Tim Sweeney (Unreal franchise lead Proggrammer) on X86-64

[Snoop]

'ripped from Aces message boards'
Slashdot Post.

Tim Sweeney:

Regarding this "far off" application compatibility, we've been running the 64-bit SuSE Linux distribution on Hammer for over 3 months. We're going to ship the 64-bit version of UT2003 at or before the consumer Athlon64 launch. And our next-generation engine won't just support 64-bit, but will basically REQUIRE it on the content-authoring side.

We tell Intel this all the time, begging and pleading for a cost-effective 64-bit desktop solution. Intel should be listening to customers and taking the leadership role on the 64-bit desktop transition, not making these ridiculous "end of the decade" statements to the press.

Interesting Sounds like AMD may be on the right track.

 

[AtomicDude512]

Oh lala AMD! I am getting an Athlon 64 then. Plus if Unreal REQUIRES a 64-Bit CPU AMD will make sales while Intel frantically tries to chew out a x86-64 P4 with HT! I mean, they cannot take off HT, that will make people think they are getting worse, or desperate.

 

[IanthePez]

It will only require it on the content-authoring side, so intel will do just fine anyway.

Still, good news for AMD.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: AtomicDude512
Oh lala AMD! I am getting an Athlon 64 then. Plus if Unreal REQUIRES a 64-Bit CPU AMD will make sales while Intel frantically tries to chew out a x86-64 P4 with HT! I mean, they cannot take off HT, that will make people think they are getting worse, or desperate.

A) They will require x86-64 for CONTENT-SIDE AUTHORING
B) Requiring x86-64 TO PLAY would be shooting themselves in the foot in the worst of ways... Do I have to remind everyone of Intel's market-share? The likely result would be that only the most hardcore Unreal fanboys would convert to AMD if they were currently running Intel. Unreal 3 would be DOA.

If you honestly think that Intel would switch it's entire desktop CPU strategy to accomodote Tim Sweeney I've got a small bridge to sell you.

*edit* Fanboyism aside, this is good news for AMD

 

[Snoop]

Oh lala AMD! I am getting an Athlon 64 then. Plus if Unreal REQUIRES a 64-Bit CPU AMD will make sales while Intel frantically tries to chew out a x86-64 P4 with HT!

I have a feeling that Intel has had a group working on a x86-64 port of the p4 for a while. Though, I imagine Intel loathes the thought of following the lead of AMD, and will do just about anything in their power to avert releasing this chip.

 

[Wingznut]

AtomicDude, you really need to pay attention to what you are reading. So many times lately, you've taken what is said completely out of context.

As Ian pointed out, nobody said that a 64-bit system would be required to PLAY Unreal.

And if Tim Sweeny's next engine truly does REQUIRE a 64-bit system to author, then they are making a HUGE mistake. I can't understand why he would think it's a good idea to virtually shut out 99% of his customers.

 

[Snoop]

Removed

PS- Wingz, it would be much more interesting if you posted your thoughts on Tim Sweeneys comments

 

[Wingznut]

Sorry Snoop... It's just that Atomic has done that quite a lot lately. While it's obvious that he has a lot of enthusiasm about the tech industry, I think he needs to slow down just a bit and understand what he reads... And maybe ask some questions.

Btw, I did comment. I don't really understand Tim's motivation here, and I think it would be a really poor idea to exclude the vast majority of his customers.

 

[MadRat]

Which majority would that be, the one that buys PCs for the corporate market or the one that buys for gaming? I don't know too many leading edge gamers that chose to stick to Intel because of the sticker shock. Its alot cheaper to stay closer to the bleeding edge by going with Socket-A. I'd almost venture to say that the majority that buy Intel seem to be buying for non-gaming use.

 

[PCMarine]

Cool, can't wait to have a Hammer of my own

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
And if Tim Sweeny's next engine truly does REQUIRE a 64-bit system to author, then they are making a HUGE mistake. I can't understand why he would think it's a good idea to virtually shut out 99% of his customers.

The number of people who would actually author content for Unreal / UT is likely to be a tiny fraction like 0.01% of purchasers, and of the other 99.99% the majority will not hold off purchasing as long as the content shipped with the game is good enough.

But yes of those few people who would create new content, 99% will have a 32-bit CPU. This could hurt the longevity of Unreal-based products if they get little or no new content beyond what ships in the box.

This also seems like an odd decision from a technical standpoint, what compeling reason is there to switch to 64-bit for the tools except for some fractional speed increase in encoding and perhaps in creating some of the pre-computed level data?

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Which majority would that be, the one that buys PCs for the corporate market or the one that buys for gaming? I don't know too many leading edge gamers that chose to stick to Intel because of the sticker shock. Its alot cheaper to stay closer to the bleeding edge by going with Socket-A. I'd almost venture to say that the majority that buy Intel seem to be buying for non-gaming use.

OMG... Is ANYBODY reading (and comprehending) the article???

EDIT: Thanks, Dave. You have restored my faith in people's comprehension skills.

EDIT #2: And I'm defining Tim's customers (the ones who would get excluded) as the third party developers who license his engines. I believe that's where developers (such as Epic and Id Software) get a significant chunk of their income.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: MadRat
Which majority would that be, the one that buys PCs for the corporate market or the one that buys for gaming? I don't know too many leading edge gamers that chose to stick to Intel because of the sticker shock. Its alot cheaper to stay closer to the bleeding edge by going with Socket-A. I'd almost venture to say that the majority that buy Intel seem to be buying for non-gaming use.

OMG... Is ANYBODY reading (and comprehending) the article???

EDIT: Thanks, Dave. You have restored my faith in people's comprehension skills.

EDIT #2: And I'm defining Tim's customers (the ones who would get excluded) as the third party developers who license his engines. I believe that's where developers (such as Epic and Id Software) get a significant chunk of their income.

Well I took his post (Tim's) to mean that developers who would be authoring content based on the next-gen Unreal engine are currently:

1) Using workstations that are significantly more powerful than desktop PCs (and cost a lot more too), but won't cut it for future applications.

2) Looking for more powerful workstations that don't cost their weight in plaItanium, and will cost about the same as current underpowered workstations.

I think that's all Tim is saying in regards to a 64-bit platform and the hardware needed to author content on the next-gen Unreal engine.

Chiz

 

[Wingznut]

The way that I read it, is that he's considering that the next Unreal engine will REQUIRE a 64-bit system to author content. And I'm saying that if it REQUIRES 64-bit, then he may be excluding a lot of customers.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Wingznut
The way that I read it, is that he's considering that the next Unreal engine will REQUIRE a 64-bit system to author content. And I'm saying that if it REQUIRES 64-bit, then he may be excluding a lot of customers.

Yes, from his tone it certainly seems like a 64-bit platform with some serious RAM will be required (certainly more than 4 GBs), but I think he is banking on the affordability and widespread availability of AMD's Athlon 64/Opteron, which at this point is certainly not a safe bet. If not, it will certainly be a problem since current 64-bit solutions would be a substantial cost to even moderate-sized dev. houses.

Chiz

 

[DaveSimmons]

And our next-generation engine won't just support 64-bit, but will basically REQUIRE it on the content-authoring side.

If this means the engine compiler, no big deal, any studio licensing the engine for $100K+ can afford a few extra $3K workstations for their people customizing the engine.

If this means content such as levels, models, skins etc. then they are going to lose most of their amateur developers, and even game studios are going to complain about having to replace basically all of their equipment -- think 10-20 workstations instead of 2-4. Studios will also have problems outsourcing some content creation if the outside people need AMDs too.

 

[MadRat]

Wingz, if you did actually hang out in the gaming circles a little more than you'd know that a great amount of focus in the present and future gaming is to have the players progress the original by aiding their respective communities to author content. Almost every major title out there in the last year has some sort of community that modifies the original game.

Sometimes you ought to consider that not everyone wants to spell out every f@(&%#! thing in the reasoning behind their statements.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Wingz, if you did actually hang out in the gaming circles a little more than you'd know that a great amount of focus in the present and future gaming is to have the players progress the original by aiding their respective communities to author content. Almost every major title out there in the last year has some sort of community that modifies the original game.

Sometimes you ought to consider that not everyone wants to spell out every f@(&%#! thing in the reasoning behind their statements.

*Sigh*

As if I have no idea what mods are, or their impact on the "gaming community"... Which btw, I consider myself a part of.

But, those who write mods are a tiny percentage of the gaming community... Not really all that significant.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Wingz, if you did actually hang out in the gaming circles a little more than you'd know that a great amount of focus in the present and future gaming is to have the players progress the original by aiding their respective communities to author content. Almost every major title out there in the last year has some sort of community that modifies the original game.

Sometimes you ought to consider that not everyone wants to spell out every f@(&%#! thing in the reasoning behind their statements.

Are you reading what Wingznut is writing? The point isn't whether or not the community should modify the original of the game, you are correct in saying that it is a trend in recent years (and a good one IMHO). The point is that Intel's market share is significant no matter which segment you look at (gaming or otherwise). I'm pretty sure Intel has stated somewhere that they might implement "some features that resemble 64-bt technology" or something to that effect since they have no plans of bringing 64-bit computing to desktops until the Itanium architecture is ready to be passed down.

I'm guessing that they probably intend to make CPU's and chipsets capable of increased memory addressing capacity which would get rid of the x86-32's biggest limitation.

Either way, Tim Sweeney stating that he plans to exclude a platform that has some 80% market-share is sketchy at best.

 

[NOX]

It?s clear what he is talking about. When he mentions ?Itaniums?, ?16 DIMM slots?, ?8GB of RAM?, ?Opteron? and states stuff like ?Any claim that "4GB is enough" or that address windowing extensions are a viable solution are just plain nuts.? It?s very obvious he is talking about high level sever/workstation hardware. We?re talking about Pixar or game developer level stuff here guys. Not something you can find in the average home, or something 99.9% of the computer industry uses.

For Epic to exclude 32-bit computing is foolish, and would bring the end to epic rather quickly. He is obviously referring to Intel, and AMD in respect to the Itanium and Opteron for its potential or lack of, however he does take a few jabs at Intel, and seems to be giving AMD the nod.

The only reference he makes (from what I can see) pertaining to the hardcore gamer or average gamer is that future UT tittles will support 64-bit computing. He does not state anywhere that 32-bit support will not be available but only if you are authoring content (my guess is Americas Army type stuff). Other then that this has nothing to do with the hardcore gaming or the moderate gamer.

 

[paralazarguer]

The way that I read it, is that he's considering that the next Unreal engine will REQUIRE a 64-bit system to author content. And I'm saying that if it REQUIRES 64-bit, then he may be excluding a lot of customers.

Sounds to me that he's very confident that the Hammer will take off in the demographic which would author content for his game. I don't think he's planning on excluding 99% of potential content authors. I just think he sees something coming in the future which some people (and huge companies) don't.