PDA

View Full Version : 64-bit



XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 03:55 PM
How will 64-bit computing, in the future, affect flight simulators, such as IL-2? Will we see 64-bit versions of the software (or rather, how soon), and how much would 64-bit computing/programming increase performance?

I'm not a real technical person, but was just wondering what opinions the better-informed persons had ont his subject.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 03:55 PM
How will 64-bit computing, in the future, affect flight simulators, such as IL-2? Will we see 64-bit versions of the software (or rather, how soon), and how much would 64-bit computing/programming increase performance?

I'm not a real technical person, but was just wondering what opinions the better-informed persons had ont his subject.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:04 PM
64-bit is not god's gift to computers...

what you should prove interesting is nano technology.

64-bit is a hype.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:10 PM
64 Bit computing has been out for years, remember the Alpha?



Cpt-Madcowz
Comsa (http://www.comsa.co.uk)



"When the hunter comes, the tiger runs with the deer."


http://www.comsa.co.uk/images/uploads/il2_ram.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:39 PM
I don't think it will affect the sim world a lot.

The major benefits from a 64-bit architecture is a larger memory support and higher precision in arithmetic operations.

I think most computers will be 64-bit way before we sim geeks really need it.

Here is a link to nice straightforward doc about 64 versus 32 bit processors.

http://www.pdc.kth.se/~pek/64vs32bits.txt

//paze

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:41 PM
We will benefit from the larger memory model, as next version of il2 will need 1234 GB of RAM ;-)

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:53 PM
I stand corrected. That may very well be the case. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

/paze

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:58 PM
Thanks for the link and information.

A bit disappointing though. I was hoping that there might be a significant performance gain with the new processors. Anyway, I doubt that anything short of the computer actually shooting back would actually satisfy me.


And, may I take this opportunity to whine for the patch release. Whine ...

There, that helped. Much better now. Seems to take the edge off a bit.

Bearcat99
04-08-2004, 12:02 PM
Im sure the difference will be similar to th difference between say a 486 and a Pentium 4.... with the 486 running 16bit OS and the P-4 running a 32 bit OS. It wont be mind blowing..nothing holographic but it should be better with more detail.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

BaldieJr
04-08-2004, 01:00 PM
Umm....

3.2GB/s memory bandwidth

Versus

6.4GB/s memory bandwidth

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

mortoma
04-08-2004, 01:17 PM
I used to work for IBM as a mainframe technician so I know something about achitecture. Also 64 bit has been used in mainframes for quite some time. Some of these naysayers are wrong. Of course it will make a big difference, if and when programmer at companies like Maddox start programmimg sims in 64 bit!!! It will be a huge difference. The one poster is correct about the more precise arithmetic computations, which is huge in of itself. But in general the fact that can move graphics and sound data in chunks twice as large (quadruple words of data) from memory into processor registers to be moved into the appropriate places, like the sound card and video card, will be earth shattering. The newer technologies coming out that eclipse AGP ports will help with moving the now larger amounts of graphics data. This is only the tip of the iceberg. People who say it won't help flight sims don't know what they are talking about. Now they just have to start programming some sims in 64 bit!!!

[This message was edited by mortoma on Thu April 08 2004 at 12:31 PM.]

NerdConnected
04-08-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fresshness:
64-bit is not god's gift to computers...

what you should prove interesting is nano technology.

64-bit is a hype.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

64 is not a hype. If it is a hype, so is 32, 16, 8 and 4 ;-)

"The German Army had become so used to having to no air support that they had a simple saying, "If the plane is silver or blue, it's an Allied plane. If it's invisible, it's ours." (EAW manual, The Fall of the Third Reich).

Aaron_GT
04-08-2004, 01:47 PM
"Umm.... 3.2GB/s memory bandwidth
Versus 6.4GB/s memory bandwidth"

Using a 64 bit chip doesn't magically
increase the memory bandwidth. It only does
so if you increase the lines into the processor
too. If you did some cunning stuff with a
32 bit design and twice the number of lines
then you could get 6.4GB/s memory bandwidth too!

Basically the only advantage of 64 bit
computing is being able to address natively
larger amounts of memory without needing to
do cunning (and time consuming) tricks to do so.

Going from 16 bits (640k addressable) to
32 bits (4GB addressable) was a bigger leap
for home computing than 32 to 64 bits will be
as even FB doesn't need more than 4GB of RAM
as yet, but it was relatively easy to go over
640k (and 16 bit OSes did support more than
640k, but through horrible paging kludges that
slowed things down).

BaldieJr
04-08-2004, 04:16 PM
Aaron_GT,

No, you are wrong. This is 1st year digital electronics class material.

64-bit has twice the throughput of 32-bit.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
______ _____
(, / ) /) /) , (, /
/---( _ // _(/ _ / __ ,""""]
+----/ ____)(_(_(/_(_(__(__(/____/__/ (__--------,' /---+
| / ( / ,' NR / |
|(_/ ..-""``"'-._ (_/ __,' 42 _/ |
+-.-"" "-..,____________/7,.--"" __]-----+

</pre>

Agamemnon22
04-08-2004, 04:30 PM
Baldie: sure, in a parallel connection. In serial it makes no difference. Also, you're assuming that the memory and its interface are 64 bits wide. IIRC, for current Athlon64's that isn't the case. Could be wrong on that tho.

Aaron_GT
04-08-2004, 05:58 PM
BaldieJr:
"No, you are wrong."

A 64 bit BUS has twice the throughput
or a 32 bit bus. However, you can arrange a
32 bit processor to have a wider than 32
bit databus, however. (You move a number
of bytes in parallel to the processor).
So moving a 64 bit processor architecture
does not necessarily mean an automatic
increase in throughput. The increase in
throughput is due to the data bus increase.
As an example there are versions of the
ATI 9800 (see other threads) with 128 bit
or 256 bit data buses. I would doubt that
any of them are more than 32 bit processor
designs.

fordfan25
04-08-2004, 07:26 PM
ya, ya, ya,. but will it make toast http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

tsisqua
04-08-2004, 07:46 PM
How about my little AMD64 3200+?

The equivilent of 1,600 megs fsb?

And I am still running the 32 bit home XP.

It screams.

Now, if XP 64Bit will just get finished.

And some 64 bit apps are programmed.


I can't wait http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tsisqua

BlackPhenix
04-08-2004, 07:48 PM
If you have seen the AMD 64bit processors in action, then you know that they scream and are better than anything else out by far.

Hunter82
04-08-2004, 07:54 PM
Haven't met a 64 bit system that does better than mine yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

==============================
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)
Catalyst Driver Download (http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html)
==============================

lbhskier37
04-08-2004, 08:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Aaron_GT,

No, you are wrong. This is 1st year digital electronics class material.

64-bit has twice the throughput of 32-bit.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
</pre><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Every processor that uses SD or DDR ram uses 32bit memory buses. The Athlon64 (current one at least, socket 939 will change that) uses 1 32bit memory bus so has 3.2GB/s theoretical memory bandwidth. An Athlon XP on an Nforce board, and P4 on a 875 or 865 board uses 2 32bit memory buses, and therefore has 6.4GB/s theoretical memory bandwidth. There is no 64bit bus memory on the horizon that I know of. If you remember RDRAM, that stuff used a 16bit memory bus. If you want to be more confused I have a computer that is about 2 years old now that has a 64bit PCI bus in ithttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now about 64bit processors, the memory addressibility will come into play sooner than you think, how much ram did you guys have in your computers 3 years ago? Flight sims are very CPU intesive programs. If a sim was written natively to run in 64bit I would imagine the physics engine could be much more complex, same with AI. Those are the things that are hugely CPU intensive and those are the things that will be revolutionized once our hardware gets there. Do you guys realize how simplified the fluid flow calculations (airflow) have to be to run realitime on current systems? Just for a little taste, look up the boost Unreal2k3 got just by a recompile to use the new 64bit registers. Its gonna be a big jump, eventually.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig3.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

lil_labbit
04-08-2004, 08:03 PM
oooh how I envy you guys... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

1.7G P4 1024MB DDR 266 with a (dont laugh!) GeF2Ti 32MB 4xAGP under Windows XP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif &lt;- that XP kills my Korg Oasys PCI too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif((( D!

http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?A_PROD_NO=OASYSPCI

I'll go down in specs soon I think...
I realy miss my synth http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Night is better than Day

Luftkillier
04-08-2004, 08:16 PM
Dream on. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunter82:
Haven't met a 64 bit system that does better than mine yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

==============================
http://www.mudmovers.com
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/
http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html
==============================<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lbhskier37
04-08-2004, 09:10 PM
Hunter's always gotta come by and make me feel like my system is crap http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig3.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

S 8
04-09-2004, 01:15 AM
I can't wait http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tsisqua[/QUOTE]

But you have too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/113_1080237361_supersig2.jpg

MornJW
04-09-2004, 01:22 AM
Ok, Firstly 64bit is in theory slower unless you're dealing with absurdly large numbers or require large amounts of ram. 32bit or 64bit refers to the size of the registor, it's not some magical thing that will double speed. Think of it as how many numbers a calulator screen can hold, and it's main benefit is working with very large numbers. A 64bit registor is bigger, so it takes slightly longer to compute. Say your number is only 20 bits long, you aren't going to profit from having a bigger registor then and will only be left with the added delay time. Say your number is 50 bits long, it won't fit in the 32bit registor, you have to use some complex maths to do the algorhythm with only a 32bit registor, with a 64bit registor it's easy and fast, just needs 1 step. Now most programs don't require numbers that big, but some do.
However, AMD x86-64 has many many tweaks and improvements on x86, so it's not just 64 bit but 64bit x86 on superchargers and water injection http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That makes up for the slowness of 64 bit, more than makes up. And helps especially for programs that work with large numbers. Benchmarks shows it gives dramatic performance increases of 20%-100% depending on the task. So it will surely aid games of any kind. But only when running x86-64 code of course.
Secondly, 64bit says nothing of memory bandwidth, only of address space, 32bit CPU's can only access 4GB of ram, although some CPU's like the Xeon have 36 bit ram addressing, though the tricks involved in that causes a speed penalty. And regardless, CPU's have had 64bit memory bus's since the around 1993 with the original Pentium, though the mhz has gone up significantly. But this only affects bandwidth.
The P4 today often has a 800mhz 64bit bus, the ram is at 400mhz 64bit today usually, to make up for that, they just double up the ram and make it a 400mhz 128bit ram bus. Strangely it even proves faster on Athlon's which only have a 400mhz 64bit bus. Ahh, but they are all really running at 200mhz, just the P4 can do 4 opperations on the bus in one clock and the Athlon 2, however it's not totally efficient and not as fast as a true 800mhz bus would be, regardless the P4 has better ram speed, but that's not everything, the Athlon's core is more efficient. Now I am going to have to find out what sort of bus the Athlon 64 is packing.

[This message was edited by MornJW on Fri April 09 2004 at 12:31 AM.]

Stalker58
04-09-2004, 01:28 AM
IMO, AMD 64 is faster due to HyperTransfer bus technology, not due to having 64 bit address bus.

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

MornJW
04-09-2004, 01:35 AM
Ok a 64bit addressing only helps you access more than 4GB of ram. A 64bit bus is nothing special, all ram and cpu's have it today, hell the 486 was the last cpu to have a 32 bit bus. The athlon 64 has 64bit registors that helps with large numbers. A re-worked and improved 64 bit x86. And hypertranfer. There are many things that improve it's speed. It has bigger cache too and some improvements on the original athlon design for 32 bit code. Basically, it's faster than the athlon on 32bit code and would really show it's stuff on 64bit code, if the industry ever gets around to releasing 64 bit software. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
04-09-2004, 02:25 AM
One of the big wins of the AMD64 is the fact
that it has been designed with more registers,
and a larger secondary cache. So if you program
to take advantage of this then you win, even
when running in the 32 bit mode (and the 32 bit
compatibility is a bit advantage over the
Itanium). Of course if all the numbers you are
manipulating are 64 bit, then the cache might
effectively be smaller than you'd expect in
terms of the numbers it can hold, but you can
still use 32 bit numbers or less, of course.
If a program is cache friendly, and can make
use of all the registers, then the AMD64 is
fast even when running 32 bit programs.

A cache friendly program is one that can load
a chunk of data into the second (or even
primary) cache, operate on it for a bit, and
then swap to a different set of data. The
speed of access to the cache is generally higher
than to system memory. In flight sim terms
you could imagine it loading in the data for
one plane, operating on it for a millisecond,
then moving onto the next being efficient,
whereas interleaving between several aircraft
within each millisecond would mean swapping
lots of data in and out ('cache churn' and
related 'cache misses'). Also it takes
a surprisingly large amount of time to load
in a piece of data from main memory. People
spend quite a bit of time working out how to
hide the time required to load in a piece of
data behind calculations they have been doing
on the last chunk of data. Compilers are
getting better at doing this, but to make the
best of it you need a specific compiler for
the chip architecture that knows its layout
and can help with some of these decisions (you
still need to do the top level program design
in a sensible way). This is why Intel's
compilers are very good for Intel chips, or
if you are using a Sparc processor, using
the gnu compilers is quick and easy, but using
Sun's own compilers, and some work on
optimisation might allow your program to run
up to 4 times as quickly!

Sorry - I am waffling now.