67 replies to this topic

[Thorqemada]

Its more than 10 years since the 64-Bit CPU appeared and MS still offers a 32-Bit-Windows...

Some Software runs a tad faster (i.e. Crysis) according to old tests but i dont know if this would be true for MWO.

[Nemesis Duck]

Potentially. When I hear 64 bit, faster isn't what comes to mind, I think more memory and bigger numbers.

What's the largest integer I can represent with 32 bits?
2^32 = 4,294,967,296 <--- I can't put a number greater than this into a single 32bit integer

What's the largest integer I can represent with 64 bits?
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 <--- mamma mia!

Since a pointer is based on the integer data type, you can represent a broader address range with 64 bit pointer. That means more memory can be used. This is where the 4GB limitation for a 32 bit OS comes from.

http://www.viva64.com/en/k/0003/

[Kjudoon]

I suspect my new AMD FX8320 CPU with 8 cores 3.5ghz should be fine with an R9 280x with 3gb GPU and 8gb of 2133 ram.

But I never know after reading some of the stuff here.

[JimboFBX]

64 bit unlocks the sse2 instruction set and more registers which can provide meaningful performance gains.

Memory usage will increase but not by 2x.

[Thorqemada]

In the past we had 4 or 8 or 16 Megabyte - today we have 4 or 8 or 16 Gigabyte -> we use today ~1000 times the Ram.

PS: And when you started with 16 Kilobyte its ~1.000.000 times the Ram we have today.

[Chrithu]

JimboFBX, on 28 October 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

It just occurred to me...

I have a 64-bit processor

This is a 32-bit program

Couldn't this potentially run more efficiently as a 64-bit executable?

Yep it could. Especially when it used all benefits that come with 64 bit. Like not only more addressable ram but alo larger and thus more precise floating point opreation allowing for large maps/higher speeds.

[Grendel408]

Armament, on 20 October 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

So you don't admit 25fps is a bit low for that processor? With that CPU and video card they should have no issue running most modern games at 60fps.

before my most recent hardware update... I had an i3 2100K CPU and a ATI Radeon HD 6850 GPU, with 8gb Gskill RAM and a Corsair 750TX PSU... plus running MWO on a nice SSD helps greatly too! Even then... I was getting between 20-45 FPS without Vsync active.

Old CPUs will be a killer on your gaming experience regardless of how good your memory or GPU is... it's time you upgrade your **** dude

Now... using my i7 3770K CPU with a new Geforce GTX 660Ti (everything else the same inside), I can pull somewhere between 40-80 FPS without Vsync... I've enabled Vsync this time around to better stabilize my FPS between 45-60 as MWO is far from optimized (not including a memory leak somewhere). All settings on highest... "optimized" using Nvidia Experience tool.

Edited by Grendel408, 30 October 2014 - 01:00 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

I enabled "Turbo Core Control" in Overdrice for my 1090T, which should dynamically overclock from 3.2GHz to 3.6GHz as required. I also upped my 6970's clock from 940Mhz to 960Mhz.

I then when and changed my game settings and toned down all the worst hitting features

Resolution: 1920x1080
Window Mode: Full Window
VSync: Off
Motion Blur: Off
DX Version: DX9

Effects: Very High
Object Detail: Very High
Particles: Low
Post Processing: Low
Shading: Very High
Shadows: Very High
Texturing: Very High
Environment: Very High
Anti-Aliasing: Off

What this nets me is a much more stable frame rate between 30 and 40, that dips into 25-30 when using the vision modes or under intense fire. It's not great, but much better than the 18-25 I was getting before. Smoke from running hot had on occasion caused my FPS to plummet into slideshow territory with sub 10fps, but now it barely affects it.

There's still a lot of optimisations that MWO can and should do, but these settles allow the game to be far more playable without sacrificing too much in the way of graphics.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 01 November 2014 - 11:13 PM.