64-bit FarCry is out!

[moshpit]

Umm, Sorry, but AMDzone's review clearly does NOT show EVEN a 5% drop in performance (and they DID use the extra content added), and sorry, it would give ALOT more then 5% loss for the added overhead of the increased draw distance ALONE. You are incorrect, not i. The effort your showing inconclusively to prove me wrong shows you may WISH no x64 additions are really there, but your incorrect to think so, the evidence clearly shows that. I'm sorry, but NO review has shown even a FULL 10% loss and I'd very much like you to link us to the one that does, and even if you CAN, once again, the detail levels AND the increased draw distance together add up to ALOT more then a MEASLY 10% loss, and you KNOW that.

[Pehu]

Umm, Sorry, but AMDzone's review clearly does NOT show EVEN a 5% drop in performance (and they DID use the extra content added), and sorry, it would give ALOT more then 5% loss for the added overhead of the increased draw distance ALONE.

AMDzone's review is just not very thorough.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...bit/page10.asp

[moshpit]

Look, thorough or NOT, you CANNOT deny that the MASSIVELY increased draw distance AND the improved detail levels of all rock faces would hit the GPU MUCH harder then 10%. Why argue obvious fact? It's there and you CANNOT show more then 10% loss in ANYBODIES set of benchmarks, because it's not there. x64 IS doing some of the work. Period. Much as MANY people seem to want to deny it, HOW do you deny THAT much graphical addition with so LITTLE perf hit? The answer is, only if you wish REALLY hard

[moshpit]

Okay, this qualifies as a double post, I know, but is worthy of it's own post.

I'm playing Farcry x64 right now, and I'm sorry, but THIS much addition without noticable slow down is WAY too much for your theory to be true, it's too blatently much added to NOT impact performance MUCH more then it does. The detail levels stay detailed even further out then the 32 bit version and the draw distance is WAY to huge to accept yours, or the "official" explanaitions of a COUPLE sites that seem to equate this patch to the other x64 attempts that came before it for other games.

EVERYTHING seems crisper and more detailed (except the weapons themselves, they seem to not have changed at all), and overall you cannot feel any performance difference at all from the 32 bit version.

Tell ya what, if Crytek or Ubi Soft end up saying that none of the additions are due to x64 at all, then I'll buy into that theory, but until then, the obvious evidence says otherwise. x64 IS playing a role in balancing the performance loss these extra features would cause, which should be closer to 25-30% loss from the hugely increased draw distance alone. The details at that distance should be bringing GPU's to thier knees. I run a 6800GT and while it has alotta power, it doesn't have THAT much power on it's own...

[Pehu]

Of course, you can believe what you want, but it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why the enhanced content has been artificially limited to 64-bit environments, although it could have very well been added to the 32-bit version as well.
Crytek could have done that (released ECU for 32-bits also) and there would be no argument either way and I would say that it would have made for a heck of a lot better argument for the new 64-bit processors and XP64 if the advantage of 64-bits vs 32-bits in FarCry were actually proven.

[moshpit]

And it woulda hit preformance even harder in 32 bit. Nobody said the content itself couldn't be done in 32 bit, just that much content added with so little performance hit, so quit twisting my words please. Anytime you add that much, you lose performance, deny that if you can. Since 10% on ONE site is the most you can show, I certainly won't be believing you on this point.

The content itself isn't in question of it's bit-ness, just the ability to do it with so little loss is, and you keep avoiding that point nicely.

[Pehu]

And it woulda hit preformance even harder in 32 bit.

That is only an assumption, and as such an unproven one. And I repeat: if this were the case, releasing the ECU for 32-bits also, would definitely make for a stronger case for 64-bits, but for some reason Crytek/AMD decided to play it another way.

Nobody said the content itself couldn't be done in 32 bit, just that much content added with so little performance hit, so quit twisting my words please. Anytime you add that much, you lose performance, deny that if you can. Since 10% on ONE site is the most you can show, I certainly won't be believing you on this point.
The content itself isn't in question of it's bit-ness, just the ability to do it with so little loss is, and you keep avoiding that point nicely.

You can choose to believe what you want, but I refuse to accept your logic, at least until it has actually been proven that the 64-bit version offers more performance. In any case: without the ECU (which I repeat again: has only been made available for 64-bits) the performance is equal.
You simply seem to want to eat what Crytek/AMD/Microsoft are feeding you, without any proof. 10% loss or less, that is still performance loss and there is simply no proof what the performance loss would be on a 32-bit system. Not to mention: most of the enhancements rely on the GPU.

[Ryan]

To settle this argument, you would need to see the game able to run the exact same render path GPU wise but different render path's CPU wise, meaning a 64-bit and 32-bit version of the same executable. This is not an option right now, though I plan to talk to Crytek about it at E3.