Skyrim exe. : V - Skyrim

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:42 am

Running an application in 64bit only has one real benefit: Being able to use more RAM.
32bit is limited to 4GB, the limit for 64bit is a verrry high number I forgot.

Performance wise 64bit is for most operations just as fast as 32bit. It might be a bit faster for some things, but I also heard of cases, where it was slower (could have to do with bad programing though).
For games, which don't need more than 4GB RAM, it's rather uninteresting, since the CPU is usually not the problem anyways. And I don't think it has an influence on the graphics performance.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:14 pm

Running an application in 64bit only has one real benefit: Being able to use more RAM.
32bit is limited to 4GB, the limit for 64bit is a verrry high number I forgot.

Performance wise 64bit is for most operations just as fast as 32bit. It might be a bit faster for some things, but I also heard of cases, where it was slower (could have to do with bad programing though).
For games, which don't need more than 4GB RAM, it's rather uninteresting, since the CPU is usually not the problem anyways. And I don't think it has an influence on the graphics performance.

Thank you. That sounds cool to me. I only have 4 gig of RAM anyways so no need for the game to recognize more.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:22 pm

I still remember the storm in a teacup that brewed when console gamers found how far ahead PC graphics were for Battlefield 3. :celebration:

I'm a 360 player and god only knows what those people were expecting the console versions to look like

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:25 am

Running an application in 64bit only has one real benefit: Being able to use more RAM.
32bit is limited to 4GB, the limit for 64bit is a verrry high number I forgot.

Performance wise 64bit is for most operations just as fast as 32bit. It might be a bit faster for some things, but I also heard of cases, where it was slower (could have to do with bad programing though).
For games, which don't need more than 4GB RAM, it's rather uninteresting, since the CPU is usually not the problem anyways. And I don't think it has an influence on the graphics performance.

Im pretty sure the limit is 2 gigs, unless you patch the exe's large address flag then it can use ~4, but i hear that doesnt always work.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:07 am

lol, I suppose that is another way of looking at it. But instead of having a console just get a PC instead. :wink_smile:

Ever tried playing a fighter or a Splitscreen game on a PC? It's a mess.

Haha, I remember when I was a kid playing Street Fighter 2 on a PC with my friend, we both shared the keyboard, it wasn't the best gaming experience.
I'll take PC for single player games any day though. Only reason I'm playing Skyrim on 360 is because I need to upgrade my PC desperately, but it won't be happening any time soon.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:42 pm

Im pretty sure the limit is 2 gigs, unless you patch the exe's large address flag then it can use ~4, but i hear that doesnt always work.

If that is true then I say LAME(sorry, I still love you guys anyways) to Bethesda for not adding a 64 bit exe. I have 4 gigs of high performance RAM for a reason!!! And so dose most hardcoe PC gamers!

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:49 pm

Ever tried playing a fighter or a Splitscreen game on a PC? It's a mess.

Haha, I remember when I was a kid playing Street Fighter 2 on a PC with my friend, we both shared the keyboard, it wasn't the best gaming experience.
I'll take PC for single player games any day though. Only reason I'm playing Skyrim on 360 is because I need to upgrade my PC desperately, but it won't be happening any time soon.

No, cant say that I have played split screen on PC. Think I have on a console though. But, correct me if I'm wrong I think you can host a server and invite your friends to play with you from there PC's at there house on some games. I know of one game for sure that you could do that with and that was Silent Hunter 3.(wont run on windows XP or higher) I'm sure you can with many other games but I dont know which ones off the top of my head.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:37 am

If that is true then I say LAME(sorry, I still love you guys anyways) to Bethesda for not adding a 64 bit exe. I have 4 gigs of high performance RAM for a reason!!! And so dose most hardcoe PC gamers!

Problem with 64 bit programming is that you need every piece of lib you use in 64 bit, and I would guess there's a price to that...

(And don't forget to add your video memory to your 4GB, it does count

)

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:42 pm

well the main reason i see them not going with a 64bit exe is so people like me can play it. i run 32bit and a 64bit would not run on my system

When a game has a 64bit .exe, it is in addition to the 32bit .exe and so that wouldn't be an issue. I really think that 32bit support on a Windows operating system could reasonably be dropped by the end of the decade. Microsoft has already done this for their server OS, so this can happen. It won't happen with Windows 8... but 9 or 10 because things just move forward and Microsoft won't find old video games enough of a reason to keep 32bit when that's all that is left because everything else of necessity has a 64bit version.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:47 am

Problem with 64 bit programming is that you need every piece of lib you use in 64 bit, and I would guess there's a price to that...

(And don't forget to add your video memory to your 4GB, it does count

)

I have 2 8800 GT's. If I remember right they have 512 MB a piece on board. And they are by BFG.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:01 pm

the base address set is 2gb> for 32 now remember when your comp is on it is already using that ram, and Skyrim turns on and butts in, Antivirus software, video streaming, programs running in the background all of that takes a bite, making it 64 allows you to use more than 2gb if you have it a method of which simple programs you can get today allow any .exe to use more than 2gb and is beneficila (see Morrowind MGE) why any one would have rancor towards this is beyond me.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:02 pm

http://www.game.co.uk/News/Fallout-3-decimates-Oblivion-sales/~cA_10207/?pagetype=content

83% console majority for Fallout 3.

Woah. I didn't expect that.

Probably doesn't include direct downloads and definitely doesn't include Steam downloads. Current PC download market is estimated at around 75%, ie for each 'game sold' another 3 copies are downloaded. Back in the days of Fo3, the PC download market was estimated to be around 50%, ie for each 'game sold' another 1 copy was downloaded.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:01 am

Problem with 64 bit programming is that you need every piece of lib you use in 64 bit, and I would guess there's a price to that...

(And don't forget to add your video memory to your 4GB, it does count

)

Im pretty sure vid memory does not count... Same with the ~4gig limit for a 32 bit OS, vid memory is not part of this.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:04 am

What exactly does "64 bit" gain you, beyond the ability to address more memory? More processing power? Because if the gains aren't really needed (which, if the AI & physics run on consoles, it probably isn't - most people's dual & quad core chips are way faster even at 32bit), then there's probably little economic reason for them to allocate programmer time to making a second exe. Just a guess, though. :shrug:

Yeah, those are my questions exactly. If some tech savy person could answer this that would be great.

I'll keep it simply

1: everything will load at amazing speeds hell you can do a 100% load on connecting cells to the cell you are in so in essence 9 cells can become 1 big cell (they would still be split but all of them would be loaded and rendering....depending on your system that is).

2: mods can be bigger and have more stuff/detail ect ect ect.

Pretty much the biggest things you will notice is amazingly fast loading speeds (like crazy fast), and way way cooler mods simply because the more ram can be used.

Think about it this way some people have 2-4gb gfx cards and 8gb+ of ram, but skyrim will only use 4gb's TOTAL.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:31 am

More RAM doesn't magically make things run faster if you already have enough RAM. It would allow larger cells yes, but it would not allow a bigger game area because the game is already designed in a way that allows a far bigger world than would ever remotely fit in the RAM of most machines.

the base address set is 2gb> for 32 now remember when your comp is on it is already using that ram, and Skyrim turns on and butts in, Antivirus software, video streaming, programs running in the background all of that takes a bite, making it 64 allows you to use more than 2gb if you have it a method of which simple programs you can get today allow any .exe to use more than 2gb and is beneficila (see Morrowind MGE) why any one would have rancor towards this is beyond me.

Other programs do not eat into Skyrim's (or other 32 bit programs) RAM allocation on a 64-bit OS. What you are saying is more about the advantage of using a 64-bit OS and not about making Skyrim 64-bit.

The only reason to make a 64-bit version of Skyrim is to allow mods with gigantic RAM usage.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:36 am

The only reason to make a 64-bit version of Skyrim is to allow mods with gigantic RAM usage.

Or to allow cells to become larger (via modding aka make 9 cells into 1) or to pre-load cells (rendering AI placement ect) at extreme speeds.

You could also pre-load dungeons within the cell you are at or building interiors so everything becomes seamless with no loading screens.

Also yes
BIG
GIGANTOR
MODS

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:50 pm

Don't they actually pre-load cells in Oblivion and you only get the loading message if moving extremely quickly?

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:34 am

........ Im not sure about program time...but I make alot of my Game exe's address More than 2 gb which is the limit for 32, yes it makes the game faster you can have 8 gbs on a 64 bit system and skyrim will only use less then 2 of them.

If I'm not mistaken (which I may be), 32-bit limit is 4GB, not 2GB, as 2^32 = ~4,000,000,000. Or am I mistaken?

Also, 64-bit limit is roughly 18,400,000,000,000,000,000 addresses, 2^64.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:56 pm

If I'm not mistaken (which I may be), 32-bit limit is 4GB, not 2GB, as 2^32 = ~4,000,000,000. Or am I mistaken?

32 can only go up to 4 yes, 64 can do more than 4, but by default 32 bit programs are at Max 2gb until you edit the EXE.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:09 pm

If I'm not mistaken (which I may be), 32-bit limit is 4GB, not 2GB, as 2^32 = ~4,000,000,000. Or am I mistaken?

Also, 64-bit limit is roughly 18,400,000,000,000,000,000 addresses, 2^64.

It depends on the game. It's a headache for example to Everquest's developers. The game was designed before its release in 1999 and has evolved a ton over the years with its expansions. Now the developers have to constantly worry about hitting 2GB of server memory while modifying and replacing spaghetti code from 1999 or earlier. The same limitation applies to the player side client program.

» Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:27 pm

It depends on the game. It's a headache for example to Everquest's developers. The game was designed before its release in 1999 and has evolved a ton over the years with its expansions. Now the developers have to constantly worry about hitting 2GB of server memory while modifying and replacing spaghetti code from 1999 or earlier.

OK, I don't know much about specific applications, this is more my CS education speaking, more purely mathematical than anything else

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:15 am

I'm sure you know more than I do. I was just citing a specific game that I know has a 2GB limit.

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:24 am

I'm sure you know more than I do. I was just citing a specific game that I know has a 2GB limit.

When it comes to some things, probably. However, I'm still quite young and inexperienced. I don't know much about specific implementations or the reasons for these apparently artificial limits. Anyway, just figured I'd throw some huge numbers into this thread

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:35 am

While it isn't specific to gaming, I think some people could benefit by reading this thread on a different forum:

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/86886-32-bit-vs-64-bit-comparison.html

» Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:29 am

While it isn't specific to gaming, I think some people could benefit by reading this thread on a different forum:

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/86886-32-bit-vs-64-bit-comparison.html

Well 8TB is quite a bit smaller than the number I threw out. Again, I'm much more familiar with the mathematics than the implementations. Makes sense though... who's got 1,000,000TB of RAM in their rig? Thanks for that link