Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

More on 64-bit Gaming 246

Posted by CmdrTaco from the well-the-server-half-anyway dept.
waytoomuchcoffee writes "Valve has announced "immediate availability" of a linux 64-bit dedicated Counterstrike server, designed to run on AMD's upcoming Opteron. This follows on the heels of Unreal Tournament 2003, previously reported on Slashdot. Gamespy has a related story up on a presentation of the future of 64-bit gaming (sponsored by AMD) at last week's Game Developers Conference. As Intel is in no hurry to make the jump to 64-bit desktops, this leaves AMD to court the gaming market."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on 64-bit Gaming More

More on 64-bit Gaming

Comments Filter:

  • Yes ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:44PM (#5471746) Homepage
    64-bit gaming IS moronic ... no way I can afford it :)

    • Re:Yes ... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by joedavis123 ( 191936 )
      Atleast you know SOMEONE out there will be able to afford it as long as they are dropping $300-400 on a video card.

    • Re:Yes ... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
      The idea is that the Athlon64 is supposed to be comparable in price to current rates on the Athlon XP. Or well, rates from a couple months ago, by this time. So if you can't afford that, you can't afford 32 bit gaming, either.
      • Quite true. I'm limited to a 1GHz Duron with 384MB RAM and a 16MB AGP Voodoo Banshee. Unreal Tournament is the only game I play, and it works fine. And I don't play it multiplayer, bot mode suffices for stress relief. One day I'll be able to sit on the cutting edge, but not right now :)

  • advantage ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bender_ ( 179208 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:46PM (#5471761) Journal
    Ok, nice. But where is the actual advantage ? Are the 64Bit features used anywhere or is it just an updated version to cope with 64 bit addressing or semething similar? The timing of the release seems to hint at this :)

    • Re:advantage ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @06:12PM (#5472972) Homepage
      Hypothetically, you could use 64-bit integers to repleace floating point numbers in many places (think physics engines, graphics calculations, etc). You wouldn't have the same accuracy that you would get from using floats, but it's a nice middle-ground between 32-bit ints, floats, and double-precision floats. Generally speaking, dealing with integers is much faster than dealing with floats.
      • Fixed point arithmetic is probably slower than floating point on a x86, because shifts and imuls also slow..

      • Re:advantage ? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lucasw ( 303536 )
        you could use 64-bit integers to repleace floating point numbers

        Sure, but why?

        You wouldn't have the same accuracy that you would get from using floats

        Correct...

        it's a nice middle-ground between 32-bit ints, floats, and double-precision floats

        Absolutely wrong. Anything that is going to be scaled or rotated (think matrix transformations, vector multiplication, and physics calculations) needs to have floating point representation, unless the processor architecture is incapable of it (the Gameboy Advance or other embedded platforms, say). You can have pseudo floating point with ints (last x bits are behind the decimal, say), but the software needs to do extra work: there's special cases for multiplication, etc. Most processors these days are designed to do floating point operations as fast as anything else, so adding unnecessary overhead that ignores basic funtionality would be stupid.

        If you have a 64-bit cpu, use 64-bit floats instead of 32. 64-bit floats are superior for games because of increased dynamic range for lighting (less color banding with scaling) and other values, and of course less floating point round-off errors (less matrix drift).

        Game servers do no graphical calculations, so there's no advantage there, but some of the physics could be done centrally to prevent the clients from making up their own and cheating.

  • 64 bit is not the only way... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LBArrettAnderson ( 655246 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:46PM (#5471764)
    this leaves AMD to court the gaming market

    making 64 bit chips is not the only way to "court" the gaming market. I'm sure intel has other plans for bigger (read: smaller) and better chips. Eventually I think they will start to make the 64's, but for now they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for game servers).

    • 64-bit desktops (Score:5, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:55PM (#5471821) Homepage Journal


      making 64 bit chips is not the only way to "court" the gaming market. I'm sure intel has other plans for bigger (read: smaller) and better chips. Eventually I think they will start to make the 64's, but for now they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for game servers).

      Correct. However, I have to think--

      THe reason why Intel is not interested in the 64-bit desktop is because there isn't really a market for it.

      The reason why AMD is interested in the 64-bit desktop is that since their chip is backwards compatible, they can use an existing market to subsidize their push into the high end.

      So the problems that Intel has with this market have been deftly dodged by AMD, in what may be an incredible business move. However, that does come at the price of legacy support. Of course at this time, I think that is not an issue, but it may hinder AMD's push into the high end.
      • hmmm...

        THe reason why Intel is not interested in the 64-bit desktop is because there isn't really a market for it.

        a market for it yet... I'm no business major, but do you think they're waiting for AMD to make a market for it? They'll be way behind on developement, but they don't have to spend any money on advertising the "NEW" 64 bit chips
        • a market for it yet... I'm no business major, but do you think they're waiting for AMD to make a market for it? They'll be way behind on developement, but they don't have to spend any money on advertising the "NEW" 64 bit chips

          Well, this is an interesting question. The thing is that the Itanium chips are not backwards compatible so without emulation, you can't run your standard 32-bit applications. AMD, OTOH....

          So, Intel's problem is that in deciding to try to compete in the 64bit space, they have also decided not to support 32-bit binaries the way did with ther 32-bit chips and 16-bit applications. The idea is that support for all this legacy stuff may not be very productive and may hurt them in the high end. This precludes using the Itanium on the desktop for the forseable future (too expensive).

          AMD's approach seems to be that low-cost solutions will sell. So they are trying to push a 64-bit desktop in the hopes that a less expensive (but maybe less efficient) processor might be "good enough" for the server. On the surface it is AMD who appears to be foolish, but I am not so sure.
      • THe reason why Intel is not interested in the 64-bit desktop is because there isn't really a market for it.

        In the consumer space you are correct, but I don't think Intel would sneeze at the workstation market than Sun et al sell into.

        However, that does come at the price of legacy support. Of course at this time, I think that is not an issue, but it may hinder AMD's push into the high end.

        If Apple/Motorola can do it, Intel can do it.

  • Nonsense! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:47PM (#5471768)
    I've been 64-bit gaming for years!! hasn't anyone heard of a Nintendo-64?!?!

  • Well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:47PM (#5471769) Homepage Journal
    A lot of people will buy 64 bit versions of games whether they really get any benefit from the 64 bitness or not. I don't know of many games that need to address more than 4 gigabytes of memory. Sure, there are a couple of other advantages (native 64 bit words, etc.), but this is really just marketing hype.

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LBArrettAnderson ( 655246 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:50PM (#5471791)
      I agree; for now. There are currently no games that *need* 64 bits for their next version, but why not plan ahead? In the next 10 years gaming will have taken a major jump into the realistic world. Doom 3 starts this jump, even at 32 bits. 4 GB will be required for this jump to continue forward. I want to look into my 3D monitor and see a monster; not a cartoon.

      • I want to look into my 3D monitor and see a monster; not a cartoon.

        Everybody who has preordered The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, where everything looks like a cartoon, disagrees with you.

    • Not true! What about IL-2, LO-MAC, ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CodeArt ( 540731 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:17PM (#5471929)
      Motherboard in my IBM NetVista computer (1.6GHz, 512MB) just died yesterday after playing new IL-2 Sturmovik FB for couple hours. I am sure, with currently fastest available 32-bit computers you will experience some kind of slowness if you, let say, increase resolution or fly aircraft over complex terrain or with many AI objects in the scene. Therefore, biggest limitation of 32-bit computing has come to desktop due to very sophisticated games and simulations. Intel is downplaying desktop 64-bit computing because the only solution they have requires complete rewrite of all applications, which very few can afford. AMD has great chance with Opteron to take the lead and shake Intel Empire.
      • My understanding is that 64bit mostly slows things down because 64bit memory addressing requires more logic than 32bit addressing. Doubling the bits won't make the resolution draw faster or make the clock run faster. The main advantages appear to be longer word lengths and larger RAM access (32bit is limited to 4GB). I don't think that the limiting factor in your decription is nessecarily bitness, but CPU throughput.
        • Yes, the memory is the number one factor requiring 64-bits support a.s.a.p. 32-bit Windows XP kernel has 2GB available for user processes where 64-bit Windows XP kernel ported to Itanium provides 7152GB for each user process (don't ask me why this number) from the over 17 billion GB of total available address space. This should be adequate for some tome in the future. :-)

    • Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)

      by prator ( 71051 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:37PM (#5472035)
      x86-64 also gives you another chunk of architectural registers that the programmer/compiler can use. I'm sure this contributes to the jump in performance that is claimed along with the on-chip memory controller.

      -prator
      • Additional registers probably makes less of a difference than you think it does because current 32 bit x86-compatible offerings (Pentium IV and Athlon) have a shitload of temporary registers which they use to accelerate context switching. While it is still a drag to have only four GPRs, you probably have more overhead from the fact that many operations require you to use a certain combination of registers for your source and/or destination operands (Like MUL or DIV for example...)

        • Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)

          by Relic of the Future ( 118669 )
          Actually, AMD has reported upto 15% improvements from recompiling 32-bit code to take advantage of just those extra registers. Even with all those virtual registers, being able to remove all the instructions to spill-and-fill can be a great boost.
    • The press release claims a 30% improvement over an IA-32 version. Sure, it's a press release, but remember that x86-64 is about more than the amount of addressable memory-- there are also architectural improvements.

  • But it's NOT 64-bit code! (Score:5, Informative)

    by JKR ( 198165 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:51PM (#5471798)
    In a straight port of code highly optimized for x86-32, Counter-Strike dedicated server tests with both 32- and 64-bit versions revealed a 30% clock-for-clock gain, and is expected to show further performance gains in future upgrades.

    Sounds like they are simply re-compiling with a new tool chain; nothing about actually changing the code base to take specific advantage of Opteron features. Still, kudos to their coders if their code base just works on 64 bit platforms; there'll be plenty out there that won't, despite availability of the SDKs and programming guides like this [microsoft.com] and this [microsoft.com]

    Jon.

    • Re:But it's NOT 64-bit code! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The reason there is a big performance gain going to 64 bit has to do with the registers. In 64 bit mode they got more of them and don't need to swap as often as they do with 32 bit. This was the main reason for performance gains in UT (as sited by Sweeney) and prolly is the reason why CS is getting a boost.

    • Yes it is (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Since developers don't use assembly anymore, they don't write xbit code. Instead they use a high-level language like C/C++. When you compile C/C++ with a right compiler, you get a 64bit code.

      Linux kernel works in similar way, if you compile some file on x86 you get a 32bit code, if you compile it on 64bit machine you get a 64bit code.

      • Re:Yes it is (Score:4, Informative)

        by Webmonger ( 24302 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:47PM (#5472097) Homepage
        Yeah, but there's a lot of code out there that makes hidden assumptions about 32-bitness. This code acts up when you compile it for 64-bit architectures.
      • Informative? HAH!

        When Linux was ported to Alpha (the first 'official' port, BTW), it ran into many problems because of certain assumptions made by developers when writing code for x86 that was then ported to the Alpha. The worst assumption was that an int is always 32 bits, and that it matches the length of a pointer.

        On a 64-bit platform, where the ints are 32-bit, you'll lose the top 32 bits of a pointer if you try and cram it into an integer. Unfortunately, there's a lot of code out there that does exactly that.

  • mooooooovin on up (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DaLiNKz ( 557579 )
    Why do i view Intel as Microsoft and AMD like Open Source?

  • 64 bits!!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Imazalil ( 553163 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:51PM (#5471802)

    64 bits BAHHH, back in my day we had 2, and we were happy with the both of them! Youngsters.

    but can you imagine... how may players could be on one server tht has over 4 gigs ram, 4 of them athlon 64 cpus, and one massive pipe to the net. Imagine your favorite CS map, but with 500 people on it at once... chicken shoot.

    Ohh yeah and can you imagine a soviet beowulf cluster of these?

    wow... my first all in one post. Lord help me.

  • 64bit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by odyrithm ( 461343 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:52PM (#5471803)
    future of 64-bit gaming

    Didnt we learn from past descussions that word length has nothing to do with how good games are... remeber the jaguar?

    I think the n64 was a good step forward, but then the xbox is 32bit yet far superior....

  • I don't have a problem! (Score:5, Funny)

    by JPriest ( 547211 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:52PM (#5471805) Homepage
    Just because I bought a 64 bit Athlon rack server and an OC3 line for my CS server does not mean I have a problem. You have a problem!
  • They ported counterstrike to the Atari Jaguar? Cool!!

  • Not really 64-bit gaming... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:53PM (#5471811)
    Sorry, but when you say '64-bit gaming', I imagine actually playing the game on the 64-bit machine. In this case, they're talking about a dedicated server. Sorry, but that's not very exciting, nor is it an indication that AMD's getting the jump on Intel through the gaming market.

    I agree that AMD'd have one up on Intel if they did get 64-bit gaming going, but dedicated servers are not going to create a new market. Give me a game that runs noticably better on a 64-bit processor. For example, what extra can they do with Doom III?
    • That was my point exactly, at precisely the same time (12:53).

      I'm tired of treating linux dedicated servers as big news. Seems a lot of people see the word linux and then ignore the words "dedicated server" immediately following it. I like to think of it as the intentionally blind affect (pull the wool over your eyes and chant tralalalala, happy place everything is going along nicely now).

      Evidentally, enough people run the dedicated server under linux to make it worthwhile to keep an up to date port of it, but they're not willing to put forth the effort to actually port the game (and half-life has only been around for HOW long now?).

      Doubt we'll need 64-bit computing power to have 500 people playing on a counterstrike server. Doom 3 however....
    • I think they have a 64-bit version of UT,
      Read it on slashdot maby (a do not know), and that
      it gave some 10% speed increase from the 32-bit
      version (both running on an hammer). I do not
      think it gained any increase in speed with 64-bit
      types, the increase came from the that more
      registers are avaible in 64-bit mode.

  • Server, great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by buffer-overflowed ( 588867 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:53PM (#5471812) Journal
    Ok, so most of the FPS companies are great about releasing servers for linux, but only ID ever releases the game itself.

    There STILL isn't a linux version of half-life OR counterstrike that can be played natively under linux... unless you count WINE (not an emulator, still not native).

    So for those of you that still have windows boxes and a linux box to dabble with, this is great news I'm sure. Those of us who have gone Linux native however, still can't game... 64 bit or 32 bit. (We gots 16 and 8 bit console emulated ROMs tho!)

    • Tottally off topic but your sig... There is a reason that some places card for mixes like sweet and sour, daiquiri, etc... In stores that sell alcohol typically the mixes have 1% alcohol in them so they can get away with putting them in the same store with the liquor. In places like a Wal-Mart or Target the mixes will be alcohol free because that is what they are allowed to carry. It's just a workaround for the laws that are in place to make liquor stores only sell liquor.
    • I suggest you buy ut2k3 from a Linux distributor and then e-mail mrein @ epic.com to tell him you did _because_ of the native Linux support :o) It works great, and they are keeping the patches current with the Windows version. It has a 3Gb install though! IME it is also faster, smooth as a rail @ 800x600 with all the options turned on, the same box running Windows needs all the options turned off, even when using DirectX not OpenGL.
    • unless you count WINE (not an emulator, still not native).

      I don't care how many dorks keep saying that "Wine Is Not an Emulator", but it is. FFS. It's not windows. It pretends to be windows, ie it EMULATES windows... Not all of it, it's not as good as a whole PC emulator, but it's still an emulator.

      </rant>

  • Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 13Echo ( 209846 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:54PM (#5471815) Homepage Journal
    Cool! A Counterstrike server! Now, where's the Linux client that we've been asking for for years, Valve?

    • Re:Cool! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by The Analog Kid ( 565327 )
      Your right you'd think they would have time for it since all they have been doing for years is making Half-Life patches and expansions, oh yeah TF2(Where is it?) You would think they could afford a 3rd party to make port, wait hasn't the source been released?
    • Cool! A Counterstrike server! Now, where's the Linux client that we've been asking for for years, Valve?

      Anyone who knows the story of Half-Life for Mac will tell you that you shouldn't hold your breath.

      Here's the story... Valve commissioned a port of Half-Life to the Mac, and it would have hit the shelves back in late 1999, a year after the PC version was released and declared a smash hit. Mac gamers were clamoring for it, and of course, there were a lot of fan sites that had already sprung up.

      The code was nearly finished. Sierra was less than a week away from mass producing CD's when Gabe Newell of Valve announced the cancellation of the project. Why, because Valve didn't think they'd make money on the project? No, HL for Mac was destined to be a smash hit; DukeNukem 3D for Mac made back all of its development costs the same day it went on sale, and Half-Life for Mac was looking to be as big, if not bigger. No, Valve's problem was that they wanted to build a brand, not simply sell a game; in order to do that, they planned early on that they would make frequent patches to the game.

      The problem is that the Mac port would also have to be updated frequently, and the Mac developers would have to port every patch after its release, including all of the bugs and flaws, in order to maintain full compatibility. It also meant that Mac users would frequently be cut off from the PC users during the lag time between the release of the PC patch and its conversion to the Mac. According to Valve, they decided at the last possible moment that they didn't want Mac users complaining all the time, so they kill the Mac version altogether and pissed of a WHOLE lotta people in the process.

      Valve doesn't have a problem releasing HL for consoles, obviously, because they couldn't update that code even if they wanted to, so the consoles are off in their own HL universe.

      It should also be noted for the record that Gabe Newell of Valve was also a senior manager at Microsoft for a long time before starting Valve, so you can't rule out the possibility that he probably feels very loyal to the Windows platform, and has little to no enthusiam for the minority platforms.

      So... Half-Life for Linux or Mac? It'll never happen.

  • Nice way to benchmark (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rimberg ( 133307 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @01:58PM (#5471836) Homepage
    This is a nice way to run a benchmark on a new chip. In a straight port of code highly optimized for x86-32, Counter-Strike dedicated server tests with both 32- and 64-bit versions revealed a 30% clock-for-clock gain, and is expected to show further performance gains in future upgrades. Its also nice to see Valve putting in the effort to keep it customers happy and running at high speeds. www.valvesoftware.com [valvesoftware.com] Operon web page at AMD [slashdot.org]

  • n-Bit gaming (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:02PM (#5471853)
    Everyone talking about gaming in terms of bits should be shot on sight...

  • Valve? Of all devs... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by victorchall ( 169769 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:04PM (#5471863)
    I guess this begs the question, who cares? Counter-strike doesn't exactly take a $2000 server to run. I think something along the lines of a single AMD 1.4GHz with 256MB SDR SDRAM can run a 20-24 player server without much issue. Dual CPU DDR systems with 512MB shouldn't have any trouble running two 20 player servers. And I think I'm even being generously on the safe side.

    Who in their right mind is going to run Counter-strike servers on expensive 64bit chips when a $40 CPU and pre-DDR architecture has no trouble at all?
    • I doubt anybody is going to build a 64-bit machine for hosting a Counterstrike server. That would be stupid. What they are going to do, however, is build a 64-bit machine for hosting a LOT of services (and possibly multiple Counterstrike servers).

      But that's not really where these CPUs are going to have the most impact. They'll be great for databases and the like, but for gamers the 64-bit CPUs are going to really kick into gear as backends for all the upcoming MMORPGs. That extra address space can go along way when you're hosting servers that contain 1000's of people. And for games like Neverwinter Nights? Well, you just never know what might happen... :)

      Bryan

    • Re:Valve? Of all devs... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Make ( 95577 )
      strange, my P2-350 (yes 350 MHz) with 128 MB SD-RAM (100 MHz) did CS dedicated servers very well with 10-20 players, running linux. At the same time, it was router, DHCP, DNS etc.
    • For testing I play CS with 31 podbots [nuclearbox.com] with AI Enhancments [racc-ai.com] on my workstation. I have CS Server running with admin mod/etc in the background, and another CS session for myself to play test.

      CPU AMD XP1800, ATI9700/Audigy1, runs 100fps average on both server/client, but if I enable EAX it dips to 40's due to CPU load. Also AA turned on in the client doesnt seem to effect the server running in the background, so I run about 4x AA with 16x AF. (No trueform enabled)

      But this is just for localized playing. Game hosting companies might use this 64bit machines. They need to run multiple copies on the same machine to turn a profit. We currently rent a CS server process at http://rentals.nuclearfallout.net/ [nuclearfallout.net] for a 24 users. I know they run at least 4 cs processes per server. You can tell by the way which your CS server uses ports 27015-27018, unless they bind a CS server to an IP. (Hey can I patent that? j/k)

    • All those wallhacks are a bitch on your server resources, believe me. By the time the Opteron will become commercially viable, you will NEED that 4+GB of RAM just to run the latest aimbot and it wouldn't hurt if those AMD lads figure out how to copy HyperThreading as well... :D

  • I didn't know CS and UT2K needed to address more than 4GB of memory. I didn't know they needed 64 bits of precision in FP arithmetic. Wow- the performance gains should be unreal what with how 32 bits cripples these two games!

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:05PM (#5471870)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion


    • Quite possibly SSE2 support is a bigger short-term
      gain than 64-bits because many applications are
      "tuned" for SSE2 use. By supporting SSE2 (and possibly,
      later Hyper-Threading) AMD will immediately increase
      performance. Creating a new "set" like "3dnow Extra"
      is much less likely to get developer support so fast.

      After all, SSE2 is not such a bad idea!

      P.

      P.S. Don't get me wrong, x86-64 is cool, but it isn't
      something you will immediately enjoy with games
      and commercial (!open source) apps. Maybe in a
      few months....

  • makes sense... (Score:5, Funny)

    by miketang16 ( 585602 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:06PM (#5471876) Journal
    As Intel is in no hurry to make the jump to 64-bit desktops...

    Well yea, have you SEEN Intel's attempt at 64 bits?

  • cheater (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:09PM (#5471886)
    now people can cheat tiwce as fast as before?

  • What's the deal with Valve? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @02:18PM (#5471936) Homepage
    Does anyone know what the story is with Valve? They worked for years and then came out with Half-Life, a huge monster hit. They re-wrote major portions of the Quake engine to do it! They had huge frickin levels! This wasn't two guys in a garage somewhere.

    And then... lots of nothing. Half-Life: Opposing Force and Half-Life: Blue Shift were done by Gearbox. Counter-strike was mostly done by people outside Valve.

    Did Valve lay off most of the people who worked on Half-Life? If not, how are they paying all those salaries? Does Valve have any actual projects in the pipeline (little pun there) or is Team Fortress 2 all they are working on? (And does anyone think TF2 will actually ever ship?)

    For that matter, who the heck is Gearbox? Was it spun off in some way from Valve, or is it something else? How big is Gearbox?

    I think that something really bad must have happened to Valve. But I don't have any idea what it was.

    steveha

    • Re:What's the deal with Valve? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rew190 ( 138940 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @03:18PM (#5472226)
      Immediately after Half Life came out, Valve were working on Team Fortress. After that was released, they continued releasing patches for the game. A bit later, they adopted CounterStrike and "helped" with some changes in the game, such as the new animations and netcode.

      It's been leaked at some news sources such as www.ve3d.com that Valve are currently busy with Half-Life 2. One of the general theories out there is that this Half Life will have Team Fortress 2 included, or at least integrated with HL2. Most of us are also assuming that Valve has changed engines for the new games or are basically building their own.

      At any rate, they're working on something, they're just taking their sweet time with it and not releasing any information about it. They've probably learned a thing or two from Duke Nukem Forever.
    • I'm in the 3d biz and every now and again you see their ads on the Highend3d.com job boards [highend3d.com] They often look for graphics programmers and artists and animators in bunches.

      So they either still have a huge staff and are working on something new or just have an even larger churn rate.

  • Confusing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lukano ( 50323 )
    I'm still rather confused where this gigantic push towards 64bit desktop processors is coming from, as I would think the software compatibility with 32bit apps should be the first thing on the manufacturers mind. I could care less if I could run an uber CS, SOF2 or UT2K3 server on a 64bit machine, especially when I have to use an older 32bit machine to play on that server... Why spend all the money for the server alone? Why not focus on making a performance gain come from running the game clients on the 64bit desktop machines (rather than the current HORRIBLE emulation performance of 32bit apps on 64bit hardware).

    Perhaps I missed this gigantic discovery over the past year or so, and in which case I retract my statement. But if it's still an issue, this really seems like putting the cart before the horse.

  • Wait a second (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @03:00PM (#5472159) Homepage
    How much of the 30% gain was due to the jump to 64 bits and how much was due to improved compilers, unrelated improvements to the CPU architecture, higher clock speed, etc?
    • How much of the 30% gain was due to the jump to 64 bits and how much was due to improved compilers, unrelated improvements to the CPU architecture,
      higher clock speed, etc?


      The increase was 30% _clock-for-clock_, so the clockspeed is irrelevant in this comparison. Hammer running at 2GHz (for example) using x86-64 is 30% faster than it's 32bit cousin at 2GHz when running CS dedicated server.
    • I'd suspect almost all of it. The 64 bit chip supports SSE2, has an onboard memory controller and a host of other architectural improvements. I can't imagine how 64 bit words would significantly improve the performance of anything outside of crypto.
    • That's why they said a '30% clock for clock increase'.

      Chances are the compiler for 64 bit is NOT AS GOOD as the 32bit compiler, due to inexperience with optimization on the new platform. And other than 64 bit and the register changes that accompany that, most of the architecture between the two are identical.

      So the answer is: Good chance that ALL of the gain was due to the jump to 64 bits.

  • quote me (Score:5, Funny)

    by 3ryon ( 415000 ) on Sunday March 09, 2003 @03:22PM (#5472240)
    64 bits ought to be enough for anybody.

  • the reality of it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dejetal ( 637282 )
    64-bit software development is a great idea. however, there is too much of a rush on things right now from most commercial vendors. the technology simply isn't developed enough yet. don't expect games or most other software to take advantage of the 64-bit revolution until the platform is more established. of course by the time some vendors *cough* M$ *cough* get the hang of it, we'll probably be developing 128-bit chips;)
  • Is there some reason they are not working well enough? Um.... a 3.06ghz P4 will run a good 30 people game in UT2003, with no performance lag. If you'd like to know what I mean by performance lag, think back to when you had a p2 400, and when you tried to run serious sam it was fine until you got to the section with 100's of enemies. I know its not the same thing, but even 2.0ghz is enough for just about any server.

    What do I think? WOOP DE FREAKIN DO! It won't affects pings and thats all the people playing on the servers should care about - that and the server has sufficient power.

  • And on a related note (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Valve has announced "immediate availability" of TF2 next week

  • yep (Score:2, Insightful)

    by shirameroix ( 595121 )
    Yeah, this might seem cool and all, but how many servers are going to immmediately adopt the 64 bit platform? A lot of servers I have played on in my day were just old boxes that no one wanted to use as a gaming machine anymore. While some might have the cash to spring for this, I doubt the 64 bit presence will be noticed anytime in the near future for cs. However, with a good server and a fast pipe, fun could be had seeing how many people could be crammed onto the AWP map or something.
  • Great, there's a big base of Linux servers running the Half-Life engine. However, these days a CS server does not use much CPU power. I'd know it's not from the same dudes, but I'd rather see a Battlefield 1942 server, you need killer hardware if you want +40 players on one server. The finally managed to make a Linux version of the server so the number of server will hopefully raise. But it still uses CPU power.

  • What about SPARC (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Blademan007 ( 320541 )
    Is this a binary release for x86 servers only? How about a release for SPARC64?
  • This is a 64-bit version of the HLDS, right? CS is just a mod for HL, so these servers will also be able to run good mods like The Specialists and TFC, right?
  • The PlayStation 2 has been truly 64-bit since its release in 2000. You can load and store 64-bit values directly, registers hold 64-bits, etc. Actually, integer registers hold 128 bits but you can't perform all operations on 128-bit values (as you can with 64-bit quantities). There's only 32 MB of memory, so 64-bit addressing is a non-issue, but it's a true 64-bit system otherwise.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close