Will DooM 3 preform better on an Athlon 64bit ot 32bit?

I am going to build a computer to play DooM 3. I would like to know if I should go with the Athlon 64bit or 32bit? Will DooM 3 take advantage of the extra 32bits? Or will I just be shelling out more for a sticker that has a 64 on it.

Thanks!!!

Erik

As far as I know, there won't be a special 64-bit version of Doom3, so the extra 32bit won't matter.
However, the AMD64 processors do have a lot of extra horsepower compared to the Athlon XP processors, which might come in handy for all the physics calculations.

Also note that an AMD64 3000+ costs about the same as an Athlon XP3200 and is a lot faster, so the AMD64 is definitly something to consider.

Being 64-bit does nto mean twice as fast as 32-bit, it means the computations can use doubel the space; actually the 64-bit will probably run slower than the 32, because its impossible to run the same program the same way, so there will have to be an emulation layer

Wobbo said:

Being 64-bit does nto mean twice as fast as 32-bit, it means the computations can use doubel the space; actually the 64-bit will probably run slower than the 32, because its impossible to run the same program the same way, so there will have to be an emulation layer

If you have no clue what you're talking about, don't talk. x86-64 is perfectly backwards compatible, no emulation is required. In fact the 64-bit AMD processors are able to run some 32-bit code faster the 32-bit processors (though I'm not sure how much of an impact that has in the case of a game engine).

64 bit isn't perfected yet. Windows lacks many drivers which are supported by 64 bit, so you should wait, IMO.

insertwackynamehere said:

64 bit isn't perfected yet. Windows lacks many drivers which are supported by 64 bit, so you should wait, IMO.

theres a 64bit windows xp version out right now, i believe, but its downloadable

insertwackynamehere said:

64 bit isn't perfected yet

Nor is 32 bit.

insertwackynamehere said:

64 bit isn't perfected yet. Windows lacks many drivers which are supported by 64 bit, so you should wait, IMO.

i belive the 64-bit CPU was geared more towards operating systems that have been useing it. such as UNIX and more modern linux. 64 bit CPU's have been out for some time, but mainly on server end systems.

windows has only recently been developing into 64 bit. however i am not sure how well it will work in 64-bit mode.

the real advantage to the 64-bit CPU could be seen in a UNIX system and even newer Linux projects. UNIX has been useing 64-bit for a while now.

i dont know much about the 64-bit version of windows. last i heard it was due to be released in january this year, oviously it is behind.

if you do get a 64-CPU system, build. dont get these E-machiens and compaqs that have them. first off you will not get the full advantage of 64Bit with 32 bit XP home. yes this CPU does boost preformance in 32 bit apps.


i belive Id stated doom III will be 32 bit and not 64 bit

Fredrik said:

If you have no clue what you're talking about, don't talk. x86-64 is perfectly backwards compatible, no emulation is required. In fact the 64-bit AMD processors are able to run some 32-bit code faster the 32-bit processors (though I'm not sure how much of an impact that has in the case of a game engine).

Athlons new are x86-compatible? Learn something new everyday.

64 would be my guess

Doom 3 will not use 64 bit CPU's so, its all coming down to the chips' 32 bit performance.

I read that when using an Athlon64 and Win XP 64, 32 Bit programs are SLOWER than under Win XP 32. However, under Win XP 32, the Athlon64 should be a litte faster (about 20%? - this is my guess) than an AthlonXP of the same clock speed. It won't be slower, that's for sure.

I wonder if id will build an x86-64 version of Doom 3 like Crytek wants to do with Far Cry ...

Arioch said:

I wonder if id will build an x86-64 version of Doom 3 like Crytek wants to do with Far Cry ...

Well, if the code is clean, it should just be a question or changing the compiler target. Problem is, I doubt Carmack would change the data sizes to take full advantage of the 64bits architecture.

Get an Athlon64. You'll be ahead of the curve, man. 64 bit WinXP comes out shortly and Longhorn will be 64 bit.

Plus 64 bit is just cool. :P

Julian said:

Well, if the code is clean, it should just be a question or changing the compiler target. Problem is, I doubt Carmack would change the data sizes to take full advantage of the 64bits architecture.

Didn't he already say that running Doom3 on a 64bit architecture should result in slower performance due to the data size?

On the other hand people could go wild on RAM - custom content creation will be easier when you can hold 10 million polys in your RAM to render a nice normal map.

I believe this is the biggest benefit Tim Sweeny also claims for his new Unreal.x engine.

BNA! said:

Didn't he already say that running Doom3 on a 64bit architecture should result in slower performance due to the data size?

I don't believe this! Period.

The 64 bit = slower thing is bullshit, not on proper 64 bit code. Now if you took a 64 bit ONLY CPU and ran a 32bit app, it would be slower. But a CPU like the A64 runs native 32 bit and 64bit fine.

Deathmatcher said:

I don't believe this! Period.

Well, it was Carmack who claimed it - who am I to prove him wrong.

As I stated above: I think the Athlon 64 is only slower on running Doom3, if it does so under a 64-Bit-OS, like the WinXP-64 Beta, for example.

There are tons of benchmarks out there, showing that the Athlon 64 is always at least as good as the Athlon XP of the same clock speed. I cannot imagine that it will be different for one particular game.