grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
Horray! finally my RAM will be used properly!
64-bit confirmed
- Thread starter toft
- Start date
J-man
Deity
Good news! If there is one game that could benefit from more RAM it's Civ.
Question: Will the 64 bit version sold separately or will there be a patch for 64 bit systems?
Question: Will the 64 bit version sold separately or will there be a patch for 64 bit systems?
Mercade
the Counsellor
Most likely it'll be in one (physical) distribution. For downloadable you can probably (hopefully) choose and it won't download all the parts you don't need.
CTH
Prince
And will you get access to both versions without having to pay for two copies?
J-man
Deity
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,878
64 bit -that is great news against the MAF 
!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6023466&postcount=29
! http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6023466&postcount=29
TheDS
Regular Riot
What the news here means is that they've made several versions of the game to be able to run on an assortment of hardware capabilities, from stuff that's 5 years old to stuff that's 5 years in the future. These specific versions mean that the code is more efficient on your computer and therefore runs faster than would a more generalized single program.
Your computer will automatically figure out which is the best version to use, based on your hardware and OS. There may be some unusual instances where it can't figure out the right version and run something slower, but it won't be a big deal.
64 bit addressing is pretty much unimaginable right now. 32 bits is 4GB. 40 bits is 1 Terabyte. 50 bits is a Petabyte (about 10 times the capacity of a human brain). 60 bits is an Exabyte, making 64 bits = 16 Exabytes, or the capacity to hold somewhere around 160,000 human brains'-worth of information. That's a lot.
In real-world terms, there are some operations where 64 bits is much faster than 32 bits and some operations where it's slower. 64 bits is better when the numbers you're computing are big enough that 32 bits isn't big enough. I think Civ5 will have numbers like that, so using 64 bit programming is a good thing. Keep your eyes open for benchmarks as people test it out, then the devs tweak the engine, then people re-bench, ad infinitum.
What would make the biggest difference in game speed would be something called multi-threading. That's the ability to do 2 or more things at the same time. Most computers nowadays have 2 or more cores, but having these extra cores doesn't help because the programs are still designed linearly. You can run multiple programs more efficiently, like say your video editing suite and Civ at the same time with no loss of power to either of them, but you can't run either of them faster by itself. Unless they're multi-threaded.
Civ is generally a linear game. Each player takes his turn in sequence, with no interference from other players. Even the online simultaneous mode still figures out what happens in a linear fashion; either your guy moves before the enemy and attacks him, or the enemy moves before your guy and escapes.
Where Civ can benefit is by splitting up tasks, like AI and graphics, and letting each CPU handle one of those things. Animations no longer get bogged down while the AI takes its turn, frex. (Kinda the whole point behind having a graphics card.) Multiple AIs could plot out their turns at the same time if they don't have to worry about what any other AI is doing. Frex, in the early game, no one can affect anyone else, so everyone can take their turns all at once. Later, players on opposite sides of the world can still generally plot their turns simultaneously. Civs at peace with each other will be able to plot more simultaneously than civs at war with each other. Same for if there are still goody huts - two civs near the same goody hut can't both grab it. Two Settlers near each other can't settle the same zone. Etc.
So this should be a good thing. It should mean less memory bloat, since you're only running the code you need, people with better graphics cards should be able to make use of their advanced features, while those with older cards aren't left unable to play.
But as was mentioned, it does show that Steam wasn't necessary and didn't save anything. Why not reuse some of the code from Civ4? Didn't they program it right? Isn't it modular? Doesn't the scripting language Civ5 is using allow them to use some public domain communications code? I don't know. But they wanted Steam as a distribution channel, and they figured Steam already does multiplayer, so I guess that's why those of us who put our games on non-internet-enabled computers and those of us who pay through the nose for bandwidth won't be getting a non-steam version.
Your computer will automatically figure out which is the best version to use, based on your hardware and OS. There may be some unusual instances where it can't figure out the right version and run something slower, but it won't be a big deal.
64 bit addressing is pretty much unimaginable right now. 32 bits is 4GB. 40 bits is 1 Terabyte. 50 bits is a Petabyte (about 10 times the capacity of a human brain). 60 bits is an Exabyte, making 64 bits = 16 Exabytes, or the capacity to hold somewhere around 160,000 human brains'-worth of information. That's a lot.
In real-world terms, there are some operations where 64 bits is much faster than 32 bits and some operations where it's slower. 64 bits is better when the numbers you're computing are big enough that 32 bits isn't big enough. I think Civ5 will have numbers like that, so using 64 bit programming is a good thing. Keep your eyes open for benchmarks as people test it out, then the devs tweak the engine, then people re-bench, ad infinitum.
What would make the biggest difference in game speed would be something called multi-threading. That's the ability to do 2 or more things at the same time. Most computers nowadays have 2 or more cores, but having these extra cores doesn't help because the programs are still designed linearly. You can run multiple programs more efficiently, like say your video editing suite and Civ at the same time with no loss of power to either of them, but you can't run either of them faster by itself. Unless they're multi-threaded.
Civ is generally a linear game. Each player takes his turn in sequence, with no interference from other players. Even the online simultaneous mode still figures out what happens in a linear fashion; either your guy moves before the enemy and attacks him, or the enemy moves before your guy and escapes.
Where Civ can benefit is by splitting up tasks, like AI and graphics, and letting each CPU handle one of those things. Animations no longer get bogged down while the AI takes its turn, frex. (Kinda the whole point behind having a graphics card.) Multiple AIs could plot out their turns at the same time if they don't have to worry about what any other AI is doing. Frex, in the early game, no one can affect anyone else, so everyone can take their turns all at once. Later, players on opposite sides of the world can still generally plot their turns simultaneously. Civs at peace with each other will be able to plot more simultaneously than civs at war with each other. Same for if there are still goody huts - two civs near the same goody hut can't both grab it. Two Settlers near each other can't settle the same zone. Etc.
So this should be a good thing. It should mean less memory bloat, since you're only running the code you need, people with better graphics cards should be able to make use of their advanced features, while those with older cards aren't left unable to play.
But as was mentioned, it does show that Steam wasn't necessary and didn't save anything. Why not reuse some of the code from Civ4? Didn't they program it right? Isn't it modular? Doesn't the scripting language Civ5 is using allow them to use some public domain communications code? I don't know. But they wanted Steam as a distribution channel, and they figured Steam already does multiplayer, so I guess that's why those of us who put our games on non-internet-enabled computers and those of us who pay through the nose for bandwidth won't be getting a non-steam version.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
People have said when you download a game you get both windows, and mac versions(if available). I dont see why a 32 bit or 64 bit version wouldnt be the same. Maybe retail copies will have 2 discs, or perhaps just one 32 bit, and the installer will ask what version youd like to install, if you choose 64 you may need to download it, or download specific 64 bit components?
I am not sure I understand this, how did this show that Steam wasn't necessary? I may or may not agree with the notion that the Steam-only deal is bad, but I fail to see what it being released in 64-bit has to do with it.
Toys®Us
Warlord
Amazing!
- Intel i5 CPU 660 @ 3.33 MHz
- 8GB RAM 1333MHz
- Sapphire Radeon HD 5770 1GB
- PCI Express Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty Professional Series
- Monitor HP L2445m 24 inch LCD
... 64-bit Operating System
Dual Boot is an alternative... let me think...
Thanks. The whole topic of where the cap is in 32-bit systems is probably more confusing than it needs to be. I've seen people have some pretty heated arguments about whether the limit was 3 or 4 gigs.
This isn't exactly true, at least not all the time. It will only be faster for 64-bit data types, namely 64-bit integers and double precision floating point numbers. Even this has some caveats though. Each of these data types is twice as large as its 32 bit equivalent, which means more RAM. This is bad in the context of cache, which is still measured in megabytes. What's more, in order to actually use the post 32-bit ram, pointers will require 64 bits of precision. This means every single pointer also doubles in size. Again, in the context of cache, this is very bad. Its not an issue really for system RAM, but cache is still tiny and expensive.
While operating on these data types will be faster, it will also cause a lot more cache misses and memory thrashing. This is acceptable for the doubles (because double precision is a sizable improvement over single precision), but not so much for the pointers and integers. Indeed, unless you're Nippon Ichi, you probably only rarely have need of more than 32-bits for your integers. Nothing will stop you from using old 32-bit (or lower!) data types, but then you'll need padding or likely will suffer a performance hit.
Now, 64-bit systems tend to be newer and more advanced; in that way yes, they will always and everywhere be faster. However, like almost everything else, 64-bit has some tradeoffs. The ability to address more than 4 gigs worth of RAM, though, would tend to massively outweigh the disadvantages on anything that flirts with the limit. Going further, that extra space allows for things that simply would not be possible in the 32-bit world, so 64-bit is the new standard. But 64-bit isn't always faster just by virtue of being 64-bit.
Gamemaster77
PC > Mac
I'd be upset not because of confusion, but because I have a 32 bit computer and a 64 bit computer. If I had to choose I would be really angry, because then I either have to only install it on my desktop, or install it on my laptop and have it run inefficiently on my desktop.
Hypernova
Warlord
Yup, and the difference between 4 gigs and 18446744073 gigs is vastly larger than the difference between 640kb and 4 gigs. 4 gigs is about 6250 times larger than 640kb - impressive, but 18446744073 gigs is 4611686018.25 times larger than 4 gigs.
aziantuntija
Prince
I agree, if there are going to be 64bit and 32bit versions there are just two exe files to start the game.
I have 64bit windows and i have Crysis in it, (its not my game) its been installed in "Program Files (x86)" folder wich is the folder for all 32bit programs, the thing is that i CANNOT start Crysis64bit.exe file because its been installed in this "Program Files (x86)" folder wich is meant for 32bit programs only. So if you have 64bit windows, do NOT install it in the "Program Files (x86)" folder IF you want to run the 64bit version of the game, it WILL put the game in there by default if not changed.
Well, Civ5 will be installed in Steam folder anyway so that shouldnt be problem.
aziantuntija
Prince
Ok then, but can you tell me whats going to happen when some game doesnt work in 64bit mode but it automaticly installs it to some "Steam" folder and not in "Program Files (x86)" folder when your running 64bit windows?
Im not sure will all 32bit programs run in forced 64bit mode so thats going to be a problem at least for some games, unless the "Steam" folder is created INSIDE the "Program Files (x86)" folder. When i install something in my 64bit windows, it by default puts everything in "Program Files (x86)" folder, wich is meant for 32bit programs, and as i allready told you Crysis DOES NOT allow to start the 64bit version of the game when the game is installed in "Program Files (x86)" folder.
I personally don't get why Windows splits these directories up, there is no reason for it, but I assume it is convenience or something stupid like that. That being said, a 64bit application could easily be run from the "Programs Files (x86)" directory, you'll just have to tell Windows it is 64bit, which Steam will do for you.
Similar threads
