AMD 64 bit optimised Far Cry out

Scruff

Accouring to the inquirer:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23140

anyone who have a AMD64 and XP64 pro notice a difference?

ARGINITE

Read a review on anandtech this morning not very impressed.

jesus_thats_gre

ARGINITE wrote:

Read a review on anandtech this morning not very impressed.

With the game or the "64 bit" revolution

BloodBath

When will people learn that 64 bit makes no difference and will make no difference for a long time. MARKETING.


BloodBath

ambro25

Got an AMD64 3000, 512 RAM, Radeon 9200 128Megs. Could never get it to run in demo or full game

ionapaul

ambro25 wrote:

Got an AMD64 3000, 512 RAM, Radeon 9200 128Megs. Could never get it to run in demo or full game

Don't you need to be funning on a 64-bit OS (XP64, etc...)?

MrPinK

BloodBath wrote:

When will people learn that 64 bit makes no difference

No, it's the doubling of the number of GPR's and XMM registers that makes the difference. Native 64-bit optimized code does run faster because of those.

In terms of gaming it tho, you're right, it could be a long time before you see it making a differnece. The next Unreal engine will probably be the first to see any real improvement, as the 64-bit version is being built from the ground up and not just as a patch for the regular version à la Far Cry.

Ciaran500

I think some of the upgrades make the game look worse. e.g.: http://www.amdzone.com/pics/gaming/farcry/64bit/boatground.jpg

There relying to much on bump mapping.

uberpixie

ambro25 wrote:

Got an AMD64 3000, 512 RAM, Radeon 9200 128Megs. Could never get it to run in demo or full game

Get a new gfx card.....

A radeon 9200 with a amd 64 is sacreliege.

BloodBath

I meant in gaming. This is nothing more than a marketing ploy from AMD. They hand crytek a wad of cash. Crytek make this version, change a few textures and imply that this is only possible with a64. The benchmarks show the game performs worse fps wise if anything. That screeny of the bump mapped rocks is terrible. That part genuinely looks worse.


BloodBath

Horsefumbler

Will this stop the game from being so lame i wonder?

ambro25

uberpixie wrote:

Get a new gfx card.....

A radeon 9200 with a amd 64 is sacreliege.

LOL! I know, I know, been thinking 'bout it! 'tis an off-the-shelf HP Pavilion tower, tbh, and was lately more interested (funds-wise) in getting an extra lappie (D600) first than upgd RAM & Gfx on tower.
I'm not even sure if I can go PCI-Express, what's the FSB or anything... I'm reasonably IT-literate, just never had a chance to get down to it

BloodBath

Will this stop the game from being so lame i wonder?

I thought it was one of the best pc games of 2004. Definitly better than Doom3. Sure the storyline was crap but I though the gameplay and graphics were pretty damn good.


BloodBath

Ciaran500

The gameplay was great...until they introduced the trigens. Then it went downhill.

Azza

Best first person shooter in ages this game was in my view. Pissed on Doom III and Half Life 2.

There is imporvements there I do think the draw distance looks alot better and the game does run slightly better than the 32bit (when using both 64bit binarys and OS). According to these benchmarks Intel EMT 64 chips benefit the most but still can't counter AMD's overall edge.

In terms of making a difference it has been shown that there considerable benefits when using a Linux distro. Windows XP 64 is now more or less on parity with some apps slightly slower and some slightly faster (driver availibilty improving but remains a problem).
Even Bill Gates was saying 64bit is way of the future. Even if AMD where pushing the cart in front of the horse I ain't too crictical of them compared to the shanigans Intel pulls.

mp3guy

ambro25 wrote:

Got an AMD64 3000, 512 RAM, Radeon 9200 128Megs. Could never get it to run in demo or full game

you can't be serious, i got it running on an Athlon XP 2600+ and a MX440!! Have you any idea how crap that card is?

BloodBath

In terms of making a difference it has been shown that there considerable benefits when using a Linux distro. Windows XP 64 is now more or less on parity with some apps slightly slower and some slightly faster (driver availibilty improving but remains a problem).

Not denying it's the way of the future but it's still another year or two off actually beating 32-bit apps and games and completely taking over. My point was that this far cry stunt is nothing more than marketing rather than showing the potential of 64-bit processors. They tweaked the engine and increased the draw distance slightly, woop de doo. The draw distance should have been tweakable by the user in the first place. Change a texture here, change a texture there and then announce hey look at what 64-bit can do when it would have been possible to achieve the exact same results on 32-bit.

Originally Posted by ambro25
Got an AMD64 3000, 512 RAM, Radeon 9200 128Megs. Could never get it to run in demo or full game


you can't be serious, i got it running on an Athlon XP 2600+ and a MX440!! Have you any idea how crap that card is?

True I have a mate who used to run it pretty well on his 9200 with an athlon xp and 512mb of ram. Try updating the drivers.


BloodBath

Prior Of Taize

fantastic looking game tho (assuming you update your ATI drivers to stop water appearing on the side of buildings unlike me :mad: )

Azza

Well even if you could change the draw distance and slightly improve texturing you would expect a performance hit normally not a slight improvement. If they left it the same as well as the textures I assume they would of got a better fps than they did.

BloodBath

I wouldn't just put it down to the 64bitness either. They could easily have optimised it to perform the same even though the draw distance is longer. The benchmarks I saw showed a slight performance drop in 64bit, only 1-2fps though on the a64.


BloodBath

Azza

The ones on anandtech show a 7.2fps increase for AMD and 8.4fps increase on EMT 64 chips.

I reckon there is a benifit there not much but its there.