Civ IV = breakthru 64 Bit Game??

[Vince278]

Unlikely. 64 bits apps won't become common until 64 bit PCs are common. It would be awesome but will have to wait for Civ V probably.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Zealot
stuff

You do realise that upgrading computers costs money?
You do realise that making computer games costs money?

People want games to work on the computer they have now. People will go to extreme lengths to get games like Thief 3 running Win98 so they don't need to upgrade their computer. Upgrading hardware is an even larger investment, meaning much greater resistance.

[Urban Ranger]

Correct. I have lost almost all my drive to upgrade the computers at home. Seems like a silly idea.

[Drachasor]

Bah, they need but buy a compiler for the 64 bit version and that's it. Then they just need to release two versions of the engine (which could be done on 1 CD).

Still, it isn't a priority, given the market.

-Drachasor

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Bah, they need but buy a compiler for the 64 bit version and that's it.

I don't think its as simple as that. You can probably use a 64 bit compiler on a 32 bit program but to truly utilize the full power of 64 bit processing you'll need to rewrite parts of the program. You can now declare more variables, memory space, etc.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Vince278


I don't think its as simple as that. You can probably use a 64 bit compiler on a 32 bit program but to truly utilize the full power of 64 bit processing you'll need to rewrite parts of the program. You can now declare more variables, memory space, etc.

A compiler for the AMD64 will do a lot of the work, and while they could rewrite parts and make it better, you'd still get a good performance boost.

I was just saying they didn't have to do any large amount of additional work. Anyhow, this thread is a little silly.

-Drachasor

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Anyhow, this thread is a little silly.

The premise sure was. Perhaps someone can close this?

[MartynC]

Originally posted by Vince278


The premise sure was. Perhaps someone can close this?

Why was the thread silly? It got ppl talking & debating, which is what i wanted to happen

[Vince278]

Civ4 as a 64 bit game is beyond wishful thinking. Perhaps you can guide us back on topic by letting us in on anything you've heard that may be relevant.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Vince278
Civ4 as a 64 bit game is beyond wishful thinking. Perhaps you can guide us back on topic by letting us in on anything you've heard that may be relevant.

No kidding ... I mean, 64 bit games are a cool idea, but until 20% even of people have a 64-bit chip -- and probably closer to 80% -- you're not going to see games even released with a 64-bit *option* not to mention 64-bit only. There's precisely a 0% chance of civ4 ever being released as a 64-bit-only game. 0%.

Besides, if any game is going to go 64-bit, why civ4? What exactly takes serious computing power on civ4? I doubt you need 500mb ram to run it, in the end-- civ3 you could probably run (if it lets you, not sure) on 128mb, albeit slowly (since WindowsXP isn't too friendly with 128mb as it is, so you probably have Windows98)... Civ is just not a hugely memory or processor-intensive game. If they wanted to make the AI 100% or 200% more powerful ... I wouldn't object with waiting 2x or 3x as long for the AI turns to complete. (Until it got to 1920, I was playing a peaceful-to-battleships-and-tanks game with 15 AI civs, and it took 20 minutes for our third battle turn where 12 civs were having at it ... ouch ...)

Hyperthreading, as mentioned earlier, I would see as a bigger boon, anyways, and having a processor with less of a bottleneck at the bus level -- a p4 800mhz FSB is probably a bigger help than a 64 bit chip, to Civ-type games, that have a lot of threads running at the same time for the AI, but not heavy on the video ...

[Tattila the Hun]

I played civ3 on amd500 128mb, worked fine on maps smaller than large. Once tried a huge map, by the time I got nationalism, turns took some 30 mins...

Say, you computer-savvy people, I have an Athlon XP, when the 64 bit comes out, or reaches affordable price, will it be compatible with my current motherboard, slot/socket-wise? Or otherwise?

[sabrewolf]

yes, because the 64bit computers will be "backwards compatible" and should support the whole 32bit instruction set.

intel has 2 chips in development. one has a completely new IS and emulates existing 32bit instructions... so it's slower for non-optimized things. the other processor line is like the AMD... support the whole 32bit IS and adds some more. but don't ask me the names of these processors

civ3 won't work much faster on a 64bit computer, as it's not optimised. but later programs (probably not yet civ4 (CIV) should be able to use it.

however... that each turn takes 30 minutes is due to bad programming. the computer architecture can't help against that

[snoopy369]

I'm fairly sure the AMD-64 is not a socket-A chip. I'm not 100% sure, but fairly sure. There certainly are "AMD-64" mobos, however... so I would think you'd need another mobo.

But, that's probably not the end of the world. You'd want one, anyways ... a mobo that was available when AMD500 was available is probably doing you more harm than the 500mhz processor is. Can't imagine what the processor->memory or FSB bottlenecks would look like on an AMD64 2-3ghz chip in a mobo from 2001 ... ^^

Besides, if you're going to spend $200+ (depending on how long you wait) for a new chip, what's another $80 on a decent mobo, or $120 on a good one? Honestly i'd probably suggest spending $150 and getting a Thoroughbred 2100+ plus mobo, you'll notice a big enough jump that you won't miss not having the 64 bit processor. It'll be a few years (2007 probably) before 64 bit processors are really necessary.

[snoopy369]

Sabre, if your "yes" is for the poll ... backwards compatible yes, forwards compatible, no (unless you know something I don't). A 64-bit program probably would not run on a 32 bit computer unless it was written to be dual-use, while a 32 bit program would run fine on a 64 bit computer. Or, it would run poorly if it was designed to take advantage of the 64bit architecture but not the expanded instruction set (ie it would hit different bottlenecks, so run slower on a 32bit computer than it should)...

Honestly i'm not sure how different the 64 bit instruction set is, perhaps it's close enough that you could manage it. Perhaps someone with a more thorough knowledge of the 64 bit processor can answer that?

[Vince278]

Generally, you can declare/use 2^64 variables instead of 2^32 which means you process loads more per cycle. You can also address an ungodly amount of memory.