Multi-core/64-bit support

[Commander Bello]

I have to admit not being a programmer, but wouldn't the 64-bit support merely mean compiling the .exe for a) 32-bit systems and b) 64-bit systems?
Application data as graphics and music could stay just the same (in this case, 32-bit), couldn't they?

Actually, I was raising this issue because I would like to play big mods with big maps in the future - and without this causing the system to have one hickup after the other.

 

[Smuggo]

I have to admit not being a programmer, but wouldn't the 64-bit support merely mean compiling the .exe for a) 32-bit systems and b) 64-bit systems?
Application data as graphics and music could stay just the same (in this case, 32-bit), couldn't they?

Yup, that's how it works on Crysis, just one disc as all the assets can be used on either version, you choose which exe you want to run and go.

 

[Unclescam777]

Civ V will almost certainly support multi-core CPUs. All new releases have it in some form. The question is will it utilize quad and hex core processors or will it be like most multi-core games that only use 2-3 cores? AMD is releasing hex cores in May for home desktops and Intel will soon follow. I hope that Civ 5 at least utilizes quad cores since it is being released in Fall 2010.

x64 is another story. I would love to play a 64 bit version of Civ but I doubt it will happen.

 

[darkedone02]

agree, i dislike civilization 4 because of the huge amount of lag that i am getting, I get no lag from Civ 3 (only long turns because of so many AI unit and viewing there moves even on quick ones), however in Civ 4, I get a bunch of them, and it starts at renaissance at vanilla, and on Rise of Mankind, I get it at the very beginning! I also have windows 7 64-bit edition, and not only that, i even have the best amd processer for my computer (AMD Pheton 2 x4 Quad Core Black Edition, 3.22 GHz and is overclocked!) and I still get lag from Civ 4. I hope to the gods out there that sid meier's add in multi-core support and 64 bit support as well, or sid meier's be nick named the "lag lover"...

 

[EmpireOfCats]

It would be downright weird not to support multicore with this game. When Civ IV bogs down on a Q9550 machine like mine that can take L4D2 at the highest settings and still smile, you know that the programmers are doing something wrong. Programming for multicore is hard, but not rocket science anymore -- look at all the work that Apple has done. Also, even Python has multicore support now. This is pretty much a must.

 

[Sava]

If there is no multi-core support because the programming is "too hard", then nobody should buy this game.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

If there is no multi-core support because the programming is "too hard", then nobody should buy this game.

Or we force them to release the source code. Then we can insert it ourselves ...

 

[zulu9812]

Or we force them to release the source code. Then we can insert it ourselves ...

Well, the source code for CivIV was released and no-one's figured out how to enable multi-core processing...

 

[exorbit]

Well, the source code for CivIV was released and no-one's figured out how to enable multi-core processing...

maybe because you need the game engine to be built specifically for enabling mult-cores?

 

[EmpireOfCats]

Well, the source code for CivIV was released and no-one's figured out how to enable multi-core processing...

You'd probably have to completely re-write it from scratch. I remember the discussions when Valve moved Steam to multicore, they did a whole series about it. Hellishly complicated, but very much worth it.

 

[E_Pluribus_Unum]

I have to admit not being a programmer, but wouldn't the 64-bit support merely mean compiling the .exe for a) 32-bit systems and b) 64-bit systems?
Application data as graphics and music could stay just the same (in this case, 32-bit), couldn't they?

Actually, I was raising this issue because I would like to play big mods with big maps in the future - and without this causing the system to have one hickup after the other.

Supporting 64 bit is not hard, but supporting both 32 bit and 64 bit is very hard. The very deep core is different : 64bit pointers (64 bit indxed arrays?), different OS and DirectX API calls, and also affect script language API (CiV will keep python?).

Supporting muticore generally is not so hard also, but civilization games are not realtime games, the problem is that the basic concept of the game is not paralell. It's hard to find processes which can run parallel.

 

[Commander Bello]

Supporting 64 bit is not hard, but supporting both 32 bit and 64 bit is very hard. The very deep core is different : 64bit pointers (64 bit indxed arrays?), different OS and DirectX API calls, and also affect script language API (CiV will keep python?).

As I did admit already, I am not a programmer.
Nevertheless, thinking back I remember when XP hit the market and at that time there were quite some drivers, programs and whatever being based on 16bit architectures.
Nevertheless, it worked.

This gave me the impression that something similar should be possible right now, too.
Especially, I would like to have a program which makes use of the additional RAM which is available right now.

Since modability has been mentioned, we already know that there will be extensive mods in the future. And I would like them not to be limited by an old 2 GB barrier.
I don't mind if certain parts of the engine were still running making use of 32bit architecture, but in total the program should be able to handle as much RAM as available.

Supporting muticore generally is not so hard also, but civilization games are not realtime games, the problem is that the basic concept of the game is not paralell. It's hard to find processes which can run parallel.

I could imagine that calculating trade routes, the equivalent of culture, prices for ressources and so on could very well be calculated in parallel tasks - especially whilst the human player is "slowly" making his inputs.
Even the graphic representation of moving units could be done that way (as I think), not blocking the "AI" from calculating what it "wants to do".

 

[E_Pluribus_Unum]

As I did admit already, I am not a programmer.
Nevertheless, thinking back I remember when XP hit the market and at that time there were quite some drivers, programs and whatever being based on 16bit architectures.
Nevertheless, it worked.

This works. 64bit OS generally (but not naturally!) can run 32 bit applications, so Win-Vista/7 64 can run CiV32.
Buth this works only one way. Win-XP 32 cannut run CiV64. Most of the target audience has got 32 bit OS, and to reach them Firaxis must support 32 bit, but because the good performance an the future tendences they must support also 64 bit.

This gave me the impression that something similar should be possible right now, too.
Especially, I would like to have a program which makes use of the additional RAM which is available right now.

Since modability has been mentioned, we already know that there will be extensive mods in the future. And I would like them not to be limited by an old 2 GB barrier.
I don't mind if certain parts of the engine were still running making use of 32bit architecture, but in total the program should be able to handle as much RAM as available.

Only 32bit Win has 2G limit per application (and can be raise to 3G by adding the /3G options in boot.ini).
I don't know that Win64 has the same limit when it runs 32bit applications. Anyway a 32 bit application can't use more that 4G, even when the OS is 64bit, because the application uses 32 pointers to address memory.

I could imagine that calculating trade routes, the equivalent of culture, prices for ressources and so on could very well be calculated in parallel tasks - especially whilst the human player is "slowly" making his inputs.
Even the graphic representation of moving units could be done that way (as I think), not blocking the "AI" from calculating what it "wants to do".

Yep. I coud imagine also paralell processec.
I just write that, because do not count that 2 CPU means twice performance increase, because there are bottlenecks by design.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

I most definitely hope CiV will support both multicore and have a 64-bit binary. If I had to choose only one of those though, it would definitely be the 64-bit support. The game would get a lot more memory to play around with. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult to get the large chunk of the game 64-bit compatible, although that will vary a lot depending on how it is coded.

Multi-core support would also be nice, but civ is not a game thats well-suited to do so. It is turn-based, so pretty much everything occurs sequentially. I can see a separation of some of the subsystems like graphics out to a different thread than the main gameplay, but on the other hand, I don't see much use for AI to be in a different thread. The AI doesn't kick in until a turn is over as it is not realtime and making it real-time would just be a bad decision. There's no reason to have the AI recalculate everything with every move the player or other AI make.

 

[Onagan]

I think Firaxis should drop 32 bit support, it's ancient.

 

[Hyronymus]

The headline already states it:
I would love to have multi-core and x64-support (as my current system is based on an i7-920 running under Win7 64 bit).

Firaxis, please be open to future improvements in the areas of hard- and software!

Thats sounds awfully similar to my new Acer desktop . It'll bee nice if it's supported but I must say Civ4 runs 10x better on my new PC, even though it's native 32bits.

 

[J-man]

Firaxis made Civilization: Revolution. That came out for Xbox360 and PS 3. The 360 has a three core CPU and the PS 3 has a Cell procerssor, whcih I've been told is multi core and difficult to program for. I assume CivRev uses more than one core on both platforms.

Conclusion: Firaxis has made a multi-core game in the past so they know how to do it.

 

[Hyronymus]

Interesting, I always stayed far from game consoles so I wasn't aware of the multicore-stuff in xbox's and the like.

 

[zulu9812]

Hasn't everyone got a multi-core, 64-bit processor anyway?

 

[E_Pluribus_Unum]

Hasn't everyone got a multi-core, 64-bit processor anyway?

Nope. Not everyone. But not the hardware which is the "barrier" but the OS. Nearly haly of the PC-s still on Win-XP32. Firaxis (actually noone) cannot afford to cut income nearly 50%.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/