Battlefield 3 is coming!!!

[Trotter]

So it will be a 32-bit progrm. They run on 64-bit OSes, BTW. I don't readily know of a 64-bit game but there could be some.

BF3 will probably be like BC2 in that it will like quads best. BC2 was unplayable on my old dual core.

 

[synergy]

Crysis is the only game I know of that had a dedicated x64 executable.

I don't care if it's 8-bit....I'm still excited for this game! BC2 just didn't quite scratch the BF itch for me. BF2 is much too old and played out and takes 8 years to patch to the current level...just not worth it at this point. So, yea...really looking forward to this one! I just really hope they have some good anti-cheat.

 

[Druid]

what difference does the bit of the executable make?

 

[Oreo]

what difference does the bit of the executable make?

I may be wrong but if the executable isn't 64bit the program can not take any advantages of a 64bit OS. Such as allocating more than 2.5gb of RAM to the game (appx).

If BF3 was a true 64bit, it would use as much ram as it needed. Which obviously has performance benefits and visual benefits, as you are not so restricted by texture sizes.

Crytek for example said that in the next gen consoles they said they wanted 8gb of ram and 64bit support as a minimum. They obviously see ram as massively important, but as i say, you need 64bit.

 

[Trotter]

I may be wrong but if the executable isn't 64bit the program can not take any advantages of a 64bit OS. Such as allocating more than 2.5gb of RAM to the game (appx).

If BF3 was a true 64bit, it would use as much ram as it needed. Which obviously has performance benefits and visual benefits, as you are not so restricted by texture sizes.

Crytek for example said that in the next gen consoles they said they wanted 8gb of ram and 64bit support as a minimum. They obviously see ram as massively important, but as i say, you need 64bit.

Yeah, you would be wrong. BF2 would use up to three gigs back in the day, all by itself. That didn't include the OS or anything else, much less the GDDR. BF2 was painfull on less than two gigs.

 

[gurusan]

I think a lot of that was due to poor programming though. BC2 rarely uses more than 1.5GB of my memory.

 

[overlord20]

effin minecraft 8 bit madness uses a solid gig+. Talk about poor optimization.

 

[Yami]

Yeah, it could really be a lot better.

 

[Oreo]

Yeah, you would be wrong. BF2 would use up to three gigs back in the day, all by itself. That didn't include the OS or anything else, much less the GDDR. BF2 was painfull on less than two gigs.

Well thats just being pedantic Games cant use more than 2.5gb on my pc because windows and other apps are always using 1.5gb without fail. All i am doing right now is what i call casual desktopping. Yet i'm using 3.2gb..

I think the technical limit 32bit apps can use is 3.5gb, just like windows.

effin minecraft 8 bit madness uses a solid gig+. Talk about poor optimization.

There may not be a lot of huge textures to hold, but the size of the world is huge and every block you move and change and destroy stays there, it doesn't dissapear. It all has to be stored in memory. Not many games are like that as there environments are static and unchangeable.

Plus it's using Java anyway, hardly super efficient low level language like you and yami say.

 

[Druid]

Yeah, you would be wrong. BF2 would use up to three gigs back in the day, all by itself. That didn't include the OS or anything else, much less the GDDR. BF2 was painfull on less than two gigs.

I maxed bf2142 with 1 gig and it ran like a dream....

And yeah, the pc version of the game would have to be drastically different than the console version if it was able to take advantage of more than 3.5 gigs since consoles only have .5 gigs.