What would "64-Bit Gaming" be like anyway ?

[Zenoth]

In the wake of so many topics regarding which version "would be best" to use (of course I'm talking about Vista), 32-Bit or 64-Bit, I decided to create this thread so we could perhaps guess, speculate on, think about or prove to ourselves what would actual 64-Bit Gaming be like. Because, in the end, most of us here would go with a 64-Bit OS (Vista surely) thinking, somewhere deep in ourselves at least (if we wouldn't admit it out loud for God knowns why) that it would mean we'd be "future proof when 64-Bit games are released". Most of us here are gamers, casual or not. Of course a few other applications types would be desirable perhaps, but gaming is all that matters when it comes to choosing between a 32-Bit to a 64-Bit OS, or at least I personally believe so.

So, what would be the concrete changes, the things that'd be immediately noticeable, whether in terms of visuals or performance in a 64-Bit game ?

Will there be greater draw-distances ? Better water reflections ? More parallax mapping without performance hits ? More polygons on-screen ? Better colors variety ? More realistic physics engines ? Better smoke and liquid effects ? Completely destructible environments ? Human-like A.I behaviors and decisions-making processes ? More "procedural" stuff ?

What is it exactly that we'd be looking for in a 64-Bit game ? Why do we even think that it'd be "better" than 32-Bit has to offer, without even knowing what actual kind of differences or advantages per se we could expect from such an application running in the proper OS capable of displaying the said changes ?

 

[Twsmit]

Imagine a game that would require more than 4GB of memory to run properly, that's just about the only way I know how to describe a 64-bit game... hehe

 

[Zenoth]

Exactly. We don't know much about the actual changes possible. Unless I missed some obvious facts ? And, for others reading this that are considering replying, please note that we're not talking about the differences between DX9 and DX10, but 32-Bit gaming and 64-Bit gaming, whether it is running under a DX9 or DX10 renderer.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: Twsmit
Imagine a game that would require more than 4GB of memory to run properly, that's just about the only way I know how to describe a 64-bit game... hehe

Battlefield 2?

 

[Zenoth]

What's wrong with BF 2 ? Anyone can run it smoothly with 2GB. Even 1GB is enough to have decent game-play.

 

[Nothinman]

So, what would be the concrete changes, the things that'd be immediately noticeable, whether in terms of visuals or performance in a 64-Bit game ?

Most likely it'll just like it is now only with higher res textures. The only thing going to 64-bit really gets you is more VM so you can map more stuff directly into your address space.

Why do we even think that it'd be "better" than 32-Bit has to offer, without even knowing what actual kind of differences or advantages per se we could expect from such an application running in the proper OS capable of displaying the said changes ?

Because people see that 64 is higher than 32 and immediately think that it means something is doubled which obviously has to be better.

 

[Kur]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Because people see that 64 is higher than 32 and immediately think that it means something is doubled which obviously has to be better.

I think it's save to say since their is a increase in just Application performance (in some areas) from 32bit to 64bit that it would be the same for games if they are programmed around it.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

So, what would be the concrete changes, the things that'd be immediately noticeable, whether in terms of visuals or performance in a 64-Bit game ?

Most likely it'll just like it is now only with higher res textures. The only thing going to 64-bit really gets you is more VM so you can map more stuff directly into your address space.

Why do we even think that it'd be "better" than 32-Bit has to offer, without even knowing what actual kind of differences or advantages per se we could expect from such an application running in the proper OS capable of displaying the said changes ?

Because people see that 64 is higher than 32 and immediately think that it means something is doubled which obviously has to be better.

What non-sense are you talking about? Why not take advantage of the extra processing power that your CPU can offer instead of overclocking and upgrading your hardware?

Windows 32bit cannot allocate more than 2 GB for an application. Of course there are some issues in x64 version which will resolved soon

Its like asking why should i use a computer when i already have a typewriter?

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Isn't this question already answered with the 64-bit editions of Half-Life 2 and Far Cry?

 

[Zenoth]

If you mean the "64-Bit only content" patch for Far Cry that made the environment a little more detailed with some sort of new mapping onto some textures (like the rocks on the beaches) then it had also been released for 32-Bit Windows, and it proves to be the exact same thing in both versions.

As far as Half-Life 2 is concerned I wasn't even aware of a 64-Bit version. There is one ? If so can you please point me at some links ? I'm not trying to make it seem like you're lying, by the way, I'm very curious, I'd simply like to know, ignorance isn't good for my sanity.

 

[Aberforth]

http://techgage.com/article/half-life_2_64-bit_-_reason_to_get_excited

 

[Zenoth]

Alright, so, as far as Half-Life 2 and Windows XP 64 is concerned there is no major differences between the 32-Bit and the 64-Bit versions, other than perhaps lower performance on the 64-Bit version. But ...

Is it because the developers did not implement "most of the things they could" for a 64-Bit application ? Would it perform differently today on Vista 64 for example ? And with newer drivers or newer GPU generations ? If 'x' developers "add all they can add" (if adding things can actually be) for a 64-Bit application that a 32-Bit application cannot get, what would be the result ?

There is still much questions. It's not like developers actually take the time to answer our own questions either. I wouldn't see Valve going public saying "well you know guys there is no actual reasons for gamers to go with any 64-Bit OS, not today nor in 10 years, the actual technology does not apply in gaming the same way gamers would wish" ...

 

[Nothinman]

I think it's save to say since their is a increase in just Application performance (in some areas) from 32bit to 64bit that it would be the same for games if they are programmed around it.

Sometimes there is an increase when running in long mode because of other things like the extra GPRs that are available, but the same would be true of a 32-bit CPU with more registers than x86.

Windows 32bit cannot allocate more than 2 GB for an application.

Which is what I was talking about when I said "The only thing going to 64-bit really gets you is more VM so you can map more stuff directly into your address space.". Instead of 2G of VM you now have 256TB of VM available.

Its like asking why should i use a computer when i already have a typewriter?

No, a more accurate analogy would be like comparing a BMW M3 and BMW M5.