Why is everyone silent about the 32-bit system (Call of Duty: Ghosts)
Call of Duty: Ghostswarp 37
4 GB of RAM is required by the requirements of the developers In fact, it uses a little more than 2 GB at maximum speeds. So 32-bit OS would easily pull this game if it were not for the restrictions that they imposed
Leaked image for xbox one
http://www.xrel.to/console-nfo/705395/Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-XBOXONE-COMPLEX.html
I'm downloading, I'll dig and see what's interesting there.
x32 is morally obsolete...
So 32-bit operating systems would easily pull this game, if it weren't for the restrictions that they imposed
Yeah... 2 GB - game, gig system, somewhere half a gigabyte for other programs... Well, well
P .... what is it so difficult to rearrange Windows or what? And at the expense of memory, it seems like everything was decided for a long time.
If you're afraid if you lose your folders with xxx, make the system image the same as Acronis. 5 minutes Windows in the same state as it was.
ghost_1502
I'm interested in the executable. I want to look at its structure (how close it is to the PC) and at the same time look at the bit depth. It will be funny if 32 bit architecture is used there)
Darth Krayt
32 bit systems see up to 3.5 GB of RAM - that's just enough for everything if you use the memory as you said Plus there is such a thing as a paging file Secondly, the engine on which the game is made used to fly at 32 -bit systems and everyone played witchcraft at maximum speed with 2 GB of RAM and rather average or even worse than average graphics cards. In addition, this game was released on current generation consoles, where 256 MB of RAM! Let some of the graphic tricks there be cut down, but still it runs on them. So why shouldn’t it go on 32-bit systems with the same 2 GB of RAM? The answer is simple: developers’ limitations.
Lumenim
"...32 bit systems see up to 3.5 GB of RAM..."
32 bit OS see 2^32, raise it to a power on a calculator, and then divide several times by 1024 you get exactly 4GB. And indeed it is. Do not confuse how much the system SEES and how much is AVAILABLE to it. Do not forget that when windows boots up, its kernel is fully loaded into RAM. Hence there are such figures - from 3GB to 3.5GB, depending on the OS.
x64
64-bit OSs see a huge amount of memory (2^64 = 16 exabytes), but there is some caveat here. Typically, the processor bit depth is written like this 64/36 - a 64-bit data bus and a 36-bit address bus, i.e. the processor handles 64 bits at a time, and the address space is 2^36 (64GB). With a 64-bit version of the OS, the address space rests on the processor address space, if it is less than 64 bits.
in general, everything is compiled on Linux using xen-tools (the Xen hypervisor is a thin layer of software that emulates computer architecture (x86, x86_64, IA64, PowerPC, and others), is launched by the bootloader and allows several operating systems to run simultaneously on top of it). The file system is ext4. I got some information like titleid and other things, but the main 40GB *.xvc file has no clear structure (byte stream without headers), it is very difficult to parse such files (and besides, it can be encrypted).
tesla707
First of all, you said the same as me. I just didn't go into details of RAM usage and so on. Secondly, I'm not here protesting against 64 bits, but I'm arguing about why the code does not go to 32 bit OSes. Still, a rather large part of the people still sit on them
PS: 32 bit OSes do not see more than 3.5 GB, i.e. . you can put as many GB of memory on your computer as you want, but 32-bit OSes will use no more than 3.5, they simply don’t see the rest and don’t use it
Lumenim
"PS: 32-bit operating systems do not see more than 3.5 GB"
you again got into the wrong jungle. They do not see, but not available.
tesla707
Read carefully and to the end, maybe it will become a little clearer
"PS: 32-bit OSes do not see more than 3.5 GB, i.e. you can put as many GB of memory on your computer, but 32-bit OSes will use no more than 3.5 , the rest they just simply do not see and do not use"
And in fact, now the argument is over a couple of words, both of which are great, if you think "Do not see" and "not available", in this case, the same thing, just different ways of presenting the same phenomenon
What to do - install 64-x Windows.
What's wrong - in all previous games, IW and Treyarch did not create large maps, and in multiplayer the map borders were cut off and tightened with a couple of textures, but now they made the back 10 times larger than the map itself and well-covered, so the map itself should now change without additional loading after a shot from ODIN, plus high-poly textures for 4k resolution, which is why the game devours video memory like a plate of pasta - as a result, in some places (at least for me with 2 gigs of video memory) you can find low textures. And all this gradually eats up more and RAM. We can say that this is a simple direct port from the nextgen with support for high resolutions, and judging by the new assassin, such ports will be released more and more often.
Why create a topic for whiners and brains ..bov, who can’t .. do it and they are tearing up a fart from raping the resources of the game and the system? Set yourself x64 and don't fuck your brain! Well, there will be no more normal games either under XP or under x32 .. Keep up with the times and develop