More on 64-bit Gaming

Yes ... by B3ryllium · 2003-03-09 05:44 · Score: 4, Funny

64-bit gaming IS moronic ... no way I can afford it :)

Re:Yes ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 05:47 · Score: 0

N64 anyone ? ;)
Re:Yes ... by B3ryllium · 2003-03-09 05:49 · Score: 1

Meh ... consoles don't count :) I meant, I can't afford a brand-new 64-bit architecture PC machine ... not even for my server, which is just sad.

I need to get off my ass and work more :)
Re:Yes ... by joedavis123 · 2003-03-09 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 ... by drinkypoo · 2003-03-09 10:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Yes ... by B3ryllium · 2003-03-09 11:00 · Score: 1

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 :)
Re:Yes ... by Alien+Being · 2003-03-09 15:07 · Score: 2, Funny

"One day I'll be able to sit on the cutting edge"

Don't try this at home.
Re:Yes ... by B3ryllium · 2003-03-09 15:14 · Score: 1

Why not? There's already a nice split there. *cough*
Re:Yes ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 16:41 · Score: 0

And so it begins - value is once again determined by slashdot readers who spend 12 hours per day online but won't spend more than 300 bucks on a computer and smugly prattle on about thier free OS. I guess if you can't afford it, then none of us should care. I'll be sure to check in with you before every purchase.

advantage ? by Bender_ · 2003-03-09 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 07:24 · Score: 0

well, they got a 30% clock-for-clock gain compared to x86-32 and the server can host more players at the time, and can even host more separate servers
so instead of 5 boxes and 5 servers, you have 1 box and 5 servers
Re:advantage ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 08:19 · Score: 0, Informative

30% clock for clock gain?

I believe AMD has quoted 15-20%, maximum.

Plus, your app will take just as many ops unless it's written to take advantage of 64-bit, not just recompiled, so I don't know where you're getting this 5/5 as opposed to 1/5 figure.

However, compilers and test machines for AMD64 have been around for a while now - I'm sure Valve has had the opportunity to do a lot of work on AMD64. I don't doubt it'll hit that 30% mark if they were smart about rewriting some of their slower code.
Re:advantage ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 09:23 · Score: 0

RTFA, they already benchmarked it and got a 30% clock-for-clock gain!!
Re:advantage ? by ErikTheRed · 2003-03-09 10:12 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--

Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Re:advantage ? by Bender_ · 2003-03-09 10:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Fixed point arithmetic is probably slower than floating point on a x86, because shifts and imuls also slow..
Re:advantage ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 12:08 · Score: 0

hey dude,

the days of fixed.point math is over.
PIII and above are equally fast on most FPU operations
Re:advantage ? by lucasw · 2003-03-09 13:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:advantage ? by John+Courtland · 2003-03-09 18:07 · Score: 1

As far as game servers go, or servers in general, the 4GB (3.5GB on x86, go mem mapping!) barrier of addressable space will be raised to 16384 petabytes (-1 of course, and I don't know what comes after peta-). As soon as worlds (or databases or whatever information you need to process) become so massive that those enormous amounts of data need to be thrown around (granted it will take a while), the infrastructure will be there.

--
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Re:advantage ? by Bender_ · 2003-03-09 20:44 · Score: 1

Fixed point arithmetic is probably slower than floating point on a x86, because shifts and imuls also slow
If course I meant "are" .. but otherwhise I am totally serious about this - check out the execution timing of shifts and imuls. On a P4 shifts take multiple cycles and there is only one shifter, imuls have always been slower than fmuls and are not pipelined, too.
Re:advantage ? by Bender_ · 2003-03-09 20:50 · Score: 1

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.
Thats a common misconception. You do not need floats for the accuracy, but for the dynamic range. Actually an int (32bit) is far more accurate than a float (24 Bit mantissa). An int64 would be more accurate than a double (53 bit mantissa?). For cases where the dynamic range is known beforehand it is beneficial to use fixed point (integer) numbers. This is especially true for normalized rotational matrices and vector data. AFAIK many GPUs do even work with integer only arithmetic, since the dynamic range can easily be derived at all places. A place where you need floats is color computations..

64 bit is not the only way... by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-09 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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).

Re:64 bit is not the only way... by waytoomuchcoffee · 2003-03-09 06:24 · Score: 0

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).

But AMD can have both. After all, they have a patent on "Microprocessor configured to execute multiple threads including interrupt service routines", which is basically hyperthreading with another name.
Re:64 bit is not the only way... by SQLz · 2003-03-10 09:37 · Score: 1

And why is this? Half-Life Dedicated Server is not multi-threaded and neither are many of the other popular game servers. >they're making chips with Hyper Threading (great for >game servers).
Re:64 bit is not the only way... by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-10 13:28 · Score: 1

sorry, why does that mean that hyper threading is not better? HT is most certainly better for game servers than non-HT chips. It's great for game servers because game servers like to multi-task once in a while (amazing!)

Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 05:47 · Score: 5, Funny

I've been 64-bit gaming for years!! hasn't anyone heard of a Nintendo-64?!?!

Well by dreamchaser · 2003-03-09 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 05:49 · Score: 0

It will run natively on the AMD, no need for the 32bit crap on the chip. Thats an advantage. (Assumming you have a 64bit OS)
Re:Well by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-09 05:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:Well by dreamchaser · 2003-03-09 05:51 · Score: 4, Informative

32 bit x86 code will run natively and just fine on x86-64 systems. You're getting confused by how IA-64 runs x86-32 software.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:16 · Score: 0

I don't know of many games that need to address more than 4 gigabytes of memory.
Simcity4 does to run properly. People will buy this chip just to get more than 4gb into their system to play the cult game effectively.
Re:Well by prator · 2003-03-09 06:37 · Score: 4, Informative

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
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:41 · Score: 0

You think that's bad, wait until SimPlayer comes out. You know... SimPlayer? The game that manipulates the real world? Builds buildings, raises armys, has affairs and back-yard barbeque... Of course they're working on it!
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 08:22 · Score: 0

But you loose the other parts of the AMD 64bit CPU, that are NOT FUNCTIONING in 32bit mode. I dont give a fuck about the IA-64 from intel.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 08:34 · Score: 0

Pull your head out of your ass to engage in meaningful discussion. Flamebaiting troll.
Re:Well by drinkypoo · 2003-03-09 10:54 · Score: 1

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...)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Well by kingkade · 2003-03-09 12:30 · Score: 1

well i think you lose the ability to address more than 32, use of extra registers, etc, since the legacy 32b x86 code won't be designed to utilize them.

--
why run from Vincenzo?
Re:Well by Relic+of+the+Future · 2003-03-09 16:47 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 16:58 · Score: 0

I don't know of many games that need to address more than 4 gigabytes of memory.

Well DUH... That's because no one could run them. What about the day when you can play something that looks like Monsters, Inc. in real time? How else will we get there? When you were playing Marathon or Bard's Tale, did you ever concieve of anything like Kabuto or UT 2003?

But it's NOT 64-bit code! by JKR · 2003-03-09 05:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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 and this

Jon.

Re:But it's NOT 64-bit code! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

mooooooovin on up by DaLiNKz · 2003-03-09 05:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why do i view Intel as Microsoft and AMD like Open Source?

--
I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.

Re:mooooooovin on up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Good question. AMD has already demonstrated questionable business ethics, do you really think they would be better than Intel if they had the same position in the market?
Re:mooooooovin on up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:11 · Score: 0

Because it is not?
Re:mooooooovin on up by NerdSlayer · 2003-03-09 06:12 · Score: 3, Funny

Because you're a sterotypical slashdotter.
Re:mooooooovin on up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:17 · Score: 0

You are confused between Intel who bankrolled RedHat and contributes code to Linux, and AMD who testified on Microsoft's side in the antitrust trial and brands their products "XP".
Re:mooooooovin on up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:17 · Score: 0

Why do i view Intel as Microsoft and AMD like Open Source?

Perhaps because you like to make poor, vague analogies?

They'd drop the Hammer on you (pun intended) if you tried to treat them as Open Source. Or maybe I missed something? Can I start my own chip fab factory from their design? I mean, this isn't the SPARC architecture, you know. That would be a slightly better analogy: comparing Intel and AMD to Microsoft, and SPARC to Open Source.
Re:mooooooovin on up by Ryan+Stortz · 2003-03-09 06:23 · Score: 1

Why do i view Intel as Microsoft and AMD like Open Source?

AMD has been the underdog since they started making proccessors, their chips slowly got better until they rivaled Intel's chips. Now AMD's chips are better than Intel's. Kinda like OpenSource. Linux slowly started from the bottom of the ladder, rising up through the years and now whole countries are using it because it's superior.

AMD is also easier to tweak/overclock and you can tweak any OpenSource program.

--
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
Re:mooooooovin on up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:36 · Score: 0

Now AMD's chips are better than Intel's.

Thats a pretty bold statement, and its just not supported by any facts. Have you even looked at the benchmark results? AMD's latest and greatest beat the 3 GHZ P4 in 1 test out of 23. Not very impressive. Especially considering the AMD chip costs about $20 more than the Intel chip.
Re:mooooooovin on up by broeman · 2003-03-09 06:37 · Score: 0

maybe because Linus Torvald likes AMD's move and dispite Intel for not making it available for the masses (through price-politics)? besides I haven't got that feeling from the article/comments.

--

(yes this can be compared with sex)
Re:mooooooovin on up by silicon1 · 2003-03-09 06:48 · Score: 1

I dunno about you guys but I always root for the underdogs (AMD) because it gives one hope that one day it is possible for any company to become as good and as powerful in terms of market standing and product quality as any of the top companies (intel).

--
Natural-Selection Be
Re:mooooooovin on up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 07:00 · Score: 0

Why do i view IBM as nazi sympathisers (after all they worked with the nazis to implement the data processing for hitler's "final solution"
Re:mooooooovin on up by Bedouin+X · 2003-03-09 10:11 · Score: 1

Yeah but the cost of the platform (CPU / MB / RAM) is still cheaper with AMD, and for most people, the differences between the chips are academic. Not to mention the fact that Intel is probably going to force Yet Another Motherboard on you in the near future.

--
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...

But everyone knows that.. by Aliencow · 2003-03-09 05:51 · Score: 1

A few gigs of ram should be enough for any game !

Re:But everyone knows that.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 07:42 · Score: 0

630kb should be enough for everyone - B Gates
Re:But everyone knows that.. by fitten · 2003-03-09 08:09 · Score: 1

http://www.urbanlegends.com/celebrities/bill.gates /gates_memory.html
Re:But everyone knows that.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 09:07 · Score: 0

Heh, looks like you bit. I think the parent was a troll, 630KB indeed :)

64 bits!!!! by Imazalil · 2003-03-09 05:51 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Re:64 bits!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:02 · Score: 0

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

You missed "first post"!
Re:64 bits!!!! by gl4ss · 2003-03-09 06:29 · Score: 1

and in the same time imagine the bandwith needed at the players end too

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:64 bits!!!! by Synic · 2003-03-09 07:27 · Score: 1

they could use that (pr0n) pipe that broke the speed record the other day?
Re:64 bits!!!! by kfg · 2003-03-09 08:36 · Score: 1

He also missed Natalie Portman, petrification, hot grits and goatse.cx.

A rank amateur.

Or a 30 year old who thinks that takes him out of the "youngster" catagory. :)

Kids these days.

KFG
Re:64 bits!!!! by kEnder242 · 2003-03-09 08:48 · Score: 1

reminds me of the quake2 64 player maps

anyone want to start up a server and play some lithium/64?

--
my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
Re:64 bits!!!! by Goalie_Ca · 2003-03-09 11:06 · Score: 1

1) amd makes new cpu 2) games start to support it 3) ??? 4) PROFIT!

--

----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Re:64 bits!!!! by drinkypoo · 2003-03-09 11:10 · Score: 1

I'd rather imagine playing a game which didn't have bugs which could be exploited to cheat in such a way that one person could kill all 500 people on the server within the first ten seconds of starting a map.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:64 bits!!!! by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-03-09 11:42 · Score: 1

if we all had OC-3027 we wouldn't have a problem at all, theoretically speaking ofcourse.
Re:64 bits!!!! by Erik+Hollensbe · 2003-03-09 18:02 · Score: 1

Well, unless this has changed pretty recently, HLDS doesn't actively take advantage of SMP, so this point might be moot.
Re:64 bits!!!! by antiprime · 2003-03-10 13:17 · Score: 1

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

Yeah, but we only needed two since all our programming was done with 1's and the letter 'o'.

64bit? by odyrithm · 2003-03-09 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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....

--
moo

Re:64bit? by klokwise · 2003-03-09 06:32 · Score: 1

now the jaguar wasn't really 64-bit was it. 32-bit graphics and 32-bit sound... hence the rather strained 64-bit label.
Re:64bit? by odyrithm · 2003-03-09 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Ill end up getting moderated offtopic for this but its worth it..

When I was in school at the time the jaguar came out, I remeber a mate of mine who thought that becauase it had 4 64bit processers(thats what he thought), 32 bit sound and what not ment it added up to (((64*4)+32)+N)bits or something like that.. its really crazy.. but thats how it is.. the bigger the number the better the "bang!"

At the end of the day you have to laugh..

--
moo
Re:64bit? by drinkypoo · 2003-03-09 11:04 · Score: 1

The jaguar had some instructions which took 64 bit operands. It was a more or less 64 bit system, but you are correct that it was not a true 64 bit box.
This ambiguity has spawned many, many debates, far too many for a half-assed attempt at a console system like Atari's Jaguar, which did everything wrong.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:64bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 11:05 · Score: 0

The nVidia Geforce3-based GPU in the XboX is actually 256bit. All modern graphics chipsets, as far as I know, are also 256bit.
Re:64bit? by 56ksucks · 2003-03-10 04:31 · Score: 1

I believe he's refering to the CPU, not the graphics chip. The CPU in the Xbox is a 32-bit Pentium 3. The CPU in the N64 was a 64-bit MIPS R4300.

--
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

I don't have a problem! by JPriest · 2003-03-09 05:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.

sad by bumby · 2003-03-09 05:52 · Score: 1

I find it sad that (almost) everytime I read about a game released to xfree86/linux it`s actually not the game, but a dedicated server. Of course, I understand why servers are released so much faster then clients (which most often isn`t released to x/linux at all), considering they don`t need to handle graphics and sound.

--
Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!

Re:sad by broeman · 2003-03-09 06:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

it is sad.

I think the counterstrike thing with having the client only in the windows env. (except through wine, works great) and having servers for both windows and linux has been clearly done for the users. My friends still play CS (I stopped two years ago, had to do some work) and they run linux servers for ftp, ssh, httpd and ofcourse CS. But when they want to use a client, they choose windows, because they either are used to it, because they don't know about GUI in linux or because they only see linux's potentials in serving files (which it is also great for :)

Sure my sig can create misunderstandings:

--

(yes this can be compared with sex)
Re:sad by mezron · 2003-03-09 07:00 · Score: 1

I've set up and played games on my desktop system running Linux before. I won't bother with it again. What a disappoinment it was... trying to get a joystick to work, making sure the XF86Config file has the resolutions and color depths all set,game features that don't work on the Linux version, getting game mods installed... not me, I don't need that kind of punishment from a game.
Re:sad by Erik+Hollensbe · 2003-03-09 18:30 · Score: 1

Lets face it, guys.

On windows, I plug my mouse in, and it works. I plug my gamepad/joystick in, and it works. I throw the cd in, and I can get right into the game. Games flip resolutions/refresh without effort, depending on the monitor, you never even need to align the screen (Thanks, Viewsonic!).

XFree86 4.x is really making great strides in this department, and Linux 2.6 is going to resolve a lot of the USB issues (some of which you can alleviate now, if you don't mind recompiling your kernel -- and no, I don't use RedHat so that keeps kudzu pretty much out of the picture).

Autoplaying cd's is something that's not going to happen for a long time -- *I* don't mind, but a lot of people (read: gamers in particular, who want the shortest path to the game) are going to.

Frankly, I'm more than happy to have my wintendo machine and my workstation, which of course, runs linux.
Re:sad by broeman · 2003-03-10 20:08 · Score: 0

yep, as an interaction designer I am seeing the clear trend for differentation. People who wants to play games, buy a gameconsole, people who wants to do work buy a workstation, people who wants to serve the community buys a servere and then there is the restgroup, who wants everything in the same computer (like me) to save space :)

The really great thing is that Linux would be able to run on every platform, because Linus and his buddies already have seen this trend years ago (maybe it was the playstation who gave the hint, who knows).

--

(yes this can be compared with sex)

Wait a sec by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2003-03-09 05:53 · Score: 1

They ported counterstrike to the Atari Jaguar? Cool!!

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.

Not really 64-bit gaming... by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-03-09 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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?

Re:Not really 64-bit gaming... by buffer-overflowed · 2003-03-09 05:59 · Score: 1

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....

--
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Re:Not really 64-bit gaming... by lederhosen · 2003-03-09 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:Not really 64-bit gaming... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:45 · Score: 0

Doubt we'll need 64-bit computing power to have 500 people playing on a counterstrike server. Doom 3 however.... won't use dedicated servers.
Re:Not really 64-bit gaming... by gladbach · 2003-03-09 13:43 · Score: 1

true, but the doom3 engine is also being used to make... wait for it... quake4

--
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,

Server, great by buffer-overflowed · 2003-03-09 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!)

--
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."

Re:Server, great by Knightmare · 2003-03-09 06:44 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Server, great by jesco · 2003-03-09 07:08 · Score: 1

Except that Epic released UT2k3 along with a Linux Client on the *same* disk as the win32 version (without extra-costs) and maintained a Patch for old UT on Linux?
Re:Server, great by buffer-overflowed · 2003-03-09 07:19 · Score: 1

COMPLETELY off topic here (hell tangents make any conversation better), but here's the story:
I had just gone in, bought a bottle of rum, walked out put my license back in the car (I keep it in my center box). Walked back in to buy the mix I'd forgotten (left the ID, I'm buying mix for christ sakes and I'd just left).

They asked me for my ID again. Checked the bottle, no alcohol (brand isn't alcoholic). Talked to the manager (since I'm getting sick of having to walk out to my car to get my ID for matches as well) who said that since it was grouped with alcohol I needed ID. Admitted it contained not a drop of alcohol. I got irritated, eventually ended up going to a grocery store a block away and buying strawberries and mix for 1/2 the price. At this same rite aid I could've bought all of the components of this mix without being carded.

Also, where I live you can buy liquor pretty much anywhere that has a license to sell it, beer at groceries, and we even have drive through liqour stores.

Evidentally now both fire and strawberry puree are controlled substances. On this same occassion I also asked them if I could buy margarita salt... I couldn't.

It's just the rite aids too, I can go to the local liquor store (used to be a state store) and buy non-alcoholic stuff without ID.

Things like that just strike me as ridiculous.

--
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
Re:Server, great by gladbach · 2003-03-09 08:08 · Score: 1

That isn't true at all. you can play UT on linux, tribes2 on linux, and numerous other mainstream games that I can't remember at the moment.

OH, and you can play hl/cs on linux, w/ winex, which valve even actively works with to help it work well.

Its not native, I agree, but at the moment it would just be too much work to port it over to linux I would imagine. I do hope however that their next game/engine has a linux client.

--
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Re:Server, great by Realistic_Dragon · 2003-03-09 09:30 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Beep beep.
Re:Server, great by G-funk · 2003-03-09 10:25 · Score: 1

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>

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!

Cool! by 13Echo · 2003-03-09 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Cool! A Counterstrike server! Now, where's the Linux client that we've been asking for for years, Valve?

Re:Cool! by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-03-09 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?
Re:Cool! by gl4ss · 2003-03-09 06:03 · Score: 4, Funny

they're gridlocked in a situtation with 3drealms, valve wants the vaporware title of the year and 3drealms doesn't want to give it!

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 07:48 · Score: 0

They dont care, because they are LAME. They dont think of linux as a possible platform for gaming applications, and they dont realize that it's just that attitude that makes it hard for linux to become a gaming platform ...
btw: wft plays cs?
Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 11:45 · Score: 0

They don't care because they are SMART. Either you want to play and have it running on windows, or you're one of the tiny number of Linux users (compared to windows users) who whines about using an unsupported OS. For fucks sake, Windows users are their bread-and-butter, and Valve are certainly making coin off the game in it's current state. Why spend more money and development time that could be spent elsewhere to release a client for an old game game that maybe 1% of their installed user base would even consider running under Linux?
Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 12:33 · Score: 0

What came first? The chicken, or the egg?

Idiot. You don't seem to get that these companies are ignoring the potential of other platforms, byt not making cross-platform games.

A platform can't gain support if companies don't support it. Get it? No support = no users.
Re:Cool! by monthos · 2003-03-09 16:17 · Score: 1

"No support = no users"
I dont think valve wants linux users if they havent made a client for it :)

Seriously though im not too sure its cost effective for them to, with all the man hours to put into porting/testing and keeping a linux client up to date with the windows one, they would probably lose money or at very best break even after the adventure, and companies always think about the cash when it comes to decisions like that.

This helps me how? by Sxerks · 2003-03-09 05:54 · Score: 1

I can see it being for server that host many games with many players, but where does this help me. I already have gigahertz upon gigahertz in my machine now, and it appears that the graphics cards are the bottleneck in gaming now.

64-bit desktops by einhverfr · 2003-03-09 05:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Re:64-bit desktops by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-09 06:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

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
Re:64-bit desktops by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:14 · Score: 0

Intel worried about advertising costs?! Well, I guess we can always dream...
Re:64-bit desktops by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-09 06:16 · Score: 1

it takes a lot more than just advertising to push 64 bit processors. (didn't mention in previous post, i thought people would already know this)... they also have to convince companies, people, and robots that 64 is the way to go.
Re:64-bit desktops by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:17 · Score: 0

They'll be way behind on developement

Who knows- they may even be working on a 64 bit desktop chip as we speak, so they aren't that far behind. They do have $6 billion in revenue to play around with every quarter.
Re:64-bit desktops by G3ckoG33k · 2003-03-09 07:10 · Score: 1

It may even have a name, perhaps something like Tagamatsu, Yamamoto, Uphill, Upmoto, Yamhill, Dunhill, Killme, or anything wild whatever.
Re:64-bit desktops by sql*kitten · 2003-03-09 08:50 · Score: 1

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.
Re:64-bit desktops by einhverfr · 2003-03-09 08:54 · Score: 1

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.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:64-bit desktops by eggnet · 2003-03-09 10:19 · Score: 1

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

Remember, the 68K line was vastly slower than the PPC chip. It's easy to emulate a slower processor with a faster one.

I doubt Intel will have as much success running x86 code on the Itanium faster than AMD or Intel's Pentium division can using the same technology. If it was faster to run x86 code on the Itanium within 30% of the price, that *would* be the next Pentium. Or that theory would go into the next AMD chip without the Itanium cruft.
Re:64-bit desktops by onion_breath · 2003-03-10 06:18 · Score: 1

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).

Please don't take offense, but it seems to me this is a bit like saying there is no market for airtravel before there were airplanes, or more accurately no market for computer games before there were home computers. To me, market isn't something that's evident before creating something, market is the need/want of a certain community for product or service. I'd say the want for high fidelity gaming is pretty high, as demonstrated by the push by directx9 cards toward fp precision. Just my opinion.

--
this is my sig, be amazed.

PS2 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 05:55 · Score: 0

Remember that PS2 is running at a 128 bit processor, and the xbox is at 32, however, the xbox graphics and gameplay seem to be better in my opinion

Thats the best news for linux.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 05:57 · Score: 0

...oh, _server_... well nice for valve to allow linux to help users of other Os's to have fun, too bad linux users can't connect to thier own servers...

Nice way to benchmark by rimberg · 2003-03-09 05:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 Operon web page at AMD

n-Bit gaming by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:02 · Score: 5, Funny

Everyone talking about gaming in terms of bits should be shot on sight...

Re:n-Bit gaming by Alien+Being · 2003-03-09 15:33 · Score: 1

Hah, you missed me! It was probably a rounding error in your two bit fpu.

Insert coin

Valve? Of all devs... by victorchall · 2003-03-09 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

--
-Vic If you can't figure out my email, then don't.

Wow by Junky191 · 2003-03-09 06:05 · Score: 1

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!

Re:Wow by lederhosen · 2003-03-09 06:27 · Score: 1

No, but the great boost is comming from the
increase in register count. FP arithmetic
is allready greater then 64-bit.

Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:05 · Score: 2, Informative

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 by Webmonger · 2003-03-09 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
Re:Yes it is by BJH · 2003-03-09 10:56 · Score: 2

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.
Re:Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 17:16 · Score: 0

Then that's bad use of a high level language.

x86-64 also supports by gearheadsmp · 2003-03-09 06:05 · Score: 5, Informative

x86-64 also supports SSE2, fyi. That link's a giant x86-64 FAQ.

Re:x86-64 also supports by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:28 · Score: 0

I love the last Q&A on that link:

Q: Will Apple use Hammer CPUs in their computers?

A: ...The inability of the G4 to scale to higher MHz may push Apple to another CPU supplier, but Steve Jobs ego has relegated Apple's market share to small percentage for so long they may not be able to accept any sort of rational change.
Re:x86-64 also supports by ponos · 2003-03-10 00:54 · Score: 1

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....
Re:x86-64 also supports by gearheadsmp · 2003-03-11 06:28 · Score: 1

I agree wholehartedly - a decendant of Barton w/ SSE 2 and a 1mb L3 cache would be more applicable out of the box than having to get new versions of applications, which wouldn't give you much of a perfomance gain unless they were tuned to take advantage of the extra registers of having a 64-bit cpu. Then again, the Hammer prolly has at least 1mb of L3 cache, and we all know it has SSE2.

Good news. by termos · 2003-03-09 06:06 · Score: 1

This sounds like good news. Since there are more gamers than for example software programmers,
and that AMD will first of all deliver hardware for the gamers, means that a magnitude
of the computer users will use AMD.
Now why you might wonder?
The big other hardware vendor is Intel, which in these days have an agreement with Microsoft and the Palledium
platform previously talk about in slashdot here and here.
By my opinion the Palledium plan should never have existed because it WILL ruin
a lot for computer users in general. By aiming towards gamers with this technology it will be easyer to stop it.

--
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.

Re:PXE Jackass by dreamchaser · 2003-03-09 06:06 · Score: 1

LOL. What a troll. PXE is hardly worth the effort, and YES I have used it. It's what is known as a kludge. I was referring to native segment sizes, but of course you knew that. You're just trolling.

makes sense... by miketang16 · 2003-03-09 06:06 · Score: 5, Funny

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?

--
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell

Re:makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:26 · Score: 0

Yes, and its doing just fine, thanks.
Re:makes sense... by The+J+Kid · 2003-03-10 05:16 · Score: 1

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?

That doesn't mean anything.

Everyone fails the first jump.

--
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.

cheater by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:09 · Score: 4, Funny

now people can cheat tiwce as fast as before?

Re:cheater by shish · 2003-03-09 06:22 · Score: 1

no, but with 64 bit precision they can cheat twice as accurately

--
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Re:cheater by MattHaffner · 2003-03-09 08:33 · Score: 1

Or, using their same 32-bit cheater, in parallel.

64 bit versions by yerricde · 2003-03-09 06:13 · Score: 1

A lot of people will buy 64 bit versions of games whether they really get any benefit from the 64 bitness or not.

But what if games only come in a 64-bit version? I'm thinking about Super Mario 64, GoldenEye 007, Tetrisphere, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Paper Mario, etc. Many of those didn't get any benefit from the 64-bitness (especially The New Tetris and Dr. Mario 64), but the N64 was the only console Nintendo was supporting at the time (the Super NES had died by then).

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Then just don't buy Celda by yerricde · 2003-03-09 06:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Then just don't buy Celda by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-09 06:22 · Score: 0, Offtopic

how many people have preordered it over the age of 13? zero? no offense, but it offends me that nintendo went in that direction. I've been a long time zelda fan (since it was called zelda and not Link)... Yes, i played those 2 or 3 nintendo 'Links', but didn't really like them.. got interested in SNES Zelda: A Link to the Past.... beat it a couple dozen times, got Ocarina of Time, beat that; loved both of those games because the graphics were realistic in the "not-cartoony" sense. Then i read that they're making the new one, get a little excited, kept reading the article, turn the page, and there's a screen shot. no more than 1 minute later i burned the magazine. They have our generation hooked to Zelda, they're not going to be very successful with the next generation (entirely different discussion), so why do they do this to us? I just hope they make up for it later on. btw, A Link to the Past is the best Zelda game ever.
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by Steveftoth · 2003-03-09 07:03 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I'm 24 and I've pre-ordered it.

Also, all the link games except Ocarina are compeletly cartoony. The graphics are total cartoons. Have you seen the demos for Link yet? It's really quite amazing cartoony yes, but better then more cartoons because the animation actually runs at full speed. Most kids cartoons on TV only run at 20 frames per seconnd it seems to keep costs low. It makes a big difference.
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-09 07:12 · Score: 1

the difference between this new cartoony and the SNES Zelda: ALTTP is hard to explain. this new one is just more "clean".. not trying to get the graphics to look like things are actually there. You can tell the difference between "cartoony" and not cartoony by looking at it, but i don't know how to explain it. Yeah, i'm not saying it's gonna be a bad game.. and my friend will probably convince me to buy it, but the cartoony part dissapoints me because it shows that they're going in that direction; i'd rather that they go in a different direction. (like a game where emotional response is similar to LOTR movies, as opposed to Mario 64)
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by Synic · 2003-03-09 07:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic

What are you talking about? Zelda has always been "cartoony," as you put it. That's it's style. Love it or leave it. If you want something that is "realistic" try playing Global Ops or Raven Shield.
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by LBArrettAnderson · 2003-03-09 07:25 · Score: 1

no, there's a difference between "cartoony" and "unrealistic". all zelda games are "unrealistic". cartoony is a sub-category of unrealistic. cartoony is bright, flat colors.
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 07:30 · Score: 0

hey fag who modded that offtopic - watch this: -64 bits means high quality graphics -the new zelda has cartoony graphics -cartoony graphics are not high quality IT'S CALLED TANGENT ON TOPIC discussion. but i'm not complaining since i have "Positive" karma now. FIRST TIME EVER!!!
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 09:16 · Score: 0

, kept reading the article, turn the page, and there's a screen shot. no more than 1 minute later i burned the magazine...

Thus clearly showing how mature you are above those "13 year olds" you discuss.
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by AlexMax2742 · 2003-03-09 10:42 · Score: 1

I'm 18 and I preordered the game.
Heh....I think his post speaks for himself though.

--
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by MisterFancypants · 2003-03-09 11:18 · Score: 1

I'm 29 and I pre-ordered it. Nintendo fan for life, biatch.
I don't give a damn what graphic style Nintendo chooses for their games.. since they are one of the last game developers actually making FUN GAMES instead of barely interactive movies, I'll keep buying from them.
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by PatJensen · 2003-03-09 14:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I feel the same way, but with the Worms franchise. I love Worms on PC - and I was pissed off to find out they created a new Worms game, but wait.. it's a puzzle game. WTF is with that?
Don't those idiots realize that 4 player capable GameCube with progressive scan would be the ultimate platform for some serious Worms action? Worms on GC would be a better party game then Super Mario Party - is there anyone here stupid enough to buy that horrible excuse for a game? It takes two and a half years to actually make it around the board, and you spend a year just waiting for the damn mini-games to load. Then they are boring as shit!
Oh don't get me started with lame Mario franchise games - I thought Mario was a plumber, not a janitor! Why the fuck is he running around with a vacuum cleaner sucking up GHOSTS? Are those idiots at Nintendo in Japan on CRACK?
Sorry about I just wanted to blow off some steam.. Carry on.
-Pat
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by yerricde · 2003-03-09 14:21 · Score: 1

cartoony graphics are not high quality

Ignore the scripts of the latest DreamWorks, Fox, and Disney animated features and concentrate only on their visual production values. How can you claim that animation can not be of a high quality?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?
Re:Then just don't buy Celda by yerricde · 2003-03-09 14:33 · Score: 1

Don't those idiots realize that 4 player capable GameCube with progressive scan would be the ultimate platform for some serious Worms action?

It takes a much bigger company to publish a console game than to publish a PC game. Besides, most 5-year-old television sets (the displays used for GCN systems in practice) cannot interpret a progressive signal.

Worms on GC would be a better party game then Super Mario Party

I don't like the Mario Party series either. The preferred party game in my circle of friends is Super Smash Bros.

I thought Mario was a plumber, not a janitor!

The Mario brothers take whatever jobs they can get in this recession.

Why the fuck is he running around with a vacuum cleaner sucking up GHOSTS?

Why did the ghostbusting title released at the GCN launch feature Luigi Mario? Easy. Nintendo didn't want to license the Ghostbusters franchise.

To help you remember the difference between Super Mario Sunshine and Luigi's Mansion: Luigi sucks, Mario blows, and Yoshi swallows.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Not true! What about IL-2, LO-MAC, ... by CodeArt · 2003-03-09 06:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Not true! What about IL-2, LO-MAC, ... by xenocide2 · 2003-03-09 07:08 · Score: 1

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.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Re:Not true! What about IL-2, LO-MAC, ... by CodeArt · 2003-03-09 07:35 · Score: 2, Informative

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. :-)

What's the deal with Valve? by steveha · 2003-03-09 06:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely

Re:What's the deal with Valve? by Apoptosis66 · 2003-03-09 06:35 · Score: 1

I wanted to mod this up, but everyone else did it for me. So instead I will comment. Reading this headline this was the first thing that popped into my mind. It certainly seems like Value is just a name now days, and yet it was obvious they had some real talent at one time. I beleive even The Carmack through some praises towards Valve at one time. Such a shame I still consider half-life my favorit single player FPS ever.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by Rew190 · 2003-03-09 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by gladbach · 2003-03-09 08:24 · Score: 1

I would too when their current game/engine still has more players online daily than pretty much every other FPS combined...

They are working on their new game/engine in the background, while also making intelligent decisions for the future. Steam by itself will allow them to cut out the middle man, and allow them to be able to release global updates quickly and frequently.

Sure, one of you is going to bring up the disaster that was the steam beta 2 release, (wtf were they thinking? lol) but steam is a great concept.

They are also probably waiting on CS2 to be complete or near complete before they will consider releasing HL2. I think they are just going to one day say BOOYAH and release everything online and then start shipping boxes to stores. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so much secrecy on the matter.

Also, don't forget they have scratched and restarted development for TF2 etc numerous times, just like they did for Half-life I might add. And look how awesome THAT turned out.

--
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 12:02 · Score: 0

Gearbox is a gaming company, who was currently working on Counterstrike:Condition Zero, but gave the project over to Ritual Entertainment. They made or atlease contributed to 007:Nightfire and is porting Halo to the PC. They also ported Half-Life to PS2 and Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3. Their website is www.gearboxsoftware.com.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 13:55 · Score: 0

I wouldnt say that they gave it to ritual, more that it was taken away by valve. Aparently gearbox had stopped working on cz to start other projects, all the while still taking money from valve. valve found out, and yanked it pretty damn quick, and found someone else. I doubt that valve will ever work w/ gearbox again. At least, this is what I heard.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by AbRASiON · 2003-03-09 14:17 · Score: 1

TF2 for all intents and purposes was superceeded by RTCW and BF1942 (or a mix of the 2)

BF1942 is *THE* best FPS game of it's type I've ever played and with a bit more support it could begin to eat into CS (which wouldn't upset me at all, can't stand CS)

Gearbox is a group of devs who were I THINK part of "rebel boat rocker" or some such - they were making some game (don't know anything about it, cept it was highly anticipated and meant to be v.cool) and it got canned - they formed together (remains of them) and whipped up op:for which is a top notch little addon (as is blue shift)

Valve are keeping quiet and thanks to an excellent business model / generally just being smart their continued support into CS has ensured Half life sales have gone on fairly strong right up till now.
I'd say they still probably sell several hundred or several thousand copies a month around the globe - not bad for a game which must be 2.5-4 years old now...
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by bruceoberg · 2003-03-09 14:29 · Score: 1

valve has been working on steam, a system that allows game developers to deliver content directly to customers online. there's no publisher involved and players are guaranteed to always have the latest version of everything they need.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 14:50 · Score: 0

And 'steam' gives the power to the commercial interests again. If a free community mod threatens one those commercial interests, it's much easier to kill it.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by mr_exit · 2003-03-09 16:13 · Score: 1

I'm in the 3d biz and every now and again you see their ads on the Highend3d.com job boards 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.

--

-------
Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by Ironpoint · 2003-03-09 16:59 · Score: 1

" Does anyone know what the story is with Valve?"

Yes. They got all monied up after half life.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by doublehelix_nz · 2003-03-09 17:15 · Score: 1

As i understood, valve were making TF2 on the HL engine, however they then found out the limitations of the engine and decided to re-write the engine. TF2 was ment to be similar to battlefield1942, in which you take command of cars trucks tanks etc. im guessing they are also working with CS people, to ensure they can mod it succesfully too.
Re:What's the deal with Valve? by gladbach · 2003-03-10 11:23 · Score: 1

I dont get what you mean at all. In fact, it makes no sense what so ever.

--
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,

Re:Valve? Of all devs... by Dalroth · 2003-03-09 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

not just 500 people in a map... by sickmtbnutcase · 2003-03-09 06:27 · Score: 1

I could see this possibly bringing the Counterstrike game to a more "Battlefield 1942" feel. Similar Counterstrike objectives, yet huge maps with many players forming smaller groups, each with different goals to help work towards the end result, (Either stopping the terrorists or blowing up some objective) Maybe with this we would see a newer version of Counterstrike that is a lot more than it is now, but keep a lot of the feel that tons of players enjoy.

Re:not just 500 people in a map... by Beetjebrak · 2003-03-09 10:04 · Score: 1

That'd be pretty awesome, but the 64-bits would only be required on the server hosting the thing since that has to be authorative for the whole map at all times. Clients running the game locally could do with only smaller portions of the map in memory. That'd save bandwidth and increase performance a lot. The server just takes care of relations between map shards and makes sure players move between them properly. It does sound awesome though.. :-))

--
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.

nVidia Riva 128 by G3ckoG33k · 2003-03-09 06:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I remember my old nVidia Riva 128 which handled 128-bit graphics! Those were the days! ;)

MS ads by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:30 · Score: 0

does slashdot charge MicroSoft per IMPRESSION on those MS ads under the articles? I'm guessing since they're not gonna get very many clicks, and /. wants to rob MS of money.

Confusing by Lukano · 2003-03-09 06:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Confusing by cbiffle · 2003-03-09 09:47 · Score: 1

> rather than the current HORRIBLE emulation performance of 32bit apps on 64bit hardware

This is a common misunderstanding.
You're probably thinking of the early Itaniums, which emulated x86 as a sort of afterthought and, obviously, had poor performance as a result. What the article refers to is AMD's x86-64 architecture, which can run 32-bit x86 code at full speed, and in fact can host 32-bit processes within a 64-bit OS and vice versa with very little performance hit.
However, from what I've heard, the more recent Itaniums handle x86 a -lot- better. Take that with appropriate salt, of course.

So that's the gigantic discovery you missed. :-)
Re:Confusing by Lukano · 2003-03-09 09:55 · Score: 1

Ahh, and I like to be proved wrong in situations like this. This makes me feel a lot more comfortable with 64bit hardware if I know it can do 32bit apps at the same performance (or even a small drop) as the 64's (grain of salt taken).
Re:Confusing by AbRASiON · 2003-03-09 14:46 · Score: 1

Well .. I may be wrong here, but I specifically thought one of the advantages of the AMD 64bit machines was the fact that they not only run 32bit stuff FAST, they can do it faster than their Athlon XP's at the same clock speed.

So I'd say your comments about HORRIBLE emulation performance of 32bit apps are either unresearched or I've been fed a pile of FUD.
Re:Confusing by Lukano · 2003-03-10 10:46 · Score: 1

Read the comments above before talking out of your arse, eh? My information was based off of early Itanium results, and I was just a little uninformed over the past year or so when this has changed.
Re:Confusing by AbRASiON · 2003-03-11 00:59 · Score: 1

So the fact that YOU didn't read the article and keep up to date means *I'm* talking out of my ass......

right..........

now if you could just move your desk....

Jaguar was even earlier.. by nurb432 · 2003-03-09 06:31 · Score: 0, Informative

The Atari Jaguar was the first 64 bit game machine, predates the N64 by a few years..

If you dont believe me, look it up.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:50 · Score: 0

Yeah, but the Jaguar was shit - even for it's time. The N64 wasn't.
Possibly the fact that Jeff "The curse of" Minter didn't write anything for the N64 helped.
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by xenocide2 · 2003-03-09 07:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well the n64 certainly didn't have 64bit graphics. Basically the n64 had a lot of 64 bit wide registers, because there wasn't even enough RAM to max out 32bit addressing. 64 bit graphics... wtf were you thinking, "moron"?

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by xenocide2 · 2003-03-09 07:03 · Score: 1

Atari Jaguar, "Do The Math." 32 + 32 = 64. Gotta love marketing people and journalists who push meaningless numbers. For the record, the Jaguar wasn't 64bit in the same manner the Opteron is.

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-03-09 08:34 · Score: 2, Informative

"The Atari Jaguar was the first 64 bit game machine, predates the N64 by a few years.."

The Jaguar was not 64-bit. They were using the same kind of math that the RIAA used to say that somebody had more CD burners than they really did. "We have more processors, that means we have more bits to play with!"

To put it another way, it was like saying my dual Athlon machine is 64-bit.
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by G-funk · 2003-03-09 10:20 · Score: 1

Bah your dual athlong is way more 64 bit than any jaguar... It's got several 64 bit registers.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-03-09 10:27 · Score: 1

"Bah your dual athlong is way more 64 bit than any jaguar... It's got several 64 bit registers."

Heh yeah the Jaguar was a pretty piddly machine. Honestly, it had trouble keeping up with the older 3DO machine. (although Tempest 2000 was the only game that really put the Jag through it's paces...)

Just as a side note, the 3DO had some embarrasing shortcomings as well, the main one being the price. Some people thought that 3DO stood for "Doh! Doh! Doh!"
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by G-funk · 2003-03-09 10:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually I always thought the most embarrasing thing was that there was no such frigging thing as a "3D0 Machine"... After years of PCs and their "standards" there was no way i would have spent that much cash on a machine based on some specifications :)

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 13:50 · Score: 0

The Jaguar was 64 bit. It had a 64 bit object processor, 64 bit blitter processor, the bus was 64 bits. True, it has a 32 bit cpu but that doesn't make it a 32 bit system. There *are* 64 bit processors in the console, and it *can* read 64 bits of data on a single instruction. If I recall correctly, that whole not really 32 bit thing was started by some cs student who meant well, but just didn't know as much as he thought he did. Anyone who's worked with the jag can tell you what's up, including any third party developer. It's sort of astounding that people keep saying this crap about atari trying to add two 32 bit processors together so many years later when you can find detailed hardware info on the jaguar so insanely easily. But even so, the Jaguar still sucks.
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by drzhivago · 2003-03-09 14:44 · Score: 1

The math is even more broken up than 32+32.

There were 4 processors, 32+16+8+8=64.

DO THE MATH!
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by Skraut · 2003-03-09 16:28 · Score: 2, Funny

I always wondered. Would a Dual Athlon machine be called a BiAthlon?

--
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
Re:Jaguar was even earlier.. by pforhan · 2003-03-10 04:32 · Score: 1

Wow, a lot of high-quality and completely *uninformed* posts here. See the Jaguar FAQ here or at a variety of other places.

Five processors, in three physical chips:
"Tom":
- 32-bit GPU (1)
- 64-bit Object processor (2)
- 64-bit blitter (3)

"Jerry":
- 32-bit DSP (4)

68000
- 16-bit general purpose (5)

So, by the logic in this thread, the Jaguar is a 32+64+64+32+16 = 208-bit system, if my math is right.

Pat.

Re:wtf by G3ckoG33k · 2003-03-09 06:32 · Score: 1

Yup. If your ping is higher than 150, it does.

You want to see a monster? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 06:35 · Score: 0

Then replace your 3D monitor... with a mirror!

This was pointless random attack #37. Collect them all!

Is 130% not good enough? by Webmonger · 2003-03-09 06:40 · Score: 1

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.

This might be... by dfj225 · 2003-03-09 06:50 · Score: 1

exciting for about a handfull of people, but for everyone else this doesn't really matter. Not too many people are going to run out and purchase a brand new 64 bit box to host CS games on. I have run a CS server on my PII 400 box and it can host the game fine, but my cable modem is the bottleneck that causes the pings to go through the roof. With 32 or 64 bits this isn't going to change. So, unless you have a T1 or money out the wazoo, this isn't that big of a deal.

--
SIGFAULT

Re:This might be... by colganc · 2003-03-09 08:51 · Score: 1

its good for companies who host game servers and need to host multiple game servers per physical box.
Re:This might be... by dfj225 · 2003-03-09 09:47 · Score: 1

and they probably have a T1 and money out the wazoo

--
SIGFAULT

WHOA! What about the Commodore 64?!? by ScumSucker · 2003-03-09 06:57 · Score: 5, Funny

I was 64 bit gaming on that in the early 1980s! Oh wait, that was 64 kB. Almost the same thing I guess....

Wait a second by Have+Blue · 2003-03-09 07:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Re:Wait a second by 10Ghz · 2003-03-09 07:44 · Score: 1

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.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:Wait a second by jpmorgan · 2003-03-09 09:48 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Wait a second by The+Raven · 2003-03-09 12:09 · Score: 1

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.

--
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.

64-bit counterstrike ... why? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 07:01 · Score: 1, Funny

Somehow, buying a 64-bit machine to host dedicated counterstrike games is a bit perplexing.

Given a large enough pipe to the internet, and a bandwidth bill i don't care about, my 1ghz athlon thunderbird with PC-133 ram and 5400 RPM drives will already comfortably run a 32 player game. Why do we need better hardware for this?

Re:64-bit counterstrike ... why? by Lukano · 2003-03-09 07:17 · Score: 1

Well I can say from experience that -some- people could and would notice the difference between a server running on a dual Xeon server vs. a home-boxed athlon with 133 ram and a 5400rpm drive. The big push is when your running more current games (SOF2, Q3A, etc) as opposed to older games like CS, and you get your total clients in excess of 40+... And for those hardcore tournament players who notice and freak out over a difference of 3ms in ping, of course it will matter.

But it all depends on how much you play, how you play, and how into the game you are. For the most part a casual player will -never- notice the differences listed above, but a OGL, CAL, TWL ladder climber like myself would of course see it...

But I agree, bandwidth is still much more important over all of the above! :)
Re:64-bit counterstrike ... why? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 07:40 · Score: 0

I've hosted 32-player LAN games, where the bandwidth is plentiful on full-duplex base-100 lines, and there is almost no difference at all.

When we moved it to an XP1900 (over my 1ghz, this is substantially faster) the only real difference was the load time between levels was faster. Since you don't actually play between levels, it still seems like an amazing waste to me.

Spend hundreds of dollars more now so you can save 10 seconds between levels!
Re:64-bit counterstrike ... why? by Lukano · 2003-03-09 08:20 · Score: 1

What kind of service (line speed) is this running on though? And remember this is Counterstrike we're talking about, which is 5 year old technology driving a game that you can run on 3 year old hardware with no differences in performance than on a brand spanking new uber-box.

When you get into a game like SOF2 on the Q3 engine, I can tell you that I see a HUGE difference even between a 24 slot server on a AMD XP 1800+ with a gig of 2700 ram and the new server which is a dual xeon with a gig of ecc. Big boost there in playtime, lag, load times, etc....
Re:64-bit counterstrike ... why? by gladbach · 2003-03-09 08:37 · Score: 3, Informative

I run the servers for a washington D.C ~200+ player lanparty Capitol Punishment, and I know that we could use this kind of hardware. At the moment, we have to split our 10player counter-strike cs servers between at least 2 dual cpu boxes w/ scsi etc to excellent performance on lan. I know what I'm talking about, we are coming up on our 6th. Add to this various addons like adminmod, or in our events case, the wwcl plugin to make sure people arent abusing console variables, and you quickly need more horsepower to keep the pings low, and the choke low, so on and so forth.

To some it doesn't matter, but in a competitive environment, you want the fastest shit you can find. And spreading that across 2-4 boxes makes management a bitch. Not mentioning other servers for other games being run at the same time.

Now, the funny question, is what is the CPL going to do, since it's an Intel sponsored event. Although I won't disagree that some dual 3ghz+ xeon servers w/ scsi and dual channel ddr don't already make great game servers for my needs.

--
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,

quote me by 3ryon · 2003-03-09 07:22 · Score: 5, Funny

64 bits ought to be enough for anybody.

--
Kind thoughts do not change the world

Re:quote me by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 21:45 · Score: 0

"64 bits ought to be enough for anybody."
-- 3ryon

the reality of it by dejetal · 2003-03-09 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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;)

--
the rest is silence...

Re:Valve? Of all devs... by Make · 2003-03-09 07:53 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re:Valve? Of all devs... by BrookHarty · 2003-03-09 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

For testing I play CS with 31 podbots with AI Enhancments 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/ 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)

So uh - whats wrong with the servers we have now by Rooked_One · 2003-03-09 08:14 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 08:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Valve has announced "immediate availability" of TF2 next week

Re:And on a related note by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 10:29 · Score: 0

hah ja right - good one!

No decimal, why not say 40h bit ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 08:24 · Score: 0

Isn't decimal ugly?

yep by shirameroix · 2003-03-09 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Oh that's an easy one. by kfg · 2003-03-09 08:30 · Score: 1

Because you are deluded.

Go ahead,ask me another one, only make it a bit harder this time.

KFG

Re:Oh that's an easy one. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 11:38 · Score: 0

Okay, how did you survive to adulthood when it's obvious you're missing crucial genes?
Re:Oh that's an easy one. by kfg · 2003-03-09 11:47 · Score: 1

Through the wonders of modern medicine.

That was an easy one too.

KFG

The gain in CS is NOT due to 64 bit ness AFAIK by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 08:59 · Score: 0

Heres the claim :
" 30 % gain clock for clock on the Opteron "

How much faster is the Opteron CLOCK FOR CLOCK than the Tbred/Barton?

BF1942 by Openadvocate · 2003-03-09 09:25 · Score: 1

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.

--
my sig

Re:BF1942 by gladbach · 2003-03-09 13:18 · Score: 1

True. Unfortunately the bf1942 linux server is so full of bugs and issues, I wouldnt use it for anything that requires reliability. It *has* improved since its initial release, theres no doubt. Hopefully the 1.3.1 release will solve most of the remaining issues.

--
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,

What about SPARC by Blademan007 · 2003-03-09 09:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Is this a binary release for x86 servers only? How about a release for SPARC64?

Music industry is dying, gaming is next I suspect by skurken · 2003-03-09 10:03 · Score: 1, Troll

I think the gaming industry is in for a nasty surprise, just like the one the music industry is having now. I see companies pumping more and more money into their games. Many games have enormous budgets already and here (at least in the GameSpy article) they are talking about the "advantages" of having loads of memory to make bigger and more complex games. If a game's gona use up all the memory available to a 64-bit CPU, it's gona have to be huge, it's gona take forever to develop and it's gona cost huge ammounts of money, i.e. it better be a success and sell to everybody. They'll probably be marketed down our throats, sporting few or no new ideas and promoted along with the latest lame engineered pop idol music album by enormous mega-media conglomerates seeking to make profit from their projects with budgets rivaling that of many countries.

64-bit gaming? Bah!

Re:So uh - whats wrong with the servers we have no by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 10:05 · Score: 0

There is nothing wrong with the servers we have now. This is just showing that normal gaming software (albeit a dedicated server) can run with no alterations on AMD's x86-64 platform.

Honestly if i have to hear another whine along the lines of "we don't NEED 64bits for game servers" i'll probably flip out

64-bit HLDS, Right? by TheDarkRogue · 2003-03-09 10:09 · Score: 1

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?

--
(Score:0, Interesting)

Re:64-bit HLDS, Right? by gladbach · 2003-03-09 13:22 · Score: 1

Well, I imagine that they are talking about both the hlds binary, and also the cs binary, ie .so files? That is a good question though. I am not sure whether mod authors will have to do anything special on the mods linux server end.

--
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,

Re:Valve? Of all devs... by The+Analog+Kid · 2003-03-09 11:49 · Score: 1

Companies like Barrysworld will. Companies like these base their entire company off renting servers and getting subsriptions to rent servers for a block of time a week. People would want to best for what they pay. Also people would want to just piss away money, or they have the money.

Re:Valve? Of all devs... by Dark+Lord+Seth · 2003-03-09 12:56 · Score: 1

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

--
Hate me!

Well Hammer good 4 servers, what about Sony? by AbRASiON · 2003-03-09 14:19 · Score: 1

Maybe AMD should approach origin / sony / whoever are whipping up the new MMPORG games like SWGalaxies / etc etc?

I mean surely that would be fantastic PR for AMD - something along the lines of "everquest 2, servers powered by AMD!" (AMD discounts giving them to Sony of course) - would be good for all and I have no doubt their servers would do it well.

On that note, any articles out there about SWG / EQ1 / EQ2?- what servers they run on and some of the interesting facts about them? - I have no doubt they probably need to address a LOT of ram / hard disk space iwth those boxes :)

could be quite an interesting read.
(no i'm not googling, you guys rock at that stuff) ;)

64-bit *PC* gaming by Junks+Jerzey · 2003-03-09 15:19 · Score: 1

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.

64 Bit is good for Multiplayer online games.... by bartwart · 2003-03-09 17:07 · Score: 1

....like Ultima Online. These guys running those types of games are already using 64 bit RISC/SPARC servers to run those games. Considering that they have huge buggets, they may as well pay the extra money to buy those expensive SUN servers and not piece together some Opteron machine which they will have to support themselves. The real benefit of 64 bit gaming may come from FPS becoming more like Massive Multi-player Online games- a sort of hybrid of the two.

Re:64 Bit is good for Multiplayer online games.... by Erik+Hollensbe · 2003-03-09 18:35 · Score: 1

Repeat after me.

SPARC is slow, and Sun is expensive.

OTOH, support is a really, really nice thing. Those sun machines (at least ours) almost never go down.

Yep! Time for new models by mabhatter654 · 2003-03-09 20:00 · Score: 1

The best example of a money-making game rigt now is the sims! Yeah I know, this is /. but it's a model ID and Epic have missed. They never release levels, or updates anymore-most you can get is one or two expansions out of anyone. I'm all for the serious sam type- where they release a smaller, higher-tech game more often, yet centered around the same story. A massive game like Doom 3 is really cool, but they could have knocked out 2-3 smaller games that used better tech than Q3 by now. Also, the true PC game companies are ignoring large groups of players. There's a lot out there besides FPS. Even better games to be made using FPS engines--they are way under utilized. Again, the problem with the mega-corps is that they are always after the big score [20% more growth than last years 50%] rather than smaller, but steady reliable stream of income. Doesn't always make a lot of money, but it keeps food on the table.

Welcome to the 21st Century... by Mnemennth · 2003-03-09 21:22 · Score: 0, Offtopic

...Where all restaurants are Taco Bell, and Intel STILL holds the marketplace at gunpoint.

Intel has taken its position of two decades ago as the chosen processor manufacturer for IBM and leveraged it into a position of market dominance, holding back the newest technology until they've made their fortunes on the old stuff, this is not news. Like MicroShaft, they rode IBM's coattails until they insidiously developed worldwide ties in the industry, using IBM's name recognition to make themselves a power and then turning on the hand that fed them. At this point they began making demands of not only their parent company, but the industry in general, and a world of computer megalopolies was born. Each segment of the industry now has its superpowers, and no matter how much we argue and fight, for the most part they drive the industry, by making inside deals and holding back new technology, or by using their corporate power as a club to beat the competition to death in the courts. Even the federal government is no match for them; they have more money at their disposal than the fed does, and ironocally, the very people who might take them on in court are working on computers made with Intel chips and running MicroShaft software, thereby feeding those megacorporations with our taxpayer money. Now don't get me wrong; I don't feel a bit sorry for IBM, hell, in a way, MicroSoft and Intel are IBM's children. Those predatory business practices we all revile were learned from IBM, and learned well. No, it is the consumer I feel bad for, shelling out thousands of dollars for a computer using a processor that is 10 years behind state of the art, running a (sic) OS that could have been written by monkeys... the old joke (its been this way so long it IS an old joke) about "What is MicroSoft's latest Beta... errr, OS?" and "Which version of the 386 is Intel releasing this week?" still hold nauseatingly true, and the only satisfaction I get from all of it is seeing IBM standing in line with all the other computer manufacturers waiting to be doled out the same technology as the rest of us.
Now I know that real business machines run on other hardware and software, and we can hold these computer equivalents of a Lamborghini or a TEREX earth mover (depending on their intended purpose) up as shining examples of what technology CAN be, but the truth is it doesn't filter down to the consumer for far too long, and by the time we see it, it's been diluted to the point of being comparatively the same as a Yugo. In a world driven by free enterprise, we should expect to get a little more for our hard won dollars than a machine that was actually obsolete before our LAST machine was built.

Mnem
*Goggles at the error message he just got*

-ERROR 1313- Your request could not be processed.
Requested process *GET A LIFE* has caused an invalid page fault in MODULE:INTERNET at address 3NO:HELLNO

OMIGAWD ! I BROKE THE INTERNET!!!

Re:Then just don't buy Celda ~~~OT~~~ by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-09 23:28 · Score: 0

This will be modded to off topic anyhow, so I'm posting anonymously ;)

To help you remember the difference between Super Mario Sunshine and Luigi's Mansion: Luigi sucks, Mario blows, and Yoshi swallows.

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on /. I'm fighting hard not to burst out laughing here at work. Thank you.

For those saying your system runs it fine already by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 03:04 · Score: 0

It makes a difference to hosting services who have limited rackspace - running multiple servers on a single machine would save them quite a bit of real world space, electricity, and heat. It's better to have a single Opteron (or quad Opteron) running 4 - 16 servers than 16 1 GHz machines each running 1 server. Server chips aren't targetted for your average college kid to set up a CS server in his dorm room.

Half-Life for Mac by artemis67 · 2003-03-10 03:36 · Score: 1

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.

Twice? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 08:37 · Score: 0

Nope! 2^33 is twice 2^32. So 2^64 is 4294967296 times "as fast" as 2^32.

N64... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-03-10 08:39 · Score: 0

...has a 64-bit processor. The gamecube has a 1024-bit processor. And the shitty XBox only has a 32-bit processor. What a step backwards!!!!

Last Post! by alpg · 2003-03-23 18:27 · Score: 0

Now I know someone out there is going to claim, "Well then, UNIX is intuitive,
because you only need to learn 5000 commands, and then everything else follows
from that! Har har har!"
-- Andy Bates on "intuitive interfaces", slightly defending Macs

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

246 comments