I would love to see a Skyrim 64 bit if that would mean they can bring back the integrated towns and have more NPCs to make the world feel more organic. I liked Morrowind more than Oblivion in this respect, there was hardly any point to walking between towns in Oblivion other than just to admire the scenery. And it's also a bit more immersive to be able to walk into town or a house instead of being greeted by dozens of loading screens or watching time consuming animations that hide the loading screen.

Also probable as it's a new engine and support for more cores will also help on consoles.
I doubt the go 64 bit as it's not needed for the base game and many still uses 32 bit systems.

Exactly. The mainstream technology isn't at the point in time where 64bit systems are the majority. If a 32 bit system still works, and you could make more money off of it than a 64 based system, its economical. Skyrim isn't meant to be a "New-Gen" game. So get over it. Its made to be a highly polished game of this generation. The next Elder Scrolls game will most likely be 64 bit, have DX12, and the whole nine-yards. But until then, why not just enjoy the end of this generation?

Again, I repeat, having a 64bit version does not affect the 32bit version at all. It would have both, not one or the other.

It would not mean that.

32 bit as a usual launch, but a 64 bit optional or patch for enthusiasts would be nice. At the very least, threading for multiple cores will keep me happy.

64-bit systems are the majority. If you have a Core 2, Athlon 64/X2, Core i7/i5/i3, Phenom or one of the many later varieties of Pentium and Celeron processors based on the Core 2/i7 then you have a 64-bit system. If you choose to cripple your system with a 32-bit operating system, that is your business but it doesn't mean that you don't have a 64-bit system and it doesn't mean that it should hold the rest of us back. If you have 32-bit Windows Vista or Windows 7, the 64-bit equivalent is free for you. If you have Windows XP, well, it's time to upgrade because it's nearly 10 years old. And if you don't have a 64-bit processor, chances are your system is too old to play Skyrim effectively anyways.

Speaking of 64-bit operating systems :
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc

Right now, they make up just under 50% of Windows installations. By the time Skyrim comes out, they *will* be the majority. If you know how to program, it is not that difficult to write a 64-bit version of the program. The main problems occur when programmers do stupid things like assuming the last bit of a memory address is unused. It's much easier to maintain separate x86-32 and x86-64 versions of a program than it is to say, maintain separate versions for a bunch of different consoles (which have *completely* different architectures). It is much easier to write a program properly and make a 64-bit version from the beginning then to have to go through a bunch of poorly written code later on and fix the bad coding so it works on 64-bit. I assume that Bethesda is designing the Creation Engine to last a while and not just for one game so it makes sense to go ahead and design it so it will last.

By "system" I meant operating system, not the CPU, but now to exit the thread and brush up a bit on technical aspects of computing before I make myself sound uneducated again.

Having 64bit version of Skyrim for us enthusiasts would be nice. :thumbsup:

Crysis had 64bit mode and that game was released in 2007.

You are really not funny.
You seem to be ignorant while trying to show of you are smart.

Indeed. Install : "Would you like to have the 64b version instead?" "Yes please..." "Installing"
Wouldn't change anything for 32b system nor consoles. What's wrong with that?

.....someones a buzz kill. And please...lose the belittling attitude.

Yup but Crysis loaded each level at RAM at whole and had much larger textures and that's why it needed it.
Skyrim is going to have cells that will load individually and not the whole province of Skyrim.
And Skyrim graphics aren't as Crysis.
Crysis can't run on consoles remember ?
Skyrim will run on consoles and it's made for them and will be ported to pc.

While the base Skyrim will not use much RAM, please note that 100+ mods will surely run much nicer if the application is a 64-bit one.

im not too worried about this. its a new engine so it pretty much has to have the ability to run on more than 3 GB. also, they patched new vegas with a 4GBdll so i dont see why they couldnt do something similar to skyrim if they were shortsighted and didnt desing it that way. and yes i know obsidian did new vegas but its bethesdas engine.

most pc's sold these days, even laptops and low-end desktops, come with dual core or quad-core CPUs and at least 4GB RAM, or significantly more than 4GB, as well as 64-bit win7. Why not release a version that is optimized for multi-threading and allows use of more than 2GB RAM (even more than 4GB)?

I would be ecstatic if an x64 version is available, but it seems unlikely considering how few AAA games get an x64 version. The 4GB NTCore patch slightly improved performance for previous Bethesda releases, but it was no substitute for optimization.

Actually with PAE you can address >4GB with 32bit (Windows server editions)

I would seriously appreciate a port to native 64bit for Windows though.

A single app can't, though. The whole system can, and separate apps can get different "chunks", but a pointer is still just 32 bits and can only represent 2^32 values. Unless there's special system calls, reminicent of the old bank switching days, to switch where pages actually mapped to...

This game could never run on an N64. Plus who still plays that?

Christ guys the PS3 runs on a 128 bit architecture, if beth can release a 128bit version they can certainly release a 64bit PC version, as they should anyone currently on a 32bit operating system is a generation behind, its like saying that i should still be able to play skyrim on my original xbox because hey there both xboxs right?




you sir have entirely missed the point

XP was released in August 2001 - so technically 9.5 years. It been around for so long and with 3 service packs is very stable and is the devil we know. Any while we as PC users upgrade our hardware, or software including the operating system we install does not take advantage of it.

There are no non-academic 128bit processors, you're thinking of the GPU's memory bus - 128-bit there is not uncommon, there's a lot of data to shift, but at the time time that's not something a developer should have to handle themselves.

yeah i was thinking of memory buses, but that the point the more data we can shift between the CPU the GPU and the Physical Memory the better off we are, the ability to read and right more information cannot be underestimated.the more data and/or address lines we have the more information we can read and right from memory speeding up all processes.

is that better than what is used now? if so. i guess. but my main concerns aren't with graphics, but with content. I would be happy with graphics par with FO3 if there was a larger map and more weapons and armor.

I doubt it Bethesda ports their games instead of making a separate PC version.