88 replies to this topic

[EgoSlayer]

Cavale, on 18 December 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

Well, I used to dip to 30 FPS; Now It's only dipping to 45. Actually getting a 55-70 FPS average.

Not bad.

I suspect that is probably more from optimizations to fix the video memory allocation errors than just from the 64-bit client, but there may be a few FPS in there from 64-bit.

[Bill Lumbar]

In any event... dropped three matches in CW, and 4 in normal cue.... looks like things are smooth, and FPS are up for sure. No issues that I could see, and a improvement for sure. Running 16 gb of ddr3 1866 and a fx-8350 at 5 ghz, ATI XFX 7970 3gb card and a Samsung 512 gb SSD. Nice to see I am now pushing into the mid 80's fps. 64 bit is where it is at...and has been for a while now.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 18 December 2014 - 10:40 PM.

[Alek Ituin]

Scratx, on 18 December 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

lolno

128 bit is utter overkill. Anything you might need that kind of addressing space for you're going to be working on specialized supercomputers anyway.

And for computations there are probably (almost definitely certain) libraries that offer that kind of precision already. Though there's not a lot of stuff you'd need better precision than double precision to deal with. Just make sure you understand the data type, how the standard works and how to minimize error margins and avoid catastrophic cancellations and whatnot.

Quantum computing is more powerful than any currently known method of computation. It makes everything else useless in comparison, especially traditional binary systems.

You could have a 64-qubit computer operating at a level that far outstrips a 128-bit OS.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 18 December 2014 - 10:57 PM.

[CocoaJin]

Samurai 7, on 18 December 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

Not showing off; im just single, wealthy and board.....

What do you do with your previous builds?...because married with children, working lower-middle class and in need of a replacement of a burned out game rig is looking for bargains.

[Alek Ituin]

CocoaJin, on 19 December 2014 - 12:08 AM, said:

What do you do with your previous builds?...because married with children, working lower-middle class and in need of a replacement of a burned out game rig is looking for bargains.

Build a rig yourself if you're hard up for cash. I'd recommend a solid i5 CPU, a 2GB G-DDR5 GPU, 8GB RAM, a 750W PSU, and whatever case fits your budget and your parts. I recommend the MSI Z-87 GD65 mobo, it's a pretty good base from what I can tell. Word of warning, despite having an AMD CPU myself, I wouldn't recommend them. They bottleneck like mad, and I'm starting to feel the pain... Makes my 4GB GDDR5 card perform like a 2GB GDDR3 card. Not fun. Not to mention that my FX-8350 just about explodes if I play anything that requires some modicum of CPU power.

You can get those parts for $850-$900 on Newegg, btw. Probably cheaper somewhere else, but I just like Newegg.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 19 December 2014 - 12:49 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Alek Ituin, on 18 December 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

Quantum computing is more powerful than any currently known method of computation. It makes everything else useless in comparison, especially traditional binary systems.

You could have a 64-qubit computer operating at a level that far outstrips a 128-bit OS.

Will be if the hard problems of isolating the computation at the quantum level is ever solved, but that is a pretty big but. It might turn out to be as hard to solve as fusion, so yeah...

I'm not sure the 32, 64, 128 bit thing is relevant to the issue of near infinite raw processing power which is the thing about quantum computing, so that's comparing apples an oranges to some degree I think.

[Demuder]

Alek Ituin, on 18 December 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

Quantum computing is more powerful than any currently known method of computation. It makes everything else useless in comparison, especially traditional binary systems.

You could have a 64-qubit computer operating at a level that far outstrips a 128-bit OS.

A common misconception. (Theoretical) Quantum computers are not necessarily faster, they just do things in a different way that normal binary computers.

A little popular science on the subject

[LordKnightFandragon]

Viktor Drake, on 18 December 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

Well for me it means my 16 GB of RAM actually finally won't be going to waste.

Honestly what it should mean is better performance if you have a good machine running lots of RAM and a 64-bit OS.

cSand, on 18 December 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Should allow the client to use more RAM. For example, if you have 8GB of Ram in your computer, 32 bit Windows (any version) can only use up to 4GB so your other 4GB is useless. 64bit Windows can manage much more (Win 8.1 pro x64 can manage up to 512 GB RAM... Server 2012 STD can use... 2 TB of RAM )

I don't think you can expect a big performance boost or anything like that, in fact on a lower end machine it may even degrade performance a bit. But if you got a good computer with lots of RAM, you may as well go 64bit.

I doubt though that MWO by itself would even use 4GB. But hey, if you got all this RAM you may as well give MWO the option of using it

^^^^What you hope will happen



VVV What is likely to happen

[Alek Ituin]

Demuder, on 19 December 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

A common misconception. (Theoretical) Quantum computers are not necessarily faster, they just do things in a different way that normal binary computers.

Except I wasn't wrong about quantum computers rendering conventional binary computers obsolete in computing power. It's even explained in your video that quantum computers are exponentially more powerful with each additional qubit. By lowering the required operations you do in fact complete complex computations faster.

You can't have exponentially less operations of slightly longer time be slower than exponentially more operations of slightly less time (as he explained it). It's an impossibility, like reaching a point by dividing your distance by half each time. If that were the case, quantum computers wouldn't be around, since you would be able to do the same thing faster with conventional computers.

I'm not talking about everyday use here either, I'm talking about raw computing power available to a system. An area in which quantum computers will win, hands down.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 19 December 2014 - 05:05 AM.

[SgtMagor]

ok, so you click the tab to enable 64bit, but I don't see any notice or anyway to confirm that the game is running in 64bit ?

[Creovex]

Running 64 bit and notice the following:

• 10-20 FPS increase ingame (while alive)
  
• 20-30 FPS increase when ghosting (after death view)
  
• Fast movement and response in UI 2.0

Anyone else feeling the same thing? Anyone change any of the user.cfg settings POST patch and 64bit selection?

Edited by Creovex, 19 December 2014 - 05:55 AM.

[Demuder]

Alek Ituin, on 19 December 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

Except I wasn't wrong about quantum computers rendering conventional binary computers obsolete in computing power. It's even explained in your video that quantum computers are exponentially more powerful with each additional qubit. By lowering the required operations you do in fact complete complex computations faster.

You can't have exponentially less operations of slightly longer time be slower than exponentially more operations of slightly less time (as he explained it). It's an impossibility, like reaching a point by dividing your distance by half each time. If that were the case, quantum computers wouldn't be around, since you would be able to do the same thing faster with conventional computers.

I'm not talking about everyday use here either, I'm talking about raw computing power available to a system. An area in which quantum computers will win, hands down.

Ah, if you are referring to how a supercomputer can put out so many more gigaflops than my humble i5, sure. However, I bet you that my i5 runs MWO better than the best of them (supercomputers I mean).

I get what you are saying, but hey, I don't care about raw computing power, only how its application affects me. I only replied to your statement because it seemed to much of a.. blanket statement.

Anyway, we are way of topic here and I don't think we are in disagreement in the first place.

[mogs01gt]

Scratx, on 18 December 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

lolno

128 bit is utter overkill. Anything you might need that kind of addressing space for you're going to be working on specialized supercomputers anyway.

And for computations there are probably (almost definitely certain) libraries that offer that kind of precision already. Though there's not a lot of stuff you'd need better precision than double precision to deal with. Just make sure you understand the data type, how the standard works and how to minimize error margins and avoid catastrophic cancellations and whatnot.

5 internet points bet we will see something in the mainstream will require 128bit in 10 year!

Edited by mogs01gt, 19 December 2014 - 05:56 AM.

[Flapdrol]

mogs01gt, on 19 December 2014 - 05:56 AM, said:

5 internet points bet we will see something in the mainstream will require 128bit in 10 year!

Doubt it, 64 bit isn't the double of 32 bit, it's 4294967296 times as much.

[Bill Lumbar]

Alek Ituin, on 19 December 2014 - 12:48 AM, said:

Build a rig yourself if you're hard up for cash. I'd recommend a solid i5 CPU, a 2GB G-DDR5 GPU, 8GB RAM, a 750W PSU, and whatever case fits your budget and your parts. I recommend the MSI Z-87 GD65 mobo, it's a pretty good base from what I can tell. Word of warning, despite having an AMD CPU myself, I wouldn't recommend them. They bottleneck like mad, and I'm starting to feel the pain... Makes my 4GB GDDR5 card perform like a 2GB GDDR3 card. Not fun. Not to mention that my FX-8350 just about explodes if I play anything that requires some modicum of CPU power.

You can get those parts for $850-$900 on Newegg, btw. Probably cheaper somewhere else, but I just like Newegg.

My god man..... What have you Over clocked your 8350 to? Why is is about to explode, what kinda cooler do you have on it? I can not speak for having a graphics card with 4 gb.... but my 7970 3 gb is for sure not bottle necked by my 8350, even at stock clocks. I have a 6870 2 gb from my older rig that runs in my Intel Q9550 build, had it overclocked to 4 ghz, and I have tried the 6870 2 gb with my FX 8350 at stock and at 5ghz overclock. When I upgraded to the 7970 3 gb card.... I noticed a huge difference in FPS from the 6870 2 gb. Not feeling your bottle neck issues on my rig at all, and I have no regrets with the AMD system I built about a year ago. I run water cooling on my rigs, and My 8350 never hits above 38C no matter what I throw at it.

Creovex, on 19 December 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

Running 64 bit and notice the following:

• 10-20 FPS increase ingame (while alive)
  
• 20-30 FPS increase when ghosting (after death view)
  
• Fast movement and response in UI 2.0

Anyone else feeling the same thing? Anyone change any of the user.cfg settings POST patch and 64bit selection?

I am seeing everything you are..... maybe even a few more FPS on the avg. UI.2 is faster now, saving mech load outs is one thing that I noticed is much faster then before.

[girl on fire]

I heard that very few games ever use more than 1GB of VRAM is this true?

[cSand]

girl on fire, on 19 December 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

I heard that very few games ever use more than 1GB of VRAM is this true?

I would say these days it is not so true. MWO can easily use more than that!

But it also depends on resolution and graphics settings

[Bill Lumbar]

girl on fire, on 19 December 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

I heard that very few games ever use more than 1GB of VRAM is this true?

I am not sure if it really even comes down to what any game uses at this point.... but more to do with how a game is optimized under the hood/engine. I have went from 512 mb cards to 1 gb to 2 gb and now my current 7970 3 gb card. I have played many different games, Several like DOW and DOW II, Aliens vs. Predator, and MWO, I have noticed a very noticeable difference in fps, and smoothness while playing the game after upgrading to the 6870 2 gb card. Other games I play, not so much once I got past any card with 1 gb of ram. My XFX 6870 2gb will play this game, and gets me about a 25-35 avg fps tops.... this of coarse is before MWO did the 64-bit switch, so I haven't tried it out yet on my other rigs.

cSand, on 19 December 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

I would say these days it is not so true. MWO can easily use more than that!

But it also depends on resolution and graphics settings

yep.....I run on a Hanns-g 1900x1200 resolution.... and it plays a huge part on how many FPS you will get from your given card. Higher resolution played, the more taxing it is on the graphics card.

Edited by Bill Lumbar, 19 December 2014 - 10:29 AM.

[Roland]

Here's some actual real information for folks regarding graphics card hardware and its impact on gaming.
http://www.tomshardw...ths,3694-5.html

[JoJoxy]

SgtMagor, on 19 December 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

ok, so you click the tab to enable 64bit, but I don't see any notice or anyway to confirm that the game is running in 64bit ?

You can check in task manager. Right click MWOClient -> go to details. If the path to the executable is like "<whatever>\MechWarrior Online\Bin64\MWOClient.exe" you are using the 64bit executable