Will they ever release a 64 bit version of FS

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Z

zaphod

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2004
29
0
18,530
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Got me a AMD 64 4000+ / Asus A8N sli mobo / 6800gt pci express (one for now)
/ 10k rpm WD raptor. For the first time ever frame rates never drop below
40. I wonder how much of an improvement a 64 bit version will have....
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"zaphod" <zaphod@magrathea.pl> wrote in message
news:cb2f8$421843e1$4117dbb6$26215@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> Got me a AMD 64 4000+ / Asus A8N sli mobo / 6800gt pci express (one for
> now) / 10k rpm WD raptor. For the first time ever frame rates never drop
> below 40. I wonder how much of an improvement a 64 bit version will
> have....

Hard to say. Worst case it will degrade performance.

64 bit is actually not that big a deal - if it was we would have had it many
years ago (or more correctly, the systems having it would have taken over
the market). My oldest running computer is 64 bit, and that one is at least
6 years old - and the design it use significently older as it was already an
outdated model when I bought it. :)

The problem is that most numbers actually do fit well in 32 bits. So going
to 64 bit will often mean dragging around a lot of zero bytes taking space
in the cache.

We can just hope FS will have some areas that can benefit from 64 bit, and
then we will see some improvement. It's not unlikely, but I would not expect
too much of an increase.

/Lars
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

It does break the 2GB RAM barrier.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Lars Mxllebjerg" <larsm@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4218564d$0$165$e4fe514c@dreader19.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "zaphod" <zaphod@magrathea.pl> wrote in message
> news:cb2f8$421843e1$4117dbb6$26215@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>> Got me a AMD 64 4000+ / Asus A8N sli mobo / 6800gt pci express (one for
>> now) / 10k rpm WD raptor. For the first time ever frame rates never drop
>> below 40. I wonder how much of an improvement a 64 bit version will
>> have....
>
> Hard to say. Worst case it will degrade performance.
>
> 64 bit is actually not that big a deal - if it was we would have had it many
> years ago (or more correctly, the systems having it would have taken over
> the market). My oldest running computer is 64 bit, and that one is at least
> 6 years old - and the design it use significently older as it was already an
> outdated model when I bought it. :)
>
> The problem is that most numbers actually do fit well in 32 bits. So going
> to 64 bit will often mean dragging around a lot of zero bytes taking space
> in the cache.
>
> We can just hope FS will have some areas that can benefit from 64 bit, and
> then we will see some improvement. It's not unlikely, but I would not expect
> too much of an increase.
>
> /Lars
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

What 64 bit OS do you have for that 6 year old computer?

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Lars Mxllebjerg" <larsm@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4218564d$0$165$e4fe514c@dreader19.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "zaphod" <zaphod@magrathea.pl> wrote in message
> news:cb2f8$421843e1$4117dbb6$26215@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>> Got me a AMD 64 4000+ / Asus A8N sli mobo / 6800gt pci express (one for
>> now) / 10k rpm WD raptor. For the first time ever frame rates never drop
>> below 40. I wonder how much of an improvement a 64 bit version will
>> have....
>
> Hard to say. Worst case it will degrade performance.
>
> 64 bit is actually not that big a deal - if it was we would have had it many
> years ago (or more correctly, the systems having it would have taken over
> the market). My oldest running computer is 64 bit, and that one is at least
> 6 years old - and the design it use significently older as it was already an
> outdated model when I bought it. :)
>
> The problem is that most numbers actually do fit well in 32 bits. So going
> to 64 bit will often mean dragging around a lot of zero bytes taking space
> in the cache.
>
> We can just hope FS will have some areas that can benefit from 64 bit, and
> then we will see some improvement. It's not unlikely, but I would not expect
> too much of an increase.
>
> /Lars
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:23:21 +0000, Carl Frisk wrote:

> What 64 bit OS do you have for that 6 year old computer?

Probably Unix/Linux in some form. Windows 64bit is still beta and with
most windows software being closed source, getting your programs compiled
as 64bit code will be unlikely until MS releases a 64bit OS and it is
widely accepted.
The main advantage with 64bit PC's is in access to memory which FS9 would
certainly benefit from greatly.

--
Jafar Calley
Livewire. The World's biggest VA.
http://www.flightbase2000.com
See Mars and Saturn in colour at
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I was just curious if it was desktop or experimental. 64 bit has been around for quite a while. If they can get it to
the point to match up hardware, OS and software I think it will go somewhere.

In an earlier post I mentioned that it does break the 2GB RAM barrier. The cost of RAM is something different all
together. But I've heard some encouraging musing in that direction also.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Jafar" <die@spammer.com> wrote in message news😛an.2005.02.20.11.05.22.507883@spammer.com...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:23:21 +0000, Carl Frisk wrote:
>
>> What 64 bit OS do you have for that 6 year old computer?
>
> Probably Unix/Linux in some form. Windows 64bit is still beta and with
> most windows software being closed source, getting your programs compiled
> as 64bit code will be unlikely until MS releases a 64bit OS and it is
> widely accepted.
> The main advantage with 64bit PC's is in access to memory which FS9 would
> certainly benefit from greatly.
>
> --
> Jafar Calley
> Livewire. The World's biggest VA.
> http://www.flightbase2000.com
> See Mars and Saturn in colour at
> http://fatcat.homelinux.org
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

You seam to fail to remember that 64bit means that 64bit's are processed
every clock cycle which is double that of 32bit where 32bit's are processed
every clock cycle. What does this mean, well in literal terms it halves the
time it takes to process data, although its not quite double the speed, it
is quicker. FS will be 64bit like every program in a few years time.
XP64bit comes out as OEM in about March time, and I will be getting for my
AMD64 3400+ as the NF drivers are out now and more and more drivers are
coming available everyday. I think its well worth going with AMD64's if your
looking for a new CPU with XP64bit just around the corner. By the end of
this year I believe we will have seen a big jump in the number of things
able to use 64bit.


--
www.deadlyhosting.com - Great Game, Voice and Web Hosting.
www.deadlyhosting.com/special.php for a great special.
I apologise now for any spelling mistakes or bad grammar
--
"zaphod" <zaphod@magrathea.pl> wrote in message
news:cb2f8$421843e1$4117dbb6$26215@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> Got me a AMD 64 4000+ / Asus A8N sli mobo / 6800gt pci express (one for
> now) / 10k rpm WD raptor. For the first time ever frame rates never drop
> below 40. I wonder how much of an improvement a 64 bit version will
> have....
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:10:15 GMT, Chris Harries wrote:

> You seam to fail to remember that 64bit means that 64bit's are processed
> every clock cycle which is double that of 32bit where 32bit's are processed
> every clock cycle.

Oh boy. Aside from simply noting that this "explanation" is totally
incorrect, I'm not going to say any more...

Bill
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Bill Leaming wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:10:15 GMT, Chris Harries wrote:
>
>> You seam to fail to remember that 64bit means that 64bit's are
>> processed every clock cycle which is double that of 32bit where
>> 32bit's are processed every clock cycle.
>
> Oh boy. Aside from simply noting that this "explanation" is totally
> incorrect, I'm not going to say any more...
>

Bill, in all due respect, which in only my opinion, which I respect, your
statement is an understateded, understatemet!! d:->))
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Thought XP can address up to 4GB of RAM? Also don't think a PC running
FS2004 will ever need more than 1GB RAM anyway.



"Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:zxZRd.3516$QQ3.601@trnddc02...
> It does break the 2GB RAM barrier.
>
> --
> ...Carl Frisk
> Anger is a brief madness.
> - Horace, 20 B.C.
> http://www.carlfrisk.com
>
>
> "Lars Mxllebjerg" <larsm@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:4218564d$0$165$e4fe514c@dreader19.news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > "zaphod" <zaphod@magrathea.pl> wrote in message
> > news:cb2f8$421843e1$4117dbb6$26215@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> >> Got me a AMD 64 4000+ / Asus A8N sli mobo / 6800gt pci express (one for
> >> now) / 10k rpm WD raptor. For the first time ever frame rates never
drop
> >> below 40. I wonder how much of an improvement a 64 bit version will
> >> have....
> >
> > Hard to say. Worst case it will degrade performance.
> >
> > 64 bit is actually not that big a deal - if it was we would have had it
many
> > years ago (or more correctly, the systems having it would have taken
over
> > the market). My oldest running computer is 64 bit, and that one is at
least
> > 6 years old - and the design it use significently older as it was
already an
> > outdated model when I bought it. :)
> >
> > The problem is that most numbers actually do fit well in 32 bits. So
going
> > to 64 bit will often mean dragging around a lot of zero bytes taking
space
> > in the cache.
> >
> > We can just hope FS will have some areas that can benefit from 64 bit,
and
> > then we will see some improvement. It's not unlikely, but I would not
expect
> > too much of an increase.
> >
> > /Lars
> >
> >
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

please explain Bill as I thought that what the difference was

--
www.deadlyhosting.com - Great Game, Voice and Web Hosting.
www.deadlyhosting.com/special.php for a great special.
I apologise now for any spelling mistakes or bad grammar
--
"Bill Leaming" <n4gix@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1c3gfppq1ycaw.1kogvrg9a3ke4$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:10:15 GMT, Chris Harries wrote:
>
>> You seam to fail to remember that 64bit means that 64bit's are processed
>> every clock cycle which is double that of 32bit where 32bit's are
>> processed
>> every clock cycle.
>
> Oh boy. Aside from simply noting that this "explanation" is totally
> incorrect, I'm not going to say any more...
>
> Bill
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

There are problems with memory at and over 2GB with XP. One of them is that XP splits that 4GB of RAM so that an
application can only access 2GB of RAM. The OS takes the other 2GB. You can use the /3GB switch to split the
application address space to 3GB and 1 GB for the OS. Lot's of problems reported with this though most of them should
have been worked out by now.

On 64 bit you are looking at a potential of Terabytes.

2003 Server and a few other 32 bit MS servers can be configured to up to 16 GB and more. Though the memory management
techniques are only for the brave.

I've seen FS9 use all 2GB of memory on a friends machine. Though he was experiencing crashes. Not sure if he ever
worked that out or not.



--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Oscar" <asta@la.vista.net> wrote in message news:h78Sd.168896$K7.27512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Thought XP can address up to 4GB of RAM? Also don't think a PC running
> FS2004 will ever need more than 1GB RAM anyway.
>
>
>
> "Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:zxZRd.3516$QQ3.601@trnddc02...
>> It does break the 2GB RAM barrier.
>>
>> --
>> ...Carl Frisk
>> Anger is a brief madness.
>> - Horace, 20 B.C.
>> http://www.carlfrisk.com
>>
>>
>> "Lars Mxllebjerg" <larsm@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:4218564d$0$165$e4fe514c@dreader19.news.xs4all.nl...
>> >
>> > "zaphod" <zaphod@magrathea.pl> wrote in message
>> > news:cb2f8$421843e1$4117dbb6$26215@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>> >> Got me a AMD 64 4000+ / Asus A8N sli mobo / 6800gt pci express (one for
>> >> now) / 10k rpm WD raptor. For the first time ever frame rates never
> drop
>> >> below 40. I wonder how much of an improvement a 64 bit version will
>> >> have....
>> >
>> > Hard to say. Worst case it will degrade performance.
>> >
>> > 64 bit is actually not that big a deal - if it was we would have had it
> many
>> > years ago (or more correctly, the systems having it would have taken
> over
>> > the market). My oldest running computer is 64 bit, and that one is at
> least
>> > 6 years old - and the design it use significently older as it was
> already an
>> > outdated model when I bought it. :)
>> >
>> > The problem is that most numbers actually do fit well in 32 bits. So
> going
>> > to 64 bit will often mean dragging around a lot of zero bytes taking
> space
>> > in the cache.
>> >
>> > We can just hope FS will have some areas that can benefit from 64 bit,
> and
>> > then we will see some improvement. It's not unlikely, but I would not
> expect
>> > too much of an increase.
>> >
>> > /Lars
>> >
>> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tyZRd.3517$QQ3.1609@trnddc02...
> What 64 bit OS do you have for that 6 year old computer?

Linux.

/Lars
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Chris Harries" <chrisflyer@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KW8Sd.99923$68.9570@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> please explain Bill as I thought that what the difference was

The difference is that it can handle bigger number than 32 bit. It's can't
do the math any faster. In some cases you can use this to process more data
(image processing in certain conditions) but in general it still takes just
as long to calculate 2+3 😉

/Lars
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:zxZRd.3516$QQ3.601@trnddc02...
> It does break the 2GB RAM barrier.

Sure, and in a few years it might even matter with FS, but when that happen
I'm not convinced the current line of 64bit processors will be state of the
art anymore :)

/Lars
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Jafar" <die@spammer.com> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.02.20.11.05.22.507883@spammer.com...
> The main advantage with 64bit PC's is in access to memory which FS9 would
> certainly benefit from greatly.

Certainly???????
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:37:15 +0100, Lars Møllebjerg wrote:

>
> "Jafar" <die@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.02.20.11.05.22.507883@spammer.com...
>> The main advantage with 64bit PC's is in access to memory which FS9 would
>> certainly benefit from greatly.
>
> Certainly???????

I based that on the the fact that FS9 happily gobbles up any extra RAM you
have and uses the memory intensely. It would of course benefit from faster
memory access.

--
Jafar Calley
Livewire. The World's biggest VA.
http://www.flightbase2000.com
See Mars and Saturn in colour at
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I'm almost sure they won't. :)

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Lars Mxllebjerg" <larsm@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:42198f3c$0$160$e4fe514c@dreader4.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:zxZRd.3516$QQ3.601@trnddc02...
>> It does break the 2GB RAM barrier.
>
> Sure, and in a few years it might even matter with FS, but when that happen
> I'm not convinced the current line of 64bit processors will be state of the
> art anymore :)
>
> /Lars
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Thanks. Just curious.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Lars Mxllebjerg" <larsm@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:42198ddc$0$165$e4fe514c@dreader4.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:tyZRd.3517$QQ3.1609@trnddc02...
>> What 64 bit OS do you have for that 6 year old computer?
>
> Linux.
>
> /Lars
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

What 64 bit hardware?

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com


"Lars Mxllebjerg" <larsm@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:42198ddc$0$165$e4fe514c@dreader4.news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:tyZRd.3517$QQ3.1609@trnddc02...
>> What 64 bit OS do you have for that 6 year old computer?
>
> Linux.
>
> /Lars
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:20:10 GMT, Chris Harries wrote:

> please explain Bill as I thought that what the difference was

1) Type http://google.com in your browser
2) Enter "32 bit versus 64 bit" (without the quotes) in the Search field
3) Press the Search button.

Results 1 - 10 of about 853,000 for 32 bit versus 64 bit. (0.32 seconds)

Here's the second entry that came up, with a short quote from the article:

http://www.build-your-own-computer-tips.com/64-32-bit-processors.html

"A bit is short for ´binary digit.¡ It is basically how a computer stores
and makes references to data, memory, etc. A bit can have a value of 1 or
0, thatÿs it. So binary code is streams of 1ÿs and 0ÿs, such as this random
sequence 100100100111. These bits are also how your processor does
calculations. By using 32 bits your processor can represent numbers from 0
to 4,294,967,295 while a 64-bit machine can represent numbers from 0 to
18,446,744,073,709,551,615. Obviously this means your computer can do math
with larger numbers, and be more efficient with smaller numbers."
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Jafar" <die@spammer.com> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.02.21.07.39.13.543526@spammer.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:37:15 +0100, Lars Møllebjerg wrote:
>

> I based that on the the fact that FS9 happily gobbles up any extra RAM you
> have and uses the memory intensely. It would of course benefit from faster
> memory access.

I have not really noticed this once you get to 1GB but it might be the case.

Faster memory access is obviously nice, but the CPU is not really involved
in this, so 64/32 bit won't change anything there.

/Lars
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Carl Frisk" <c.frisk@REMOVE.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:aAhSd.36693$wc.10869@trnddc07...
> What 64 bit hardware?

One or another outdated DEC Alpha workstation. I can't remember the CPU
specifications anymore, and I'm too lazy to put it back on the network to
find out :)
/Lars
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:42:36 +0100, Lars Møllebjerg wrote:

>
> "Jafar" <die@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.02.21.07.39.13.543526@spammer.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:37:15 +0100, Lars Møllebjerg wrote:
>>
>
>> I based that on the the fact that FS9 happily gobbles up any extra RAM you
>> have and uses the memory intensely. It would of course benefit from faster
>> memory access.
>
> I have not really noticed this once you get to 1GB but it might be the case.
>
> Faster memory access is obviously nice, but the CPU is not really involved
> in this, so 64/32 bit won't change anything there.

But that is the point. The CPU can access the memory much faster and can
perform more commands at once if the program is compiled for 64bit.
Having said that, the Athlon 64 is no slouch in a 32bit environment
either. I just wish I could afford the upgrade 😉

--
Jafar Calley
Livewire. The World's biggest VA.
http://www.flightbase2000.com
See Mars and Saturn in colour at
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Jafar" <die@spammer.com> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.02.21.17.30.02.977507@spammer.com...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:42:36 +0100, Lars Møllebjerg wrote:
> But that is the point. The CPU can access the memory much faster and can
> perform more commands at once if the program is compiled for 64bit.

Memory is slow compared to the CPU. I fail to see how it really matters if
you have a 64 bit or 32 bit CPU behind the Cache - both will just be sitting
around waiting for the cache to fill. Where did you find the information
that it can run more commands in 64 bit mode? I have not seen that yet (not
that I really looked).

A real problem with 64 bit performance is that each integer takes twice the
room. This means the cache can only hold half the amount of integers. No
problem as long as the programmers are careful and only use 64 bit integers
where it really is useful. But if 64 bit is used as default you can actually
get slower execution in 64 bit mode.

> Having said that, the Athlon 64 is no slouch in a 32bit environment
> either. I just wish I could afford the upgrade 😉

Of course it is fast. They increased the size of the cache. :)

/Lars
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom