Why are 32-bit games still made?

[rpayne88]

First off, I know that KSP is still 32-bit due to limitations with the Unity engine. That is not what I'm posting this about.

My question is, why do non-indie developers such as EA, still make games as 32-bit applications. I mean, first I started playing MOH Tier One (the campaign,) encountered lag, quit, started BF3 campaign, hit lag, and quit again.

My specs:

8GB RAM

3rd gen Intel i7-3630QM quad core

NVIDIA GeForce GT650M

64-bit Windows 7

I can understand Squad because they are an indie developer with a relatively small budget. Yet, multi- million dollar developers making big budget games are still making 32-bit games. We've had 64bit OS for years now, and frankly, if a game needs more than 4gb of memory (otherwise it wouldn't lag in the first place) then why make it a 32bit process?

[MinerEdgar]

Not everyone has a 64-bit OS.

[cesarcurado]

Not everyone has a 64-bit OS.

My thoughts exactly.

[Randox]

Yeah, same as websites that have to be able to at least deal with people who arrive at them using something like Internet Explorer 6. It's a pain to develop something for both 32 bit and 64 bit, so without any natural backwards compatibility, most developers are still waiting to make that particular plunge. On the upside, the new consoles are 64 bit and 8GB unified memory, with architecture more like a PC than their predecessors. As it applies to this discussion, a game written to take advantage of that memory would be impossible to port to a 32 bit system, but they might still port for 64 bit. That's my hope at least. That the consoles will drag the PC gaming market kicking and screaming into 2007-2009 (or thereabouts).

[KvickFlygarn87]

BF4 allows for 64 bit or 32 bit, for maximum sales even though 4gb is not anywhere near what is necessary.

[Nibb31]

64-bit doesn't make a game faster.

[Seret]

Because Windows is the dominant gaming platform, and it's a slow-moving behemoth that had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards the light.

[Temstar]

started BF3 campaign, hit lag, and quit again.

BF3 can run in both x86 and x64 mode, it picks the correct mode automatically according to your OS.

[NovaSilisko]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

Some interesting statistics.

[Streetwind]

So three-quarters 64bit vs. one-quarter 32bit in that Steam survey.

As a result, if a company makes an exclusively 64bit game and puts it on Steam, they would be giving up 25% of their potential revenue. Yeah, not going to happen. Maybe we'll see more widespread use of native 64bit applications once 90% of the userbase has a compatible OS. The death of Windows XP should give things a nudge in the right direction, but the nearly 12% of 32bit Windows 7 will probably still live on for a long time. These systems tend to be cheap OEM junkboxes sold to complete laymen who have little interest in upgrading before the machine physically breaks and even less knowledge of the whole 32bit/64bit thing.

[Nibb31]

The only benefit of 64-bit software is that it allows to address more memory and therefore it can handle larger volumes of data. It's not about being inherently faster. On the contrary, loading the CPU with more data slows it down.

For games, most of the data processing happens on the graphics card, which is limited by its own memory, so there is very little benefit.

[Seret]

The only benefit of 64-bit software is that it allows to address more memory and therefore it can handle larger volumes of data. It's not about being inherently faster. On the contrary, loading the CPU with more data slows it down.

I've heard this one a few times. In reality, benchmarks tell a different story. Phoronix have been flogging that particular dead horse for several years now, and the results are always the same: 64-bit is substantially quicker for some tasks, and for the rest is no slower than 32-bit.

For games, most of the data processing happens on the graphics card, which is limited by its own memory, so there is very little benefit.

This however is true. The kinds of things 64-bit excels at are video encoding, encryption, compression, etc. Gaming will generally only see marginal benefits.

[Nibb31]

Benchmarks are one thing. Real-life applications are another. Speaking from experience here. The main benefit to performance comes from multi-threading, not 64-bit. In practice, the rewriting of code that is required to switch to a 64-bit architecture is also usually accompanied with an effort to incorporate multi-threading, which is why there is often a benefit on multi-core systems, but the two are unrelated.

When you build a 64-bit version of an application, the only point is to allow it to allocate more memory. It the end, you gain in performance because you can work on larger data sets, so instead of cutting your data into manageable chunks to process 10 x 1Gb of data you can process 10Gb in one pass. This is marginally quicker, because you save the swapping and file read/write time. However, it also means that where you used to optimise your data for 1Gb blocks, you now just throw larger amounts of data to the CPU without caring about memory limits, so the perceived performance is often slower.

It terms of gaming, this means that your CPU can theoretically handle larger game levels, not that it will handle those game levels any faster.

[Streetwind]

When you build a 64-bit version of an application, the only point is to allow it to allocate more memory.

Nope. There exist several constellations in which instructions are processed significantly faster by the CPU because of the larger and more numerous registers. They basically allow certain things to process in much less ALU cycles, effectively increasing IPC by a lot. Number crunching like encryption and encoding/decoding benefits greatly, as does everything that uses a lot of loops.

However, yes, there is no significant general performance gain through 64bit alone. It depends on whether your software can make good use of these registers. And gaming happens to be one of those cases that have almost no use for filling many large registers at once. So the only reason for games in particular to migrate to 64bit right now is allocating more memory.

[Red Iron Crown]

Nope. There exist several constellations in which instructions are processed significantly faster by the CPU because of the larger and more numerous registers. They basically allow certain things to process in much less ALU cycles, effectively increasing IPC by a lot. Number crunching like encryption and encoding/decoding benefits greatly, as does everything that uses a lot of loops.

However, yes, there is no significant general performance gain through 64bit alone. It depends on whether your software can make good use of these registers. And gaming happens to be one of those cases that have almost no use for filling many large registers at once. So the only reason for games in particular to migrate to 64bit right now is allocating more memory.

As I understand it, KSP is actually one of the few games that reaps the other benefits of 64-bit as it uses double precision floats for many of its variables.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Typo fixed.

[Streetwind]

If that's the case, then I will be all the more excited for a future port.

[Randox]

I don't see performance being the point. A larger pipeline is useful, but it's an enabler more than anything. It allows you to pass through more data, but the real challenge is building better and faster hardware.

Memory allows you do more though. Not just a bigger level, but substantially more detail. It dictates how many NPC's can be in the area, how many objects, how much of the area around you is actually simulated. In a really open game, this can become crippling once you can see past the simulated area. Look at Skyrim. Aside from simulating a criminally small area of the world (limited for the consoles), the loading screens. With the full potential of a 32 bit system, there is no reason for the major cities to not be part of the open world. With 64 bit memory, and interior meshes that are the same size as their exteriors, there is no reason for anything not to be in the open world. No loading screens. None. With more VRAM can make more detailed textures, or have more on the screen at once (or both).

With more memory, you don't have to try so hard to slice the world up into carefully controlled chunks. I imagine that once we start to see say, the 64bit open world games, older games are going to feel very small. The problem is that across multiple genres, games have been pushed to their limits so hard that we can now see the memory limitations. If you want to have a game with an actual, truly grand battle, or an open world game that really feels like an open world, you need to have more memory.

As a big fan of the very open world type of game, this potential gets me excited.

[NovaSilisko]

As I understand it, KSP is actually one of the few games that reaps the other benefits of 64-bit as it uses double precision floats for many of its variables.

Only the orbital values. Unity and PhysX are still stuck with floating point positioning.

[Red Iron Crown]

Only the orbital values. Unity and PhysX are still stuck with floating point positioning.

Does that mean that if Unity/PhysX/KSP went 64-bit, the other values would get more precise? I.e. single precision would go from 32-bit to 64-bit?

[NovaSilisko]

Does that mean that if Unity/PhysX/KSP went 64-bit, the other values would get more precise? I.e. single precision would go from 32-bit to 64-bit?

I've learned from robin (maker of that WIP N-body mod) that the only reason floats even really exist/are used still is because older CPUs are still around that can't handle doubles. Even if you're on a 32 bit OS, you can still use double precision values. So, in this case I guess it's just Unity trying to be excessively backwards compatible...

[GreatWyrmGold]

I like to try and learn stuff about computer programming, given how important computers and stuff are to today's world and whatnot.

You know what's annoying for laypeople like me? When two (or more) equally credible sources make contradictory claims without citing anything!

So, please. Cite your sources. It helps the laypeople, and--to appeal to self-interest--it forces the other guy to argue with a (semi-)credible computer science guy rather than an anonymous guy on the Internet.

[Nuke]

My thoughts exactly.

i want to know who these people are so i can go to their house and smash their 11 year old hardware. (my first 64 bit machine is 10 years old)

64-bit doesn't make a game faster.

disagree. people dont realize that you get twice as many registers (with twice the width) on an x86-64 instruction set. one place where this shines is in string compare operations, you can compare 8 chars at a time just by filling in two registers. in fact running a 64-bit cpu in 32-bit os is a waste, because many of the sparkling new features of the cpu just end up getting disabled. running a 64 bit cpu in 64 bit operating system, gives you the system performance, but 32 bit applications still only utilize the non-64 bit features of the cpu, which is sub-optimal.

As I understand it, KSP is actually one of the few games that reaps the other benefits of 64-bit as it uses double precision floats for many of its variables.

this is a thing. game physics just loves 64 bit code. you can push double precision floats all over the place for super accuracy. now take it a step further and go with the avx instriction set, which gives you 128 and 256 (and eventually 512) bit floats. then you are in for a world of precision. that means bigger worlds and better physics when games get around to using those. things like a more appropriately scaled kerbol system become possible.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Nuke

[Nemrav]

well, I only bought my laptop (and one of the latest models) less than half a year ago, and it only has 4gb ddr3, so 64bit is pretty useless to me.

NOT EVERYONE OWNS A GAMING DESKTOP.

and since most developers thankfully have that in mind they don't make 64bit a requirement.

otherwise yes, it improves performance but can be a little hastle for one of the smaller benefitial optimisations....

[TJPrime]

i want to know who these people are so i can go to their house and smash their 11 year old hardware. (my first 64 bit machine is 10 years old)

Some people can't afford a new 64-bit computer. Plus, if a computer is reliable, isn't broken or nothing is wrong with it, what is the point in getting a new one? 64-bit or not, it's almost pointless. The only point I can think of are so that you can say you have a 64-bit computer.

Also, smashing some strangers computer counts as vandalism

[Red Iron Crown]

well, I only bought my laptop (and one of the latest models) less than half a year ago, and it only has 4gb ddr3, so 64bit is pretty useless to me.

NOT EVERYONE OWNS A GAMING DESKTOP.

and since most developers thankfully have that in mind they don't make 64bit a requirement.

otherwise yes, it improves performance but can be a little hastle for one of the smaller benefitial optimisations....

I would be frankly shocked if your laptop is not 64-bit, both in processor and operating system. While you wouldn't benefit from more RAM available, you would be able to enjoy the other benefits.