5.0 and 64 bit client also for Mac?

85 Draenei Shaman
10450
I saw on MMO-Champion today that on the 4.3 PTR launcher, there was a grayed out option to run the 32 bit client, inferring that 64 bit is coming.

It's safe to say that 64bit during a final patch could be a disaster, but for, say 4.4 when they're rolling out 5.0 pre-expac talents, pre-expac events and putting up major changes live for the final round of beta testing, it makes all the sense in the world.

Will we see a 64 bit client for the Mac and if so, what will be the likely requirements? I know I'm not in the ballpark as I have a Mac Pro 1,1, but if someone could let us know what would be the minimum required to run a 64 bit client, that would be very helpful.

Reply Quote
- Technical Support
100 Human Warrior
20315
i doubt they will give minimium requirement at this time.

Also many people misunderstand the difference of 64 bit and 32 bit apps. People think that 64 is flat out better. That isn't nessesarily in true. it is right direction for wow going forward with the new engine supporting much greater far clip (view distance), enhanced shadow and physics rendering and more detailed textures going into MoP. The game is probably gonna climb up on that 3.5gig limit soonish.

However, 64 bit apps come at costs too. Being 64 bit, it has a higher memory overhead straight out of box, even before all that stuff i listed above. If the app was same as it is now, but 64 bit, it'd used a lot more ram to do same thing it does now. 64 bit is an additional layer of overhead and raises the memory requirement of the app, as such systems that can't go beyond 2-3 gigs of ram will see 64 bit have a very negetive impact on their wow performance, they get virtual memory pageouts as it is i'm sure, they will get twice as many on a 64 bit client. Uninformed users won't understand what's going on so i hope the client enters 32 bit mode smartly (ie it knows whether on that spec system it's a good idea or not). I've run mmeory comparisons on a few apps, for example, itunes in 64 bit mode uses 74MB idle, in 32 bit mode, it uses 59MB idle. That's not a lot on the scale of a dinky app like itunes but that's an increase of about 25%. My wow uses about 2.40 gigs of ram. lets apply 25% to that shall we? 3 gigs of ram.

But i have a feeling it's going to be one of thoes things people don't understand, think is better, and everyone turns it on and goes "why isn't it better?".
Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Priest
6105
I would expect a 64 bit intel processor, and maybe snow leopard or above. It's hard to predict where they will set the os bar, though. If they do it, it'll just be a universal binary as is pretty typical of mac 64 bit apps.
Reply Quote
85 Undead Priest
9900
11/17/2011 02:45 PMPosted by Omegal
My wow uses about 2.40 gigs of ram. lets apply 25% to that shall we? 3 gigs of ram


I would love to know why your client uses 2.4 gigs of ram when mine uses less than a gig.
Reply Quote
85 Blood Elf Priest
6105
A lot of the 'ram' used is typically memory mapped files, which don't actually use ram at all. They just tie up virtual address space.
Reply Quote
- Technical Support
100 Human Warrior
20315
My wow uses about 2.40 gigs of ram. lets apply 25% to that shall we? 3 gigs of ram


I would love to know why your client uses 2.4 gigs of ram when mine uses less than a gig.


ultra settings on a client that's been open for a while and has a lot of stuff loaded, deepholm i think is where i was when i took this screen shot
http://www.mysticalos.com/images/diablo3/ZOMG_CPU.jpg

the second client had much lower settings.
Edited by Omegal on 11/17/2011 9:49 PM PST
Reply Quote
86 Blood Elf Paladin
9845
I really hope they dont make wow 64 bit for mac and if they do we have an option on which bit to run it in. I have found on my mac lap top (snow leopard) the 64 bit software tends to have memory leaks which eventually slows the lap top down to a halt. The only way to free the ram is to use the command terminal. Also for some reason running WOW on my lap top also has memory leaks because when you quit the game your ram is still almost completely full. All of these leaks started when i switched to snow leopard. I dont know if the wow problem is due to shared graphic memory or memory swaps between ram and hard drive. All I know is that I switched to a different computer to play WOW.

Of note: Every mac user I know that runs on snow leopard also seems to have the same problems with snow leopards so I know its not my hardware speciffically.
Reply Quote
MVP - Technical Support
100 Draenei Mage
6930
11/17/2011 02:24 PMPosted by Yarong
I saw on MMO-Champion today that on the 4.3 PTR launcher, there was a grayed out option to run the 32 bit client, inferring that 64 bit is coming.


Did you happen to read my post in the comments :P

Boub is wrong here

That option has been in the options for the Live launcher since November the 9th , Launcher version 4.2.1.2609. Go check right now. It did not "just appear on the PTR launcher". PTR Launcher hasn't been updated since the 29th of October.

Furthermore there is very little evidence contained in the PTR client of a coming 64 bit client.

Live has a few localisation type strings , an if then else loop to load a 64 bit version of scan.dll , and 2 string vars with URLs for the scan.dlls

PTR has exactly the same lines of code except it adds an if-then-else loop to load a 64 bit voice client and 2 strings dealing with 64 bit voice chat.

That's extremely flimsy evidence given that they sometimes put stuff in the client they don't know when they are going to use if at all. There's also code in the client right now that has never seen the light of day since the game was introduced and even stuff that I believe will never get used (IsLinuxClient() and IsGMClient() anyone ?)
Reply Quote
MVP - Technical Support
100 Draenei Mage
6930
Here's a good explanation of it from the Windows side of things written by a good buddy of mine

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2593046791

Not sure how relevant it may be for the Mac so read it with an open mind. But this paragraph springs to mind :

One of the main things that people anticipate a 64-bit client would do is improve stability by increasing the usable address space. World of Warcraft - like any other 32-bit application - is normally limited to 2 GB of address space


In a discussion about loading textures Padim , one of the mac programmers pointed out that the current wow mac client can already access up to 3.5 GB of memory. That doesn't make it 64 bit it just means it has some form of capability similar to the LAA flag on Windows.
Reply Quote
Support Forum Agent
Just wanting to point out some tidbits, here is some of the references that Blu is referring to (which is from S4d1k, but Padim and S4d1k are on the same team):

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2369680128?page=3#55

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/2369680128?page=4#61
________________________________________________
Mac Tech Support for Baaaaahlizzard Entertainment || Fri-Tue 1:45 pm - 10:45 pm CST
http://www.surveymk.com/s/RF8K3KG ---- Rate my Baaaaalue Posts. How's this sheep doing?
Dedicated to making your Mac/Blizzard Experience an awesome one!
Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom.-- Lao Tzu
Edited by TonyM on 11/19/2011 1:49 PM PST
Reply Quote
100 Undead Mage
15155
That option has been in the options for the Live launcher since November the 9th , Launcher version 4.2.1.2609. Go check right now. It did not "just appear on the PTR launcher". PTR Launcher hasn't been updated since the 29th of October.

...

There's also code in the client right now that has never seen the light of day since the game was introduced and even stuff that I believe will never get used (IsLinuxClient() and IsGMClient() anyone ?)


I wrote the popped up on the PTR when it appeared in a tools update on the PTR, it just sat in the news queue for a while when more important things kept coming up.


As to the second part, wasn't there Linux support back in vanilla beta or alpha, I seem to remember one of the interviews talking about developing a Linux client and then not releasing or maintaining it due to tiny Linux market share.
Edited by Chaud on 11/19/2011 2:21 PM PST
Reply Quote
- Technical Support
100 Human Warrior
20315
It'd be foolish not to go 64 bit in 5.0 to be honest. 3.5 gigs is a bit of padding now. but if we continue the same completely obsolete code , 2 core 32 bit app that poorly utillizes hardware (especially the CPU), then increase farclip even more(at blizzcon they said they were literaly doubling farclip), adds new features, and increases polygon counts in environment. updating models etc. then stick people int fights like heroic rag with 20 adds, plus a fancy boss model, plus 25 players who all have vanity pets out, plus their regular pets too. We agoing to continue to see the game have MUCH higher requirements then it should. Sysgetms that can run much newer better games with half the bottlenecking wow has choking on things it's unacceptable to choke on. You can't keep sticking patches on a 6 year old game and expect it to continue to perform without major code refinements and rewrites of the core. GLL was sort of a step in that direction, but that's just a frontend to a small portion of bigger picture. the app itself is still one of the poorest performing games out there. and that can be said about pretty much most blizz games. They focus too much on backawrds compatiblity with obsolete hardware and software and poorly focus on optimized instructions.

You look at someone else "our game requires latest and greatest OS, video drivers, and is optimized for it"
you look at blizzard game "we cator to your obsolete OS, waste resources and dev time to patch bugs because you're too lazy to update video drivers, and we continue to use old unoptimized instructions because we don't want to upset the userbase that won't update for 20 dollars"

MMO posting stuff like that puts a glimmer of hope out there, and i hope makes the devs consider something lilke that even if it wasn't on the table yet.
Edited by Omegal on 11/19/2011 2:39 PM PST
Reply Quote
- Technical Support
100 Human Warrior
20315
and for same of point prooving, i'm now about to beat D3 beta, from beginningt to end, like this

http://www.mysticalos.com/images/diablo3/ptr_beta_stress_test.jpg

to show by no means my machine is underpowered, and can handle 4 underperofrming games at same time just as well as 1 under performing game
Edited by Omegal on 11/19/2011 4:27 PM PST
Reply Quote
MVP - Technical Support
100 Draenei Mage
6930
11/19/2011 02:19 PMPosted by Chaud
I wrote the popped up on the PTR when it appeared in a tools update on the PTR, it just sat in the news queue for a while when more important things kept coming up.


Regardless. The post should of come out on October the 29th or not at all. It's shoddy reporting to report something had "just come out" when it's been in there for quite some time now.

Not matter what you say about "more important things". MMO Champion's a news site isn't it ? There's no such thing as "too much news today we may have to shuffle this bit of news to the side to post later". More news is good news.

Appeared on the PTR Launcher Oct the 29th and the PTR Launcher November the 7th. Posting something on the 16th about it is a little late.
Edited by Bluspacecow on 11/19/2011 5:50 PM PST
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Druid
15670
Hitauragone explained a bit more about where the 3.5 GB memory access comes from (and really its only not 4GB because the last .5GB is consumed by system libraries, but this would be required regardless). Basically WoW isn't doing anything special.

But the major reason for WoW to go 64-bit is to save system memory. Why? Because as a 32-bit application on a system mostly running 64-bit applications, WoW basically ends up being the only application that is loading the 32-bit runtime. Note that above this runtime consumes around .5GB of virtual memory – its real memory cost is fairly similar because again, WoW is the only application that is probably using it on your computer. Whereas all the 64-bit applications are happily sharing a similarly sized chunk of memory for the 64-bit runtime.

As stated earlier, 64-bit does cause a growth in some types of memory usage – its not free. But on x86, 64-bit applications gain enough additional performance enhancements to generally offset the performance hit you get for the slightly increased memory size.
Reply Quote
90 Orc Shaman
9540
...As stated earlier, 64-bit does cause a growth in some types of memory usage – its not free. But on x86, 64-bit applications gain enough additional performance enhancements to generally offset the performance hit you get for the slightly increased memory size.


While that's true in most cases, what Omegal and Blu were pointing out is that it WOULDN'T be true on Apple's earlier Macbooks (Pros).

The first few generations of the Macbooks, even after they migrated from the 32-bit Yonah Core Duo to the 64-bit Merom Core 2 Duo chips, due to design problems with the motherboard, those Macbooks are limited to about 3GB of usable RAM. No matter how much you install in them, they will only see about 3GB of it.

The increased memory overhead would virtually render the earlier Core 2 models unusable despite the fact that they may yet still meet the minimum requirements. And we'd get a whole bunch of people whining about why their 6 year old MBP can't play the latest rendition of a rapidly evolving game.

This was later addressed, and the later Core 2 and i-Series Macbooks can now use up to 8GB. (Though I think there were a couple of the middle of the line Core 2 Macbook Pros that could only see 6GB.)

But even 8GB won't get you very far when running multiple instances of games like Omegal is doing on his Mac Pro above.
Edited by Stormtides on 11/19/2011 11:01 PM PST
Reply Quote
100 Night Elf Druid
15670
While that's true in most cases, what Omegal and Blu were pointing out is that it WOULDN'T be true on Apple's earlier Macbooks (Pros).

The first few generations of the Macbooks, even after they migrated from the 32-bit Yonah Core Duo to the 64-bit Merom Core 2 Duo chips, due to design problems with the motherboard, those Macbooks are limited to about 3GB of usable RAM. No matter how much you install in them, they will only see about 3GB of it.


Actually, thats irrelevant to what I'm talking about. Its not about how much usable physical RAM is available to the machine as a whole, but how much additional ram is necessary to support both 32-bit and 64-bit apps running at the same time.

The increased memory overhead would virtually render the earlier Core 2 models unusable despite the fact that they may yet still meet the minimum requirements. And we'd get a whole bunch of people whining about why their 6 year old MBP can't play the latest rendition of a rapidly evolving game.


Actually, thats the case with WoW as a 32-bit app.

If your running Snow Leopard (10.6) when you first boot your machine and get to the Finder, every app you see is 64-bit. All of those apps are sharing the memory required to run the 64-bit runtime. The moment you launch WoW however, you have to load the 32-bit runtime, which then consumes additional memory just for WoW. Unless you are running multiple 32-bit applications (which you probably are, if only because iTunes was 32-bit only until recently) this memory usage is pure overhead just for WoW.

Even though 64-bit apps use a little more memory (emphasis on the little), by having only 64-bit (or to be fair only 32-bit) apps running, the system uses less memory overall.

This was later addressed, and the later Core 2 and i-Series Macbooks can now use up to 8GB. (Though I think there were a couple of the middle of the line Core 2 Macbook Pros that could only see 6GB.)

But even 8GB won't get you very far when running multiple instances of games like Omegal is doing on his Mac Pro above.


This is all true, but still irrelevant to what I'm talking about. If you have a Core 2 Duo and are running Snow Leopard or later, then running only 64-bit apps is a net win in the memory department.
Edited by Angua on 11/20/2011 6:14 AM PST
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]