/quad core (64bit) cpus, and then run a 32bit os on them.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur
|
I'mA Geezer
Friends Of Derek
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:00:00 -
[23]
The main deal is, surely, that a 64bit OS can address tons more memory.
So it's great for your huge database server, but not desperately relevant for your desktop user.
|
ry ry
StateCorp The State
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:02:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban Windows support for 64bit is pathetic. Unfortunately, that's something that doesn't look as if it's going to change for a while.
I disagree. I have been using Windows x64 Edition since it was released, and support it fine.
It saddens me that so many people are sucked in by adverts for the latest dual/quad core (64bit) cpus, and then run a 32bit os on them.
xp64 is horrible, it's compatability is a joke.
|
zilllii
Squirrel Power
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: ry ry
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban Windows support for 64bit is pathetic. Unfortunately, that's something that doesn't look as if it's going to change for a while.
I disagree. I have been using Windows x64 Edition since it was released, and support it fine.
It saddens me that so many people are sucked in by adverts for the latest dual/quad core (64bit) cpus, and then run a 32bit os on them.
xp64 is horrible, it's compatability is a joke.
only problem ive had with it is the software for my sony-ericsson phone. everything else i use i have found to work smoother and better when using a 64bit program version over the 32bit version. although 99.9% of the 32bit programs work in xp64 also.
--------------------------------------------------
Originally by: Flinx Evenstar Love the new need for speed initiative.
Pilots involved in a fleet battle can post on the forum and get a reply about wha |
Falkrich Swifthand
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:37:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 28/09/2007 14:40:30 I run XP x64 too, and everything is perfectly fine.
I wish we had it at work, we have frequent "out of memory" crashes on our current project. The machines have 4GB of ram, Windows 32-bit only sees 3GB, and programs can only use up to 2GB each...
The /3GB switch is no use because it reduces the system virtual memory section too much. An 8800GTX has to reserve 768MB from the system virtual memory set to map to the graphics card ram, and with the /3GB switch there's not enough contiguous memory left to do it, so 3d-acceleration gets disabled.
No need for a 64-bit eve.
|
ry ry
StateCorp The State
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:45:00 -
[27]
we upgraded at work and eventually rolled back to 32bit XP because we just couldn't get half the dev suite to work properly.
nb. we didn't write the dev tools ;)
|
ZigZag Joe
The Republican Guard
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:59:00 -
[28]
i've been using windows xp x64 from the get go, and while finding drivers can be a @%#%, it is very nice provided your hardware is not 5 years old. any recent bit of hardware most likely will have a corresponding 64bit driver provided or available on the internet. programs don't necessarily need to be re-written for performance gains. i've also had no issues with compatibility except for ancient games that won't work on 32bit xp anyways
example, java 64 vs java 32. 80fps vs 47fps (running an improved version of [url=http://www.quinapalus.com/wi-java.html]this[/url]). all sun did was recompile the java runtime for 64bit. example 2: a C version of the former, minus the gui. 334 (avg) frames per second on 32bit vs 663 (avg) frames per second on 64bit. Cpu was a AMD64 3000+ (single core) w/ 1gb of ram. there were no modifications to the source to compile on 64bit.
just recompiling eve for 64bit would produce significant gains - it doesnÆt need to be rewritten. 64bit also doesnÆt need 4gb+ to work effectively/be worth the money. Also with eve being written in (Stackless) python, an interpreted language, none of the eve code needs to be redone. Just the stuff in ./bin needs to be recompiled.
<< zigzag forever. >> |
Justin Cody
Caldari Four Rings D-L
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 15:13:00 -
[29]
The reason 64 bit processors see a performance improvement over 32bit is because there are several registers on the CPU that are currently unused in 32-bit apps but are used in 64bit mode. Basically the CPU is fully fucntional and all of us on 32 bit are using under-driven CPU's.
Its like driving a car that has a 6-cyl engine, but switching off two cylinders because we can "get by" on 4 and te roads weren't built to handle our 6-cyl engine car...or something.
Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams
|
ZigZag Joe
The Republican Guard
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 15:23:00 -
[30]
ok, i did not look into that much (don't care much for java at all). the second example however is still perfectly valid
<< zigzag forever. >> |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |