Poster: Damicatz at 4/6/2005 1:48:54 PM PDT
Subject: Porting to AMD64 101 |
| |
If you have proper code :
1.Compile source code on an AMD64 Machine
If you took unprofessional shortcuts in your code :
1.Fix type defs
2.Compile source code on an AMD64 Machine
Now why doesn't WoW support 64-bit again? Discuss.
Get Out While You Can
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=2414068&p=#post2414068 |
| |
Poster: tigerclaw at 4/6/2005 3:00:02 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Porting to AMD64 101 |
| |
Q u o t e:
It used to be that companies did what was right, even if it wasn't immediatly profitable. It seems Blizzard has gone down the road of greed however.
Are there any customers with AMD64 based machines that are not getting playable/fun framerates? That would come as a surprise to me because those chips seem to be top performers.
To my knowledge we do not currently have anyone working on a 64-bit client, but that could change if circumstances necessitate it.
Which OS are you running on your AMD64 - XP32 or XP64?
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=2414068&p=#post2415895 |
Poster: tigerclaw at 4/6/2005 3:19:33 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Porting to AMD64 101 |
| |
Q u o t e:
Look, now you angered the Tigerclaw.
Angry? Curious perhaps.
Damicatz, what frame rates do you see with the current 32-bit client on your system?
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=2414068&p=#post2416339 |
Poster: tigerclaw at 4/6/2005 3:28:20 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Porting to AMD64 101 |
| |
Q u o t e:
Under Cedega I was getting with DirectX mode about 30-40 FPS outdoors with 4xAA 16x Aniso on my Geforce 6600. With the same settings in OpenGL mode I was getting 50-60 FPS outdoors.
Sounds pretty playable.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=2414068&p=#post2416518 |
Poster: tigerclaw at 4/6/2005 3:44:53 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Porting to AMD64 101 |
| |
Q u o t e:
What about the G5 also ? Tiger is coming out this month and it is going to be 64-bit operating system .
I haven't seen anything yet indicating that Tiger will run existing 32-bit binaries at any kind of performance penalty on 64 bit hardware.
As an aside, Tiger doesn't have a complete 64-bit API in place yet - it only offers 64-bit for certain subsets of tasks that are appealing to server / science types (i.e. non-GUI compute heavy workloads or simulations).
Early reports here lean towards XP 64 as having a different type of outcome when running existing 32 bit software.
If XP 64 ran 32 bit software at full speed, would there be demand for specialized "64 bit optimization"?
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=2414068&p=#post2416837 |
Poster: tigerclaw at 4/6/2005 3:55:44 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Porting to AMD64 101 |
| |
Q u o t e:
I'd dig it.
I guess it was a silly question. There's never any lack of demand for more speed.
As I stated earlier, there isn't any work being done on a 64-bit client presently, but this could change if broad demand or need arises.
WoW is a big program encompassing our own code plus third party libraries (both open and closed source) and it would likely not be an overnight migration, so we would have to weigh the possible benefits very carefully.
In the meantime we continue to focus on optimizations that benefit all users, for example 'cprompt' and I found one just a couple days ago that will be in an upcoming patch, specifically targeted at crowded areas. Didn't need to test any new compilers or libs, just smarter code.
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=2414068&p=#post2417037 |
Poster: tigerclaw at 4/6/2005 3:59:04 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Porting to AMD64 101 |
| |
Q u o t e:
To those saying supporting two codebases would be bad, remember one thing: they already are. Win32 and Mac ports. And I wouldn't be suprised if large sections of the codebase are shared between the builds, and thus they ALREADY are using good techniques on variable bit widths, defines, etc, since you need to do that to make portable code.
While it's true that large sections of code are shared, there really is no "bit width issue" because Mac and Win32 are both 32 bit platforms and the size of key data types is not different. (Byte order within 16/32/64-bit values is reversed in memory, but sizes are the same).
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=2414068&p=#post2417098 |
