Where's P4Man?

Xeon

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2004
1,304
0
19,280
I really want to see his face when he reads that DOOM3 has nothing 64bit or ever intended to build around 64bit specifically x86-64.

Now all thats left is to see if Valve will actually build anything around it. With considerations that I have heard nothing about x86-64 builds from Epic or UbiSoft I doubt very much well see it.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
 

peteroy

Distinguished
BANNED
Jun 14, 2004
280
0
18,790
Fact is game developers don't really need 64bit processors as SSE/2/3 extensions give 64bit functionality.


===========================
<A HREF="http://www.clan-chaos.com" target="_new">clan CHAOS</A>
 

Xeon

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2004
1,304
0
19,280
Hence why I will always dismiss the validity of x86-64, it is a joke and always will be a joke. Call it what it is 16 64bit general purpose registers.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
 

EugeneMc

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2003
55
0
18,630
muahahahaha... what a funny and misleading statement!!!

Here you have some "jokes" o_O

SuSe Linux 9.1 AMD64 x86-64 Vs. x86-32
--------------------------------------

Apps (64 bits compiled):

-Lame 3.96: 64 bits version 31% faster than 32 bits version.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2127&p=2

-Pov Ray 3.50: 64 bits version 28% faster than 32 bits version.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2127&p=3

-MySQL 4.0.20d: 64 bits version 25% and 11% faster than 32 bits version.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2127&p=5


Games:

<b>-Epic Unreal Tournament 2004 64 bits version</b>: 29% faster than 32 bits version o_O

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2127&p=4

And

-Wolfenstein Enemy Territory: 32 bits in 64 bits OS 12% faster than 32 bits in 32 bits OS.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2127&p=4



yeah a "joke" hahahaha...
 

Mephistopheles

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2003
2,444
0
19,780
True, I hadn't though of that... Doom 3 has no extras whatsoever for people who own x86-64 systems. This is of singular importance right now, as Doom-3 technology will be the driving force for the next few years as far as technology goes - it is the single most demanding application that everyone wants to use. All others have much more limited appeal!

<i>Edit: As for the previous post: I'm far, far more interested in Doom 3 than any of your other benchmarks, sorry. And I think I'm not alone.</i>

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 07/19/04 02:19 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

Mephistopheles

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2003
2,444
0
19,780
OK, stupid question:

<b>Why</b> should 64-bits be faster than 32-bit?

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
Some data manipulation are faster in 64bit mode, simple!

If you want to process a big chunk of data and have the choice of messing with them in a roomier place, you have good chance to do it faster! But, on the other hand processing might take longer, for example : applying AND/OR "filter" on 2 binary value of 32bit might be slower in 64bit mode than in 32bit mode... But we can reverse it, doing AND/OR on 64bit long chunk of data would require 2 operation in 32bit and only 1 in 64bit mode.

It's like saying why having more RAM impact your system performance. Therorically calculating/interpreting machine code have nothing to do with ram, it's only moving and comparing BITS in registers...

Well... I stop here, I'm not a micro-processor architect, so I don't know want to be flamed by saying too much waeird stuff!! :smile:

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 

Mephistopheles

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2003
2,444
0
19,780
Hm, this is still not a thorough reason for 64-bit to be faster than 32-bit-compiled code. Even more so if it's exactly the same - take POV-Ray, for instance. How come rendering exactly the same frame in 64-bit mode is faster than in 32-bit mode?...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
It's like I just said... Doing some stuff in 32bit mode require X operation due to 32bit limit. In 64bit these operations requires less "pass", so they will be done faster.

It's like having an 8 digits calculator to do 16 digits calcutation, to do so, you have to use memory and do more "pass" before gettign a result. If you had a 16 digits calculator, you would have done this calculation in 1 pass!

Am I clear?

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 

ChipDeath

Splendid
May 16, 2002
4,307
0
22,790
What I think Meph is asking particularly, is how would 64 bit speed up purely 32-bit operations...

To use your calculator analogy, how would your 16-digit calculator help speed things with a calculation that still used only 8 digits?

primarily I think he was wondering about EugeneMc's Statement:
-Wolfenstein Enemy Territory: 32 bits in 64 bits OS 12% faster than 32 bits in 32 bits OS.
which implies that 64-bit is helping standard 32-bit code, whereas it simply can't be :eek: .

<pre>[Edit]Besides... I think Meph is actually quite clued up anyway...</pre><p>
---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ChipDeath on 07/19/04 06:25 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
which implies that 64-bit is helping standard 32-bit code, whereas it simply can't be.
OK, here is another clear picture! I wish!

GAME CODE -> OS/Drivers -> Hardware

If the OS/Drivers have 64bit optimisations and sup^port, a 32bit software running on top of it can benefit from it. Some call to hardware or OS made by the GAME can be "translated" or executed with 64bit instructions without problems!

This explain a 32bit on 64bit performance increase!

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
To use your calculator analogy, how would your 16-digit calculator help speed things with a calculation that still used only 8 digits?
You are right, the 16digit calculator will not speed anything inthis case. But when you put this in perspective, if 50% of your calculation need only 8digits but the other 50% needs 16digits. You will gain performance overall, because the calculations made on the 16digits will be done faster. This is how you can improve performance with 64 bit...

Little maths :
you want to do 22 x 45 with a 2 digit calculator, you you can do it...

You need to decompose the equation
2 x 5 = 10
2 x 5 = 10 (shifted by 1) = 100
2 x 40 = 80
2 x 40 = 80 (shifted by 1) = 800

10 + 100 + 80 + 800 = 990 (this can't be done directly on the 2 digit calcultor, so you need to do even more maths. transformation to get your result)

With a 4 digit calculator:
22x45 = 990

I know, my explanation is not scientifically correct, but it explain how 64bit computing can speed up quite much certain type of calculation. And the step for 8 to 16 and 16 to 32 bits were working the same way!

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 

Xeon

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2004
1,304
0
19,280
I know, my explanation is not scientifically correct, but it explain how 64bit computing can speed up quite much certain type of calculation. And the step for 8 to 16 and 16 to 32 bits were working the same way!
Use SSE2 it's able to chew at 64bit variables plus it's vectorized.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
 

Kelledin

Distinguished
Mar 1, 2001
2,183
0
19,780
Why should 64-bits be faster than 32-bit?
Hmmmm.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who's done some 3D engine coding...

The rendering engine almost never actually needs a 64-bit integer quantity. 3D rendering engines have gotten by without that for a long time, and it's a bit difficult to think of a way 64-bit integers can be put to use.

Mind you, there was an old trick called fixed-point math that got used in the 386/486 days, when the x87 FPU was still slowish and rather unavailable. Basically 32-bit integers got taken and treated as floating-point numbers, except that the characteristic was assumed to be 16, the sign bit was thrown away, and the entire 32 bits was devoted to the mantissa in two's-complement notation. It also meant a lot of the comparatively complex FPU ops could be replicated with simple integer ops and bit-shifting. Theoretically it could be extended to 64 bits for greater range and precision.

Fixed-point math was a bit of a hack though. I don't remember ANY compiler that supported it directly (you had to write your own assembler routines for it), and it became an obsolete hack once the Pentium went mainstream with its built-in, parallel-pipelined FPU.

I suppose artificial intelligence might get a boost from 64-bit. I'm not qualified to say, though, as I haven't taken any AI courses yet.

Obviously games don't need more than 2GB address space either. Game design engines might (Epic says we're reaching that point now), but not the game itself.

Everything else...I suppose is down to the extra GPRs. x86 has been register-starved for ages. MMX/SSE/SSE2 kind of helps, but it would have helped <i>more</i> if the new registers were more tightly coupled with the standard GPRs. Shuttling data between three or four different sets of registers is kind of a drag.

<i>"Intel's ICH6R SouthBridge, now featuring RAID -1"

"RAID-minus-one?"

"Yeah. You have two hard drives, neither of which can actually boot."</i>
 

endyen

Splendid
A simple analogy might help. You have a floating stock of 28 cubic units. You have a choice. You can use a 32 cubic unit structure or a 64 cubic unit structure. Which is better?
With the 64 unit structure, you can have more workers accessing the stock ( extra gpr, fp and sse2 registers). Once everything is set up the spacing between, allows easier access, with fewer mistakes.
With the 32 cubic unit structure, you would always have stuff waiting to be stacked, because if you pack things too tightly, you cant find them. You have items that take up more space than they need, and yet you still have that big problem of getting the wrong piece sometimes.
 

ChipDeath

Splendid
May 16, 2002
4,307
0
22,790
I fully understand it helps with 64-bit maths. It's just the claim that <i>purely</i> 32-bit stuff will run faster on a 64-bit enabled OS that I find difficult to believe. Either <i>something</i> - either in the game or drivers - is taking advantage of native 64-bit, or the OS is simply better optimized somehow. The former would mean you can't say it's an example of 32-bit being faster "because of 64 bit", and the latter would be optimizations that are possible on a native 32-bit system anyway.

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
I've abroad for a couple of weeks, nice to see you missed me.

>I really want to see his face when he reads that DOOM3 has
>nothing 64bit or ever intended to build around 64bit
>specifically x86-64

So Doom3 is launched ? Finally, it was only due 2 or 3 years ago. i'll look up some reviews soon, but suffice to say I'm not suprised *at all*. No one ever claimed ID would make a 64 bit port. What is the big deal about that ? Doesn't it run on 64 bit windows or linux ?

>Now all thats left is to see if Valve will actually build
>anything around it.

Not for HL2 AFAIK. Unreal, Far Cry and AA otoh..
Anyway, got lots of reading to do first.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

Kanavit

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2004
390
0
18,780
where is the doom3 demo? hope it comes out before the retail game.

Prescott 3.0E 1MB L2 HT
1GB PC 3200 Dual channel(PAT)
Asus P4P800 Bios 1016
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
56,064 Aquamarks
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
Use SSE2 it's able to chew at 64bit variables plus it's vectorized.
I know that SSE2 can do 64bit, but the AMD64 offer a "native" 64bit computing power. I'm not sure that SSE2 64bit viaribles transformation is faster than AMD64 computation on 64bit. SSE2 might only simplify programming but in the internal CPU structure it could "decompose" the transformation to make it fit in the CPU registers.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>I know that SSE2 can do 64bit, but the AMD64 offer a
>"native" 64bit computing power

AFAIK, in AMD64 "long mode" (ie, 64bit mode), you get twice the number of SSE2 registers. This should help SSE2 enabled apps quite a bit.

Quick question: have there been any 64 benchmarks on intel Xeons ? Like I said, I've been away for a while.. Xeon 64 is launched, or not ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
It's just the claim that purely 32-bit stuff will run faster on a 64-bit enabled OS that I find difficult to believe.
I don't find it hard to believe. First Windows XP 64bit is NOT a pure 64bit OS. It still based on 32bit. I'm sure Microsoft did not recompile/recode everything. They probably focused on tasks where improvements could be done (memory management, hardware to OS "handshacking", etc..).

This is why 32bit stuff benefits from 64bit OS, the 32bit apps still runs at their full potential in 32bit (no emulation or translation needed) and the OS/Drivers layers get a boost from 64bit optimisation.

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
Good to see you agin P4Man!

No, the Xeon 64 is not yet out as far as I know, we heard a it, but we still wait to see it!

Do you know that LGA775 is out and not that impressive? :smile:

--
It's tricky to use words like <b><font color=green>AMD</font color=green></b> or <b><font color=blue>Intel</font color=blue></b> in a signature some users could think your are biased.