A64 64-bit to be 30% faster in HL2

X

Xspringe

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
73
Probably old news but, from an interview with Gabe Newell:

"Will Half-Life 2 have any special optimizations for 64-bit processors?

Gabe Newell: I would expect we would run about 30% faster clock for clock comparing an Athlon running 32-bit code and an Athlon 64 running 64-bit code. Release of the 64-bit client will be gated on MS releasing 64-bit Windows."

http://www.halflife2.net/article_valvespeak_1.php

If this is any indication of the average speedboost that can be achieved in games with 64-bit I'm gonna get me an A64 ASAP :)

Now if only MS would get of their asses =[
 
i'd say the larger problem is simply good driver support for 64bit - not so much as windows (it's just about done and "stable")
 
Drivers are far more of a worry at this point than are the OS, at least for me.

ATI needs to seriously work on Win64 compatible drivers now or they will reap what they sow.
 
I also think that 64 bit drivers are more important then a 64 bit os but i think we need all three (os, drivers and application).
 
At this point they can release a 8-bit version of the game for all i care! Just release the damn thing already! :mad:
 
Then they get hacked again and HL2 gets delayed another 6 months...
 
thats not why it was delayed, it was delayed because condition zero was coming out and who would buy condition zero if hl2 came out a couple days later?

the thing about getting hacked was just an excuse to delay it
 
And who exactly bought Condition Zero? Stupid godawful game. The Steam beta bots were a lot better than the ones included in CZ.
 
I'm rubber, you're glue; hype bounces off of me and sticks to you. "You" being no one in particular.
 
i remember hearing about CZ for the first time a year or so ago and one word came to mind... "worthless"

as for the 64bit issue.. i agree with one of the posts above. we need all three for it to work right. and who knows.. perhaps we will see the 30% increase in speed. i know ill be switching then!
 
Originally posted by Xspringe
I don't really see what's so vague about his statement?
Click to expand...

comparing an Athlon running 32-bit code and an Athlon 64 running 64-bit
Click to expand...

Sounds to me he's comparing an AXP versus an A64. And this statement is old news, as it was made last August or September.
 
Originally posted by DaveX
Then they get hacked again and HL2 gets delayed another 6 months...
Click to expand...

Yeah, there nowhere near being done with HL2 when it was suppose to but instead they just keep letting everyone buying 9800 Pro's @ 300+ $ cause everyone thinks its comming out.


I GOT 20$ Saying they do it again for the next batch of ATI Cards, but i highly doubt they'll go for a "Hey another Hacker broke in" but really i bet everyone will fall for it again lol.
 
Originally posted by SLee
Sounds to me he's comparing an AXP versus an A64. And this statement is old news, as it was made last August or September.
Click to expand...

Yeah that might be true, good observation.
 
They way I read that:

It says that the A64 will be 30% faster clock for clock. So lets take a 3.2 ghz P4 and a 2.2ghz Athlon 64. That P4's clock is 31.3% faster. Therefore, the Athlon will perform about 1.3% better.

Thoughts?
 
Originally posted by [H] - WRX
They way I read that:

It says that the A64 will be 30% faster clock for clock. So lets take a 3.2 ghz P4 and a 2.2ghz Athlon 64. That P4's clock is 31.3% faster. Therefore, the Athlon will perform about 1.3% better.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think that he compares A64 running in 32 bit mode to athlon 64 running the same code optimized for 64 bits :)
 
Originally posted by [H] - WRX
They way I read that:

It says that the A64 will be 30% faster clock for clock. So lets take a 3.2 ghz P4 and a 2.2ghz Athlon 64. That P4's clock is 31.3% faster. Therefore, the Athlon will perform about 1.3% better.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

No, he's comparing the Athlon running 32-bit code (does he mean Athlon XP or the 64 running in 32-bit mode???) to the Athlon64 running 64-bit code on 64-bit Windows.

So I'd say Pentium 4 for teh lose on Half Life 2. Also he makes it sound like the game is CPU limited?!?
 
Originally posted by old skool
So I'd say Pentium 4 for teh lose on Half Life 2. Also he makes it sound like the game is CPU limited?!?
Click to expand...

Well the next-gen ATI and nVidia cards should produce much better results in DX9 games so I guess CPU could be the limiting factor.

Also, it was the 9800XT that came with HL2, not the 9800 Pro. Still not bad, when HL2 comes out you can just redeem your voucher.
 
Well the BETA version ran fine on my computer PRE FX51 and the game was no where near finished, all though it was pretty it needed a lot of work, i think they claimed it was hacked and in some case it was. But they were no where near done. They should just admit that.
 
*cough* admittance to warez = ban *cough*

Anyways, my "friend" downloaded the "beta" and it was nowhere close to the final product. Horrible clipping issues everywhere.
 
Originally posted by leukotriene
Drivers are far more of a worry at this point than are the OS, at least for me.

ATI needs to seriously work on Win64 compatible drivers now or they will reap what they sow.
Click to expand...

Except that since Nvidia is partners with AMD, ATI pretty much has to be partners with Intel. Intel obviously would rather push Prescott and forget about Yamhill, thus they are probably pressuring ATI into not releasing 64-bit drivers. (In return, ATI may get cost breaks on P4 bus licenses, or other such things.)
 
HL2 is gunna be a great game, but doesn't need anything near 64bit to get 100fps. Its NOT a graphically intense game engine. The full beta was fun but even on high the graphics won't be 1/2 of what d3 will be. I wonder if d3 will have 64 bit processing ? anyone know ?
 
Originally posted by theNoid
HL2 is gunna be a great game, but doesn't need anything near 64bit to get 100fps. Its NOT a graphically intense game engine. The full beta was fun but even on high the graphics won't be 1/2 of what d3 will be. I wonder if d3 will have 64 bit processing ? anyone know ?
Click to expand...

Don't count on it... John Carmack has publicly stated he doesn't see any benefit of 64-bit computing, yet.
 
Originally posted by Josh_B
Except that since Nvidia is partners with AMD, ATI pretty much has to be partners with Intel. Intel obviously would rather push Prescott and forget about Yamhill, thus they are probably pressuring ATI into not releasing 64-bit drivers. (In return, ATI may get cost breaks on P4 bus licenses, or other such things.)
Click to expand...

Ohh awesome conspiracy theory!! I like that one a lot because it seems so plausable.
 
Originally posted by Josh_B
Don't count on it... John Carmack has publicly stated he doesn't see any benefit of 64-bit computing, yet.
Click to expand...

I think that was about 64bit colours, not 64bit cpu's.
 
Originally posted by theNoid
HL2 is gunna be a great game, but doesn't need anything near 64bit to get 100fps. Its NOT a graphically intense game engine. The full beta was fun but even on high the graphics won't be 1/2 of what d3 will be. I wonder if d3 will have 64 bit processing ? anyone know ?
Click to expand...

The P4 2.8C w/ an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro got about 60 fps in HL2 at only 1024x768 32-bit color and no AA or AS. I doubt with everything turned on you could get 100 fps right now. That could change with 64-bit drivers and the next line of graphics cards from ATI and nVidia to be released in the spring. But as Josh_B mentioned, ATI seems not to keen on releasing 64-bit drivers. Probably because they have an agreement with Intel. After all, they do have a chipset out for Socket 462. Although I don't like nVidia gfx cards anymore, I respect them for standing up to Intel at a time when the only viable chipsets for AMD was Via or SiS.
 
Dave Please Posrt a link regarding your info on FPS for Half Life 2. I would like to see those stats of a P4 getting 60FPS at 1024X768.
 
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1863&p=1

Sorry it was P4 3.0C and an 128mb ATI Radeon 9800 Pro that got around 60 fps at 1280x1024, AA and AS disabled. At 1024x768 with AA and AS disabled, it got around 70 fps. With the final version comes out, the game will probably have optimizations that make it run better. But the main factor will be the next-gen cards coming out in spring.
 
I agree Dave, funny thing is by the time this game actually comes out will NVidia and ATI have there new card out? Kinda makes all this hoopla over the 9800s a moot point. Ill be selling my 9800XT soon, also ill be selling my FX cpu/ mobo as well, aint gonna hang onto a dead platform.
 
I don't know if the new gfx cards will be out by the time Doom 3 is released because it's rumored for a March release date. But it will be close. And Half-Life 2...who knows when Valve is going to release it. But I'm sure the next-gen cards will show massive improvements in DX9 performance. If it's like the 9800XT and and only shows a 6-10% performance increase over the 9800 Pro, that'll be disappointing. Exactly why I didn't spend $500 on the 9800XT though...that and the fact I am poor :(

I'm sure you'll get a pretty good selling price for your FX-51 and 9800XT. Right now, it's still top of the line even though the A64 3400+ is encroaching. Even if you sell it after Socket 939 comes out, I think people will still want to buy it because the initial prices for Socket 939 cpu's will be jacked up (even more since AMD is increasing the PR rating 200 points for any Socket 939 cpu, like the A64 3000+ in Socket 754 would become the A64 3200+ in Socket 939). I'm not sure though if people will buy it after 90nm A64 chips come out.
 
Doom3 is 'supposed' to ship around April [I put the marks because Id is being SMART and simply saying when it's done as the official word] which would put it right in line with the NV40 and R420 and the start of Activision's fiscal year. But yes, D3 will really bring computers to their kness whereas HL will just make them duck a little bit. Both of them however will be optimized to take advantage of HT. Don' really know or care what that means, I plan on having my NV40/R420 [whichever performs better in D3 will be my choice] by that time.

Also, you're all off, Carmack was bitching that 32-Bit [colors] doesn't really operate at 32 but at 24, with the last 8 being reserved for some kind of rendering passes. All greek to me, didn't get a word of it, just got that Carmack doesn't like the crastrated 32-bit mode.
 
Ya i just want the games, it seems like us comsumers kinda got screwed on the last 2 generations of video cards. If you kinda think about it, a GeForce TI500 card can still play most games to and extent, is there gonna be a DirextX10 before we even gett really any DirectX9 games?
 
Originally posted by Xspringe
I think that was about 64bit colours, not 64bit cpu's.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain he was discussing AMD64...

(Gratuitously ripped from Shacknews...)

"Carmack on DOOM3 Hardware (12:11 PM)
179 Comments - Steve Gibson
A little more sumpin sumpin from Carmack discussing hardware and DOOM3 related things. Firstly our unofficial Carmack correspondent Abrasion got a bit from The Carmack on the future 64bit CPUs and how they will get along with DOOM3:

Q: "Assuming that the Hammer CPU is out within 3 months of D3's release, and Windows ?? 64bit is also out, what do you think the chances are of a 64bit binary for Doom 3? - slim? - none? - "mildly possible" - or damn certain?

A: Slim. A 64 bit binary is likely to be slightly slower than a 32 bit binary, because pointers will consumer more memory bandwidth. You only get a speed benefit from 64 bit when you need long integers, or you need to access more than (roughly) 2 gigs of memory."

http://www.shacknews.com/ja.zz?comments=20918
 
I remmeber the interview but forget he actually said it would be faster in 64bit mode, very impressive.
 
Originally posted by Marcdaddy
Ya i just want the games, it seems like us comsumers kinda got screwed on the last 2 generations of video cards. If you kinda think about it, a GeForce TI500 card can still play most games to and extent, is there gonna be a DirextX10 before we even gett really any DirectX9 games?
Click to expand...

Well, software is usually a year and a half behind hardware. As we know, games are only beginning to take advantage of DX9 even though DX9 compatible cards were out a year ago (ATI Radeon 9700 Pro).

Microsoft stated that they would not come out with a new version of DirectX anytime soon. They're currently working on Longhorn and its 3d graphics engine.
 
Originally posted by DocFaustus
Ohh awesome conspiracy theory!! I like that one a lot because it seems so plausable.
Click to expand...

Well, I would say it's less of a conspiracy theory, than good business sense. If ATI are partners with Intel, they won't be worrying too much about optimizing performance for AMD64, when SSE3 just came out.

If the two are partners, they each benefit from optimizing for each other. That's just good business sense ;)
 
Hell i could care less what CPU/VID Card/ OS i just want the games and the best equipment for them, i show no allegiance to any one company, I wanted to buy a Prescott but im waiting for some of the Hard OCPers to get there hands on them, seems like the intial batch of em may not be that good for OCing, and i long for the day i can buy another NVidia card because its simply the best and fastest thing on the market. I remember when i bought my 9700Pro and since then 3 different ATI cards later, im still more then happy with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top