- Joined
- Feb 15, 2003
- Location
- Mesa, Arizona
i want updates on how this runs 64-bit.. i hope it is just amazing
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Valve Unveils 64-bit Source™ Gaming Technology
- Thread starter koss20100
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Location
- W. Lafayette, IN
I played it last night, as I'm running x64. Couldn't tell muchd difference since the framerate in x32 mode is 80 fps + anyway, but the things I did notice were:
1.It says "X64 mode active"
2.The loading screens inbetween map areas in Half Life 2 took forever once in a while. Litterally, had a freeze for about 2 mins one time, and was about to reebot.
3. That's about all.
But it is good to see game developers are moving towards x64. Obviously, the more technology that can take advantage of hardware, the better.
1.It says "X64 mode active"
2.The loading screens inbetween map areas in Half Life 2 took forever once in a while. Litterally, had a freeze for about 2 mins one time, and was about to reebot.
3. That's about all.
But it is good to see game developers are moving towards x64. Obviously, the more technology that can take advantage of hardware, the better.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Location
- The Netherlands
Valve's PR department surely did a good job on that one.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2002
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA - USA
Wow so much negativity. First off the physics in Half-Life 2.
The underlying code in the source engine is Havok's but it was tweaked quite a bit. Many games have implemented Havok physics but do any of them do it as well as HL2 does? I don't believe so. And regarding the physics being realistic, I've not played a single game with physics that doesn't bend the rules a bit whether intentionally or unintentionally. If you want to see truly lame physics in comparison play Serious Sam 2 or Doom 3 Resurrection of Evil. The physics implementation in both of those games and/or engines are far less realistic than in Half-Life 2.
Things like fire and AI (to a lesser extent) aren't as closely tied to a game's engine as some of you are implying. The AI in Half-Life 2 is just that. It's not what you're stuck with if you write a game in the source engine. The same goes with the fire. So lets keep that distinction.
The only major problem I see with source are its streaming issues which result in the famous audio stutter. Other than that, I believe it displays a good balance of looks, performance, stability and useability.
This 64 bit announcement is interesting because Source (as implemented in Half-Life 2) has always been rather CPU limited so we might actually see a decent performance boost in some situations unlike the other 64-bit game engine patches we've seen in the past.
Regarding FEAR. The engine wouldn't be helped by a 64-bit patch whatsoever since it's so GPU limited. The only thing that will help that game's performance would be faster vertex/shader code through a patch, driver optimizations, or just plain more video power. I suspect ATi's FEAR numbers will nearly double on R580, we'll see though.
The underlying code in the source engine is Havok's but it was tweaked quite a bit. Many games have implemented Havok physics but do any of them do it as well as HL2 does? I don't believe so. And regarding the physics being realistic, I've not played a single game with physics that doesn't bend the rules a bit whether intentionally or unintentionally. If you want to see truly lame physics in comparison play Serious Sam 2 or Doom 3 Resurrection of Evil. The physics implementation in both of those games and/or engines are far less realistic than in Half-Life 2.
Things like fire and AI (to a lesser extent) aren't as closely tied to a game's engine as some of you are implying. The AI in Half-Life 2 is just that. It's not what you're stuck with if you write a game in the source engine. The same goes with the fire. So lets keep that distinction.
The only major problem I see with source are its streaming issues which result in the famous audio stutter. Other than that, I believe it displays a good balance of looks, performance, stability and useability.
This 64 bit announcement is interesting because Source (as implemented in Half-Life 2) has always been rather CPU limited so we might actually see a decent performance boost in some situations unlike the other 64-bit game engine patches we've seen in the past.
Regarding FEAR. The engine wouldn't be helped by a 64-bit patch whatsoever since it's so GPU limited. The only thing that will help that game's performance would be faster vertex/shader code through a patch, driver optimizations, or just plain more video power. I suspect ATi's FEAR numbers will nearly double on R580, we'll see though.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Sword Base
MAX PAYNE 2 had havok physics and they were rubbish, everything was so ridiculously bouncy, Doom 3's physics sucked ***, HL2's were pretty good. The HL2 enemy AI was very good, it was only the AI of your irritating resistance squad members that sucked.
Also remember source games look good on low settings, Quake 4, Battlefield 2 and FEAR are all capable of looking very good (well maybe not Quake 4 ) on high end hardware, but HL2 has reasonable system requirements and scales well, none of the others plays WELL on 512MB of RAM and a 9600, I think source is a phenomenal bit of coding.
Also remember source games look good on low settings, Quake 4, Battlefield 2 and FEAR are all capable of looking very good (well maybe not Quake 4
) on high end hardware, but HL2 has reasonable system requirements and scales well, none of the others plays WELL on 512MB of RAM and a 9600, I think source is a phenomenal bit of coding.- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
So, I got the 64 bit trial and ran Lost Coast and CS for comparison. Lost coast ran pretty much the same, and CS:S ran slower. I normally run CS:S at 1600x1200, 2xaa, and 2x AF, with everything at the max, but now I have to run it at 1024x768 (probably because 32 bit apps take twice the memory on 64 bit windows or whatever it is)
I didn't know 1gb wasn't enough to run CS:S at 1600x1200 in a 64 bit windows
I didn't know 1gb wasn't enough to run CS:S at 1600x1200 in a 64 bit windows
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2002
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA - USA
How about some 1:1 benchmark numbers comparing both the 64bit and 32bit version then Dan?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2001
- Location
- fort drum NY
you cant compair them yet. any timedemo made with 64 wont run on 32 and vise versa. also the stress test for 64 lost coast wont use hdr and the 32 version wont allow you to turn it off.
it stinks...theres no real way to do a 1:1 comparison. all we can do is get close. heres my results. rember the 64 version of the lost coast stress test has no hdr and that in it self probly acounts for the higher average frame rate
settings maxed out
32=5.54 fps
64=15.07 fps
normal settings
32=63.17 fps
64=74.37
it stinks...theres no real way to do a 1:1 comparison. all we can do is get close. heres my results. rember the 64 version of the lost coast stress test has no hdr and that in it self probly acounts for the higher average frame rate
settings maxed out
32=5.54 fps
64=15.07 fps
normal settings
32=63.17 fps
64=74.37
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
I am glad it came out. It is more of a x64 compatability thing than an enhancement, IMO. Not until it is refiened.
Its funny to see all these people loving the FEAR engine. Its just the Doom 3 engine with more lighting
Its funny to see all these people loving the FEAR engine. Its just the Doom 3 engine with more lighting
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Sword Base
i though it was on a completely redeveloped dx9 lithtech engine
oh and techgauge did a quick set of benchies http://techgage.com/review.php?id=3889&page=2
fps was slightly lower but their loads times were quite a bit faster.
oh and techgauge did a quick set of benchies http://techgage.com/review.php?id=3889&page=2
fps was slightly lower but their loads times were quite a bit faster.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
I get maybe the same preformance more or less in 64 bit as I do when I run 32 bit in 32 bit windows, and crappy preformance of 32 bit in 64 bit windows. Sorry I couldn't get any good benchmarks, I didn't think to do anything like that.
-Dan
-Dan
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Location
- N of splat W of Torin
Same goes for the Physics. lol
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
I applaud Valve for releasing a 64 bit version, while the performance doesn't appear to have increased (although those loading time reductions are significant) and indeed seems to have gone down, it is a step in the right direction. Valve seems to be doing more for 64 bit gaming and software than anybody except Ubisoft by even releasing a 64 bit version. Hopefully they will continue to work on it and get the performance and bug issues ironed out.
Also a comparison between the 64 Bit Source Engine and other engines is irrelevant in this thread since there is no 64 Bit Fear or Doom engine the point of this thread was to discuss the 64 bit engine from Valve, not to start a flamewar between engines.
Although in a semi-related step towards actually using the processor technology available to us, I am happy to see that iD worked with Intel to get a Quake4 patch out that enables SMP support in the Doom/Quake engine that actually improves the performance at low resolutions by like 60% (with both Intel and AMD cpus).
Anyone think that working with AMD on this 64 bit HL2 version would have resulted in a upgrade that actually increased performance?
Also a comparison between the 64 Bit Source Engine and other engines is irrelevant in this thread since there is no 64 Bit Fear or Doom engine the point of this thread was to discuss the 64 bit engine from Valve, not to start a flamewar between engines.
Although in a semi-related step towards actually using the processor technology available to us, I am happy to see that iD worked with Intel to get a Quake4 patch out that enables SMP support in the Doom/Quake engine that actually improves the performance at low resolutions by like 60% (with both Intel and AMD cpus).
Anyone think that working with AMD on this 64 bit HL2 version would have resulted in a upgrade that actually increased performance?
OP
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Thread Starter
- #34
funnyperson1 said:
Thats exactly how I feel, Im pretty sure they can find a way to really increase performance. But maybe its the drivers ?
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
That is a very good question, are unoptimized 64 bit drivers from Ati and Nvidia the reason for this dismal performance? I think we'll see by the time Vista comes out and they will be forced to write good 64 bit drivers (hopefully).koss20100 said:Thats exactly how I feel, Im pretty sure they can find a way to really increase performance. But maybe its the drivers ?
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2002
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA - USA
I think there have been enough underperforming 64-bit game engines to really start questioning what is wrong. Is it the video drivers? The OS? The 64-bit code in the engine? Is it x86-64 itself? Maybe a little of everything? It seems quite strange to me that almost no apps we've seen that add support AMD64 actually get any faster. Except of course for 7-ZIP, which is probably very interger intensive.
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
how could so many people "love" the pysics (or lack there-of) in the FEAR engine. Not half as many things are moveable, you can't pick anything up, or whatever. I gotta agree, it has better graphics, but that just means that it doesn't scale as well as the Source/HL2 engine does.
Grant-it, I consider myself a valvE fanboy, since I have been playing HL games since the first year they came out, but I do believe that FEAR was a bit of a letdown. Don't get me wrong, the game is good, but not GOTY good.
Grant-it, I consider myself a valvE fanboy, since I have been playing HL games since the first year they came out, but I do believe that FEAR was a bit of a letdown. Don't get me wrong, the game is good, but not GOTY good.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
I don't really think its worth arguing between engies. I have a prefference for source but thats just me. Both have advantages and disadvantages. All in all though, they both look decent.
As for 64 bit performance, I know for a fact, from my experience, anyway, that its windows that demonstrates the low performance of 64 bit drivers. When I first dipped into 64 bit I was very excited. Accessing more ram at a time always does that to me. But when I tried the windows x64 demo, it just plain sucked. I thought it was a complete waste. Then I installed a 64 bit version of Fedora core and was amazed at the performance.
64 bit does make a difference, even if it isn't actually fully 64 bit (I think it is something like 48 bits and the rest are virtual? I dunno). However, Windows XP was designed for 32 bit, and alwawys will be.
Lets jusge x86_64 when Vista finally shows itself. It should be a nice guage, for windows users anyway, of how much of a difference it will make.
As for 64 bit performance, I know for a fact, from my experience, anyway, that its windows that demonstrates the low performance of 64 bit drivers. When I first dipped into 64 bit I was very excited. Accessing more ram at a time always does that to me
. But when I tried the windows x64 demo, it just plain sucked. I thought it was a complete waste. Then I installed a 64 bit version of Fedora core and was amazed at the performance.64 bit does make a difference, even if it isn't actually fully 64 bit (I think it is something like 48 bits and the rest are virtual? I dunno). However, Windows XP was designed for 32 bit, and alwawys will be.
Lets jusge x86_64 when Vista finally shows itself. It should be a nice guage, for windows users anyway, of how much of a difference it will make.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2002
- Location
- Bakersfield, CA - USA
Yeah, I don't see why we're talking about FEAR here either. I guess its a "my dad can beat up your dad" situation. Meaning that perhaps some people who are playing now, or enjoyed FEAR more feel the need to post an "Oh yeah?! well <etc>." in order to hypothetically pee on the hypothetical chocolate cake that is this positive Source engine news.
What applications showed performance gains on Fedora 64 vs Fedora 32 or another 32-bit Linux distro and by how much did their speeds improve?Cheator said:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2001
- Location
- fort drum NY
>HyperlogiK< said:
this is weird. i cant run the 32 bit timedemos (or game saves) and it seems to be a unanimous problem from what i read. these guys are aparently the only ones to have figured a way around it. they even ran the lost coast stress test witch is known to have issues and ignore your graphics settings. id love to know how they did it. im very interested in trying it on my hardware.
Similar threads
