Why are 32-bit games still made?

[Nuke]

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

that athalon 64 rig from 2004 (and the cpu were first released in 2003) only initially had 1gb of ram (common at the time), which i later upgraded to 2gb. so there was reason to move up to 64 bit long before we hit the memory wall imposed by address space limits. 10 years is a very long time to support the legacy crowd.

i dont like to throw out old machines if they are reliable. i have a 486 machine somewhere, does that mean i should demand new software support dos? and i get the money issue. im somwhere between 1/3 of the poverty line and nothin'. i can still afford a 64-bit rig.

[Seret]

running a 64-bit cpu in 32-bit os is a waste

This is the bottom line to me. Throttling a 64-bit chip down to 32-bit speeds makes absolutely no sense. Even if you're stuck in Windows land and the applications you're running on it are still 32-bit, letting the OS run free in 64-bit lets the chip do at least some of its thing unfettered.

it only has 4gb ddr3, so 64bit is pretty useless to me.

I've been running 64-bit for years and years, but I've still not felt any need to install more then 4GB RAM. 64-bit is about more than just RAM.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Seret

[Aghanim]

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....

Go here: http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

Download and run it

If in the instructions there is either EM64T or AMD64 or something like that, then your processor is 64 bit. Even my old intel quad core 2 duo is 64 bit

[Nuke]

what 64 bit ultimately does is give you more precision/operation (and all the other goodies that make that happen, like bigger registers, and new instructions). you can always throw cycles at increasing precision, its possible to do 64 bit math on a 4 bit cpu if you want to do it over the course of many, many cycles. you can also pack multiple 8 bit operations to fill up a register, doing them all in one operation (string compare example i brought up earlier).

it rather disturbs me that so many people think bits determine how much memory your rig can support. sure thats a rule of thumb system builders have been living by for 10 or so years. but it has become somewhat of a mindless mantra that people dont understand. i see laymen and worse, even some system builders, its and pc techs just accepting it as the way things are. ive built servers (back in 2002) with 32 bit processors that support > 4gb ram. the reason is that servers always need more ram than your typical desktop, and they were hitting hard limits years before the desktops started hitting it (and before x86-64 bit was a thing), so cpu manufacturers developed workarounds. for a lesser example, the lowly 8-bit avr core in your typical arduino would only be able to support 256 bytes of ram, when in fact it has 4 times that much. i can think of many situations where word size != memory address space. ive also run 64 machines with less than 4gb of ram as i said earlier. another example, the n64, which found reason to need a 64 bit cpu despite having nowhere near 4gb of ram.

[Aghanim]

what 64 bit ultimately does is give you more precision/operation (and all the other goodies that make that happen, like bigger registers, and new instructions). you can always throw cycles at increasing precision, its possible to do 64 bit math on a 4 bit cpu if you want to do it over the course of many, many cycles. you can also pack multiple 8 bit operations to fill up a register, doing them all in one operation (string compare example i brought up earlier).

it rather disturbs me that so many people think bits determine how much memory your rig can support. sure thats a rule of thumb system builders have been living by for 10 or so years. but it has become somewhat of a mindless mantra that people dont understand. i see laymen and worse, even some system builders, its and pc techs just accepting it as the way things are. ive built servers (back in 2002) with 32 bit processors that support > 4gb ram. the reason is that servers always need more ram than your typical desktop, and they were hitting hard limits years before the desktops started hitting it (and before x86-64 bit was a thing), so cpu manufacturers developed workarounds. for a lesser example, the lowly 8-bit avr core in your typical arduino would only be able to support 256 bytes of ram, when in fact it has 4 times that much. i can think of many situations where word size != memory address space. ive also run 64 machines with less than 4gb of ram as i said earlier. another example, the n64, which found reason to need a 64 bit cpu despite having nowhere near 4gb of ram.

Yes, it is possible for 32 bit CPU to run > 4 GB ram. However, it needs a thing called physical address extension. The problem comes from the operating system support : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension#Operating_system_support

The weird thing is NX bit needs PAE to be enabled, but even with PAE enabled, Windows OS limits the allocated ram to 4 GB because of licensing : http://www.geoffchappell.com/notes/windows/license/memory.htm . They artificially cripple their 32 bit OS because they said it causes some driver instability

EDIT: This may or may not apply to Win8, as NX works natively in 64 bit version, but in 32 bit version it needs PAE

Edited April 2, 2014 by Aghanim

[Nuke]

yea you need a server os for that, its not really a desktop thing. win2k datacenter edition supported a whopping 32 gb of ram.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Nuke

[Seret]

Linux desktops have generally supported PAE for yonks, either as an alternative kernel you can just swap in straight from the repos, or latterly as their default 32-bit kernel.

PAE does the job, but it's a bit of a kludge. The number of cases where it would be preferable over just going 64-bit is rapidly approaching zero IMO.

[Aghanim]

Where do you found 32 bit processors these day?

[Seret]

ARM? The developing world? Actually Canonical did a quick poll, of something like a third of the hardware they were committed to supporting was still 32-bit. So it's not a case of being able to assume that all your users are able to run 64-bit just yet.

I certainly support the idea of making 64-bit the default choice, but 32-bit should still be supported for a while yet.

[KerbMav]

New hardware means more trash, more costs ... whenever hardware is still sufficient for a task and is not severly interfering with work processes or generating costs by being outdated it is preferable to maintain and utilize it.

Edit: Somehow I thought this thead was not only all about games but software in general.

Edited April 3, 2014 by KerbMav

[Faark]

Its kinda funny that many of the KSP folk consider 64bit sth like a holy grail, just because KSP made the ****ty design decision to load up everything on startup.

Memory allows you do more though. [...] 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.

That is just crap. Sure, there are a bunch of problems you can throw memory on, but having a lot of dead data sitting in you memory doesn't improve the user experience. Devs would still have to splice the world into carefully controlled chunks to choose what processing time is spent on. Also worlds won't get bigger since you are already able to create worlds pretty much as large as you want. Making it even larger usually doesn't add any gameplay value. Quite the contrary, since you have to populate that area with gameplay. Randomly generated *** doesn't help much, since it feels like *** very quickly. Being able to enter every room in JC2 or GTA might be a "cool" feature, but the little gain in gameplay just would not be worth the effort.

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.

Actually, Planetside 2 offers both while having a good old 32bit-like memory consumption. Again, limiting factor isn't RAM or VRAM but CPU and GPU processing power, especially in larger battles. They have even cut down details to improve perf... i really liked shooting though shelves/racks, but a stupid box obviously has less far collision data.

[Aghanim]

I know what you meant by intensive CPU/GPU usage. The very least thing that you want is to have FPS lag at teamfights that determines you to win or lose, or getting or losing 1 million dollar. Trust me, it really happens. At least the teamfight part.

This is why I stops using my old PC and transplanted its ram to my mom's unused PC, because it's better.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Aghanim

[Nuke]

Linux desktops have generally supported PAE for yonks, either as an alternative kernel you can just swap in straight from the repos, or latterly as their default 32-bit kernel.

PAE does the job, but it's a bit of a kludge. The number of cases where it would be preferable over just going 64-bit is rapidly approaching zero IMO.

linux supports everything, if you have the patience to use it.

[Seret]

linux supports everything, if you have the patience to use it.

Not really any patience required with some distros these days. You just plug it in and it works. It's certainly a lot less hassle than Windows.

[Nuke]

theres a difference betwen "it works" and "im a wizzard". on windows im a wizzard. on linux i spend hours pulling my hair out trying to do basic stuff.