Please make HOI 4 a 64-bit game!

[Kikaider]

That and going 64-bit doesnt really have much benefit for the customers that can use it either. its mainly a convenience thing for us.

As long as you don't ever utter the words (paraphrasing), "we running tight on RAM, clear var X to make room for Y... ok now Y is not needed so we can clear it and reload X" and risk fragmenting your memory, I can accept this. But you have to admit, the RAM aspect is definitely the REAL advantage of 64 bit OS's (I do medical imaging research on 3-5D data sets and we definitely can use more than 4GB ram to process a single imageset efficiently. Really, anyone who does big data does, and a WW2 grand strategy sim could be an exercise in big data).

Dumb question: why can't you compile both an x64 and x32 version though, same code, but the x64 version can just understand to use more RAM when available. I've seen that work us.

 

[podcat]

Dumb question: why can't you compile both an x64 and x32 version though, same code, but the x64 version can just understand to use more RAM when available. I've seen that work us.

Twice as much stuff that needs testing and can create bugs and since we need to support both and fit within memory limitation of the x32 version there is no benefits at all

 

[shierholzer]

risk fragmenting your memory

Fragmentation on silicium based storage is irrelevant anyways.

Dumb question: why can't you compile both an x64 and x32 version though, same code, but the x64 version can just understand to use more RAM when available. I've seen that work us.

Compiling a additional x64 version, that carries real benefits for Clausewitz-based games would need a second code-base. Compiling x86-code as x64 can yield benefits, if we're talking about scalable applications (medical imaging should be scalable anyways). As Games usually aren't scalable, the only real reason for compiling both is the possibility to have more than 2GB of VRAM - the Clausewitz 2.5 games I've seen need barely 1GB on the highest settings, HoI4 won't be different.

 

[Kikaider]

Fragmentation on silicium based storage is irrelevant anyways.

Not as far as I've always been taught/read, you're almost always better off using contiguous blocks of RAM if you can (and depending on the programming/scripting/interpreter languages you use, you can be forced to)...

Compiling x86-code as x64 can yield benefits, if we're talking about scalable applications (medical imaging should be scalable anyways). As Games usually aren't scalable, the only real reason for compiling both is the possibility to have more than 2GB of VRAM - the Clausewitz 2.5 games I've seen need barely 1GB on the highest settings, HoI4 won't be different.

Twice as much stuff that needs testing and can create bugs and since we need to support both and fit within memory limitation of the x32 version there is no benefits at all

Fair enough, medical imaging is scalable and I keep forgetting not everything is. I was just thinking of ways to avoid/minimize file I/O (which in my case means processing images in piecemeal because you can't load it in 100% and still have space for math) + you're both right: if you don't ever use more than 2GB of Ram in a given program, x64 has no practical advantage.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

This is 2014, Microsoft has stated they no longer support Windows XP and it is unsafe to use, games should no longer be made for it as it only limits what they can do.
I would say 32 bit is still not too old to be used, and since it is somewhat faster than 64, it should definetly be used in 2014 as long as there is no need for more RAM.

 

[shierholzer]

Not as far as I've always been taught/read, you're almost always better off using contiguous blocks of RAM if you can (and depending on the programming/scripting/interpreter languages you use, you can be forced to)...

For business applications, this can be true. Fragmentation on silicium based storage isn't hurting speed - it's hurting the livetime of your storage. Consumer computers will die earlier to Moore's law anyways. Medical imaging can reduce your RAMs lifetime down to a year - if done wrong (and used heavily).

 

[thedarkendstar]

I'm confused does that mean paradox games can at most only use 4 gb or ram because they are 32 bit does that mean that if it were 64 bit I would be able to use all more of my ram towards the game if so that mean since I have 8 gb of ram it would go faster?

 

[shierholzer]

(which in my case means processing images in piecemeal because you can't load it in 100% and still have space for math)

There are workaround for this kind of stuff, called RAM-disks. Granted, RAM-disks aren't exactly healthy for your RAM - but consumer rigs usually die to Moore's law way before they die to unevenly used semiconductors.

I have 8 gb of ram it would go faster?

Not generally. If the game needs the extra RAM, it's going to run faster. If the game won't need all that RAM, 64bit is not benefitial ((for various reason, you might even see a speed decrease)).
--
EDIT:

This is 2014, Microsoft has stated they no longer support Windows XP and it is unsafe to use, games should no longer be made for it as it only limits what they can do.

Imho, it's not PI's business to tell people, that their OS is insecure, and that they should switch to something else. I've still some XP/2003 rigs here - including a XP x64 for gaming. XP/2003 is still my OS of choice ((if Windows is required)) for intranet machines not exposing themselves to the internet. The only real (gaming related) advantage later Windowses have over XP/2003 is support for DirectX10 and above. Round based strategy games won't benefit from more than DirectX9 anyways (apart from the fact, that newer AMD consumer cards have a unfixed userland VRAM leak for DirectX9 code). ((Once DirectX12 is released I may change my opinion, depending on how well MS made the MacOSX/Linux implementation of it.))

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Imho, it's not PI's business to tell people, that their OS is insecure, and that they should switch to something else. I've still some XP/2003 rigs here - including a XP x64 for gaming. XP/2003 is still my OS of choice ((if Windows is required)) for intranet machines not exposing themselves to the internet. The only real (gaming related) advantage later Windowses have over XP/2003 is support for DirectX10 and above. Round based strategy games won't benefit from more than DirectX9 anyways (apart from the fact, that newer AMD consumer cards have a unfixed userland VRAM leak for DirectX9 code). ((Once DirectX12 is released I may change my opinion, depending on how well MS made the MacOSX/Linux implementation of it.))

True, it is their business to select best platform, make the game as well as they can and then sell it to people, who should get what is needed to run the game. There are of course limits, but game should not be held back becouse people have obsolete computers, i am far far from PC elitist, but new parts for PC come out yearly, and in 5 years what was high end PC in 2014 with 400€ or so, so you can definetly afford to buy computer good enough to run Hearts of Iron that does not reguire high end PCs.
Also, if devs hold back game becouse people can`t run any better, we get what is called streamlined or Call of Duty.
Windows has long support for it`s operating systems, once that runs out, you should definetly get new one, there have already been 3 new Windows OS since before XP`s support run out, so it is not like getting some new high end thing every year.

 

[shierholzer]

and in 5 years what was high end PC in 2014 with 400€ or so

To get rid of five year old non-SPARC (some legacy stock exchange systems apparently use SPARC) hardware, you're even required to pay some money (at least in Europe). Today's 10k$ workstations sell for 350$ in three years.

there have already been 3 new Windows OS since before XP`s support run out

All of them provide a significantly larger overhead than XP does. Hell, if it wasn't for x64 and SSE, most of my XP/2003 rigs would still run 2k. XP has a x64 incarnation btw.

 

[aruon]

meh! too much technobabble! you are all nerds!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[balmung60]

XP has a x64 incarnation btw.

Actually, not really. XP x64 was based on Server 2003, not XP, and is basically Server 2003 with some features locked and the XP GUI slapped on top.

And if you're worried about overhead, there's always Linux, which as a user of, I am contractually obligated to shill at every possible chance.

meh! too much technobabble! you are all nerds!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Yer darn tootin'.

 

[shierholzer]

And if you're worried about overhead, there's always Linux, which as a user of, I am contractually obligated to shill at every possible chance.

Sure, Linux is still there. However, there is still stuff requiring Windows - and sorry, Wine is not the way to go if you're looking for performance.

Actually, not really. XP x64 was based on Server 2003, not XP, and is basically Server 2003 with some features locked

Server 2003 in turn is a XP with added server features. Since the MS consumer OSes switched to NT with NT 5.1, the Server incarnations of Windows are closly related to the consumer versions. Vista is based on 2003 code btw.

XP GUI slapped on top.

No need for that, Server 2003 already carries the ugly green/blue consumer theme.

 

[jpd]

Compiling a additional x64 version, that carries real benefits for Clausewitz-based games would need a second code-base. .... .

This depends on the compiler you use

With mine, I can compile win32, win64, mac osx, mac ios, android, all from the exact same code base ....

That is, when I limit myself to the older c++ standard. The new c++ 11 features haven't made it into the win32 compiler ... yet.

 

[shierholzer]

With mine, I can compile win32, win64, mac osx, mac ios, android, all from the exact same code base ...

Sure, all modern compilers can do x86 and x64 from the same code base. However, since games are non-scalable applications, you'd need a second code base to produce real benefits on x64.

 

[jdrou]

Vista is based on 2003 code btw.

Vista is equivalent to Server 2008 (both are Windows 6.0).
Windows 2000=Windows 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 (and XP64) = 5.2

 

[shierholzer]

Vista is equivalent to Server 2008 (both are Windows 6.0).
Windows 2000=Windows 5.0
XP = 5.1
2003 (and XP64) = 5.2

Sure. Vista is based on 2k3 code - as opposed to XP code (as many still believe).
Nitpicking: Thats not Windows x.x, but NT x.x - Windows x.x were these DOS based consumer GUIs.

 

[smythw]

I do wish people wouldn't post these types of threads based on such flawed thinking.

 

[jdrou]

Sure. Vista is based on 2k3 code - as opposed to XP code (as many still believe).

Yes, in the same sense that Server 2003 is based on XP rather than on Windows 2000 Server.

Nitpicking: Thats not Windows x.x, but NT x.x - Windows x.x were these DOS based consumer GUIs.

They're the same thing now though. Windows 2000 was the successor to both NT 4.0 and "Windows 4.x" (95/98/ME) even if the core code was from NT. Fortunately both of them were version 4 or it would have been more confusing. Note that after Windows 2000 they changed the default install directory from "WINNT" to "Windows".

It's all nitpicking at this point.

 

[kentsfield]

64-bit is just marketing. I have yet to see any game that would benefit from it. Most code might even run slower because of cache sizes etc

Plenty of strategy games from last decade run into crash dumps from memory limitations. Are Supreme Commander and Sins ofa Solar Empire big enough examples?