DICE says some upcoming Frostbite 2 games will require 64-bit OS

By on May 21, 2012, 5:30 PM

If you’re a PC gamer and still use a 32-bit processor, now might be a pretty good time to consider planning your next build on a 64-bit platform. Battlefield developer DICE posted a tweet earlier today revealing they will have Frostbite-powered games in 2013 that will only work with a 64-bit operating system.

The tweet comes from DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson, who further suggests that Windows 8 would be a great upgrade later this year for anyone still on a 32-bit version of Windows. That is, of course, if you already have a 32-bit processor. Otherwise that would need to be your first upgrade if you want to play upcoming Frostbite-powered titles.

It’s unclear exactly what titles will require a 64-bit system but it wouldn’t be unheard of to think that Battlefield: Bad Company 3, Battlefield 4 or even Mirror’s Edge 2 could all qualify. Frostbite has already been used on a number of games from EA including Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Need for Speed: The Run. Shack News points out that the only 2013 Frostbite title to be confirmed thus far is Command & Conquer: Generals 2 which could very well be a candidate.

In a related note, Steam’s Hardware & Software Survey shows that 55.87 percent of users are running Windows 7 64-bit while another 6.51 percent still use Vista 64-bit. On the flip side, 15.46 percent of gamers still use Windows XP 32-bit while more than 20 percent of Windows 7 and Vista users have a 32-bit copy of their OS.




User Comments: 32

Got something to say? Post a comment
ramonsterns said:

That's fine, I wasn't buying anything stuck to Origin anyways.

MrBungle said:

Is anything 32bit only even capable of rendering Frostbite/Frostbite 2 at acceptable levels?

I say about time, 32bit software needs to be left in the last decade with the pentium 4 where it belongs.

killeriii said:

64-bit requirement is a good idea. IMO

Maybe they can make games capable of more that way. I'm sure sticking to a 32-bit backward compatible foundation is a limitation.

Guest said:

Considering Athlon 64 3000+ single core was already a 64-bit processor and Intel followed up with Core 2 Duo E6300/6400/6600 in Q3 2006, hardly anyone playing modern games is NOT using a 64-bit capable CPU. And since 32-bit OS limits both video and memory RAM to just 4GB, I can't see anyone using a 32-bit OS for gaming either. So I think this will hardly affect gamers who are playing games using Frostbyte 2 engine. If anything, this requirement ensures that those who have obsolete hardware won't have to suffer trying to get next generation games to work. :p

I look forward to DICE pushing the next graphics, physics and animations in next generation PC games.

scumbag said:

How about publishers releasing a game that just plain works from day one.

Is that pushing the envelope enough?

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

A 32bit OS became a bottleneck for all types of applications/software/games years ago but only now is it really coming into the limelight with it being a limit for gaming performance.

Guest said:

Reminds me of what they said about the requirements to run BF3 on max settings: 3 GTX580s, yeah right.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

^

Depends on what resolution you play at.

In the PC gaming world 1080p is small chips, compared to 1600p and Eyefinity/3DSurround type resolutions.

yRaz yRaz said:

If someone has a 32bit CPU or OS, I don't think they consider them self a serious gamer. Not to mention their computer might not meet any of the minimum requirements anyway. We need something to move graphics forward. Do we want to be stuck at the xbox level? At some point it's gotta go, just like 16bit and those before it. Now, someone start talking about 128bit.

Guest said:

Yep.for today's and tomorrow's gaming desktops, we need to dump 32bit OS and also the same tried windows 95 desktop metaphor. It's almost 20yrs and I can't believe people can't evolve beyond the "start" button.

Guest said:

I love comments like that, as if you had any clue what could do the job as well as a start menu. So far nothing has surpassed the speed and ease of use XP's UI gave us. Windows 7 could have been amazing - all the tools were there, but as usual Microsoft created some cool UI stuff and then barely used it (or used it incorrectly). Windows 8 certainly isn't going to make any headway..its shaping up to be Microsoft's single biggest failure since Bob. Hopefully it will serve as a wake up call.

Guest said:

They recomended you had win7 x64 for BF3 but the damb thing still only runs in a 32bit browser and game client its still a very buggy game if BF3 was x64 and pc only there would have been far less crashes and bugs ,Im all for x64 OS but after Crysis and Warhead there has been no Native x64 bit games since bit of a shame really and that was 2007.

Quantic Dream boss David Cage favors new ideas over more technological capability and he recently Said we don't need to see new consoles until 2017 LOL:D

Guest said:

" Windows 8 certainly isn't going to make any headway..its shaping up to be Microsoft's single biggest failure "

I don't know about that. But I've been using the Windows 8 CP as my test production OS and I'm more in tune and more productive with it.

I can bring up a whole bevy of stuff just right clicking on the start menu hot corner (control panel/device manager/power options).

If you want to stick to the win95 desktop that's your call. I would assume by 2020 we'd have evolved beyond that no?

Johnny Utah said:

People still use 32 Bit OS?

Guest said:

Wasn't the use of more than 4 gigs of ram the only benefict of a 64bits s.o?

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

<p>Wasn't the use of more than 4 gigs of ram the only benefict of a 64bits s.o?</p>
No thats not the only benefit. Memory is not the only thing that can be addressed or indexed.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

<p>I love comments like that, as if you had any clue what could do the job as well as a start menu. So far nothing has surpassed the speed and ease of use XP's UI gave us. Windows 7 could have been amazing - all the tools were there, but as usual Microsoft created some cool UI stuff and then barely used it (or used it incorrectly). Windows 8 certainly isn't going to make any headway..its shaping up to be Microsoft's single biggest failure since Bob. Hopefully it will serve as a wake up call.</p>

I love it. First sentence, call out a person for being stupid. Second sentence...hahahaha.

1 person liked this |
Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

"That is, of course, if you already have a 32-bit processor."

I think you meant:

"That is, of course, if you already have a 64-bit processor."

I'm glad DICE is pushing progress forward, so little has happend in PC gaming for the last 5 years it makes me sad

In large part this is Microsoft's fault for dividing the PC market up in DX9 camp (XP) and DX10/11 camp (Vista/7)

But the fact they can't let go of the 32bit version of Windows is also a contributing factor, now even Win8 will have a 32bit version

IMO 32bit should have been dropped with Vista, had there only been one version to code drivers for it would have ment much less work for the driver teams and Vista would not have been such a big flop that it was in the end...

Qrox Qrox said:

"The tweet comes from DICE rendering architect Johan Andersson, who further suggests that Windows 8 would be a great upgrade later this year for anyone still on a 32-bit version of Windows."

Are they reading the same news as I am about windows 8?

From the first time they announced that they were working on windows 8 I thought that they would have to give me a good reason to move over to windows 8. But so far, month on month they keep giving me reasons not to get it.

I'm happy with windows 7 for now thank you very much. If you need to move from 32 to 64bit I'd suggest getting a windows 7 version before windows 8 comes out.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

If you need to move from 32 to 64bit I'd suggest getting a windows 7 version before windows 8 comes out.
Wouldn't Windows 7 still be available even after Windows 8 has been released?

Qrox Qrox said:

Not sure about that. I think it they continue to support the OS for a couple of years but they stop selling the previous version when the new one comes out.

But I could be wrong.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

<p>Wasn't the use of more than 4 gigs of ram the only benefict of a 64bits s.o?</p>

That's the main benefit. I think this implies that these games simply need a lot of RAM. The real limitation for software is 3GB (and even that is somewhat of a hack, as it's normally 2GB). I find it a little funny because the console versions do with a lot less RAM, and a lot of people complain that PC games are nothing but console conversions.

jeffz6 said:

Business have only just started to move to win7, now theres win8? there hasnt been enough time between them. I remember buying my first AMD64 labeled proccessor thinking of great things, I never noticed a thing. I think apple had 64bit before that anyway?

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

That's the main benefit. I think this implies that these games simply need a lot of RAM.
What about processing 32 bits vs 64 bits with each clock cycle but yet you say the main benefit was surpassing the 32 bit RAM limitation. Even though all hardware is 64 bit capable, if the OS is 32 bit then only 32 bits of data will be process with each clock cycle.

Marlindoz said:

<p>
<p>Wasn't the use of more than 4 gigs of ram the only benefict of a 64bits s.o?</p>
</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>That's the main benefit. I think this implies that these games simply need a lot of RAM. The real limitation for software is 3GB (and even that is somewhat of a hack, as it's normally 2GB). I find it a little funny because the console versions do with a lot less RAM, and a lot of people complain that PC games are nothing but console conversions.</p>

You can't really compare consoles and PC's in that sense. Consoles manage with less RAM cause every Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are the same. Developers can optimize games because they know exactly what hardware it's going to run and which software will be running in the background.

However, PC's have a pretty much unlimited number of combinations of hardware and software. You could be running a dual core CPU, a 64-bit OS with 24GB RAM and an overclocked videocard or you could be running a quad core, 32-bit OS, 4GB of ram and a budget/HTPC card.

TL;DR

Consoles have no variables, PC's do.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I'm glad DICE is pushing progress forward, so little has happend in PC gaming for the last 5 years it makes me sad

.

That's very true. I noticed that the impetus to upgrade my hardware, be it CPU or video card, has always been some game. I remember that Oblivion made me buy essentially a new computer, I upgraded my video card to run Civ V (don't judge me). If one of these "killer" titles requires 64 bits, and the game is a must have, then people will upgrade.

A improvement of 20% in speed is not going to get your average person to spend a few hundred bucks to improve their computer, as its hard to put a price on such a gradual increase for most people "20% for $300...nah, its fine now". But if you present them with a binary option of a) upgrade or b) you can't play it at all, people will probably reconsider plopping down the money and utter the phrase "I needed a new computer anyway..."

Guest said:

hold on... didnt they stop making 32 bit processors years ago? I dont even look for this information when purchasing... its just always there...

Puiu Puiu said:

it's about the OS. Computers with less than 4GB of RAM still sell with a 32bit OS installed because 64bit eats up a bit more ram.

Many people have 2-3 GB of ram and they only need to change the OS to make the game work. (although I'm not sure it will work at max settings)

Guest said:

"Business have only just started to move to win7, now theres win8?"

Think of Windows as what Apple and Google already do, offer newer OS for newer technologies, while keeping odler OS for existing and older hardware. Microsoft doesn't have a pure "keep only 1 OS option" on their products, they have kept XP and server 2003 alive for this reason. Likewise Windows 7 (which is now the new "XP") will be usable and supported for many years to come; While the rest of us that like the latest and greatest Hardware & OS can play with Win8/Win9/etc to take advantage of that new features.

Someone with a desktop doesn't "need" windows 8. However someone with a newer x86 slate or convertible tablet/notebook could clearly benefit from windows 8.

It's not so different than Linux, one version is consider LTS stable, other is a brand new distro or alpha quality, another distro for supporting really bleeding edge stuff.

MrBungle said:

<p>Yep.for today's and tomorrow's gaming desktops, we need to dump 32bit OS and also the same tried windows 95 desktop metaphor. It's almost 20yrs and I can't believe people can't evolve beyond the "start" button.</p>

It really is crazy. I guess I'm just backwards preferring to launch my app(lications) without the handholding of a full screen menu built for people too technically illiterate to understand a directory structure or mulitasking.

Guest said:

I sold an Athlon 64 3200+ to a friend and installed Windows 7 64bit just for testing, surprisingly it works well with 2Gigs of RAM, could say it was really future proof :P

My brother's PC is also an Athlon 5500+ with win 7 64bit and a 3850 AGP on it and works pretty fine

Only some atoms out there are not 64bit capable nowadays even some pentium D's have EMT64

I find the 64bit build of windows more than stable, even the crappy Vista worked a lot better in 64bit version rather than the 32bit

Guest said:

I just need weight on my weapons....just like Killzone 3 for the PS3 console

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.