PDA

View Full Version : Nvidias *cough*64bit*cough* Drivers


Pages : [1] 2 3

Hellbinder
02-08-04, 02:28 PM
In another topic that was closed I stated that Nvidia does not have 64 bit drivers.. Which is TRUE. They offer a set of drivers for 64bit OS's but the Performance DROPS by a steep margin. The reason is they really are NOT 64bit drivers, but 32bit drivers with some hacks to run in a 64bit enviornment.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.html?i=1961&p=4

Which is why i asked "where Nvidias 64 bit drivers are"...

Its one thing to slightly modify an exsisting driver to run on a 64bit os and another to actually offer a 64bit driver. One is for PR bragging Rights the other is the real deal. If you Remember ATi's DX9 Drivers performed fantastic on their very first release. Which is what should be expected or at least something CLOSE from an honest initial 64bit driver release.

Demirug
02-08-04, 03:05 PM
How much do you know about driver development in the windows enviroment? If you driver is well writen you have to change nothing at sourcecodelevel to make it run on a 64Bit version of windows. You only need a new compiler.

Anand is right wenn he say that games run bad at 64Bit windows. But his conclusion is wrong. The real problem is that 32bit games run in a 64bit enviroment with 64bit drivers. Games need to call they driver many times and each time the cpu need to switch between 32 and 64 bit and back again. This switches are not that cheap. Additionally each systemcall need to translate to 64 bit (thunking). This will need some time too. All this will make they games more limited by cpu than before. If you want to test the quality of a 64bit driver you need a 64bit application.

GlowStick
02-08-04, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
In another topic that was closed I stated that Nvidia does not have 64 bit drivers.. Which is TRUE. They offer a set of drivers for 64bit OS's but the Performance DROPS by a steep margin. The reason is they really are NOT 64bit drivers, but 32bit drivers with some hacks to run in a 64bit enviornment.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.html?i=1961&p=4

Which is why i asked "where Nvidias 64 bit drivers are"...

Its one thing to slightly modify an exsisting driver to run on a 64bit os and another to actually offer a 64bit driver. One is for PR bragging Rights the other is the real deal. If you Remember ATi's DX9 Drivers performed fantastic on their very first release. Which is what should be expected or at least something CLOSE from an honest initial 64bit driver release. First of all, the real question is where is ATi 64bit drivers.

Next, PR bragging rights is one thing, lets investiate into this

lets see what an example of PR is

http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2003/4688.html

Now lets have an example of 64 Bit drivers

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_52.14
http://www.nvidia.com/object/linux_display_amd64_1.0-5332.html

Now, id say releaseing a Press Release with no drivers is called 'PR Bragging Rights' becuase it has both parts, a Press Release, and no follow though.

Next, id also like for you to eplane how you have came to the conlustion that Nvidias drivers are 32 Bit drivers.

Please try to hit these main points because i have never made a driver, nor seen how they are made.

What are is the diffrence between a 32bit and 64bit driver? What Code has to be changed why dose it have to be changed?

What specific parts are 'hacked' to make this 32bit drivers run in 64bit windows. Please show where we should look for the code alterations and explane why and how these 32 bit drivers are running in 64bit windows.

DMA
02-08-04, 03:22 PM
Epic was demonstrating UT 2004 64-bit at the release of the Athlon 64 last September, and by all reports the performance was amazing. Perhaps we will only see the promised advantage of 64-bit in games written or compiled for XP64.

I guess Epic demonstrated UT2004 with NV hardware and pretty much the same drivers available today. So just be cool and wait a few months.
I've read the long thread over at r3d and i'll say just wait for the 64-bit games and software before yelling: "ATI, give us the drivers NOW!!" :D
No real use for them atm, as anandtech's test pretty much shows. :)

Some have said that it's the via drivers that drags the performance down and not the NV drivers. I'm not so sure about that though. :cool:

digitalwanderer
02-08-04, 03:38 PM
Dudes, there ain't no 64bit OSes officially out yet so both IHV are going to hold their cards close until they have to show them....it's kind of a non-issue right now no matter how many people want to whine about it.



(Sayeth the man without a 64bit set-up yet... :bleh: )

Paul
02-08-04, 04:08 PM
I've gotta say that given ATi's current position re: 64bit, the fact the OS isn't even finished yet, and what Anand himself says about the whole thing, you really didn't think this thread through.

Probably should have been in the Driver forum too.

Lezmaka
02-08-04, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Hellbinder
The reason is they really are NOT 64bit drivers, but 32bit drivers with some hacks to run in a 64bit enviornment.

And since they run in a 64bit environment, that would make them 64bit drivers, regardless of whether they are "pure" 64 bit drivers.

Windows XP 64-Bit Edition requires the installation of 64-bit drivers only.

If they were really 32bit drivers, they wouldn't work.

Is there really that big of a difference in the architecture between 32bit and 64bit drivers, that would make such a huge difference? From what I remember, there much of a performance difference of 32bit applications between 32bit XP and 64bit XP.

What if nvidia just hasn't put in all the optimizations (and "optimizations")yet?

GlowStick
02-08-04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Dudes, there ain't no 64bit OSes officially out yet so both IHV are going to hold their cards close until they have to show them....it's kind of a non-issue right now no matter how many people want to whine about it.



(Sayeth the man without a 64bit set-up yet... :bleh: ) For no 64bit OSes there seems to be alot of people asking for help usieng the 64bit OSes.

But for quite some time now as long as you compile everything in linux or use precompiled stuff from Suse (or other dists that i dont know about) they have been useing a 64bit os for a while, and its darn toot'n offical.

reever2
02-08-04, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
For no 64bit OSes there seems to be alot of people asking for help usieng the 64bit OSes.

But for quite some time now as long as you compile everything in linux or use precompiled stuff from Suse (or other dists that i dont know about) they have been useing a 64bit os for a while, and its darn toot'n offical.

*sigh* now put the word windows in front of the word 64bit....

digitalwanderer
02-08-04, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
For no 64bit OSes there seems to be alot of people asking for help usieng the 64bit OSes.

But for quite some time now as long as you compile everything in linux or use precompiled stuff from Suse (or other dists that i dont know about) they have been useing a 64bit os for a while, and its darn toot'n offical.
I was talking about real OSes, not linux. :rolleyes:




























;) :p

GlowStick
02-08-04, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by reever2
*sigh* now put the word windows in front of the word 64bit.... Will Do

Windows XP with Extended support for 64 bit

here is everyone who is asking for a help with an OS they arent useing ; D

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/extended/trial/support.mspx

but since i dont have an amd64, can someone confirm or deny this.

this 'preview' seems to be full blown free,

and OS and free is a word that is never in the same sentace from M$

unless it needs a valid cd-key from winders xp is my only thought on that matter.

AthlonXP1800
02-08-04, 07:03 PM
I wonder why Anandtech didnt tested Forceware 53.02 WIN XP 64 driver? :confused:

Richteralan
02-08-04, 07:30 PM
Whoa, am I in teh right forum??:confused:

Sounds like Rage3D....:rolleyes:

Sazar
02-08-04, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Dudes, there ain't no 64bit OSes officially out yet so both IHV are going to hold their cards close until they have to show them....it's kind of a non-issue right now no matter how many people want to whine about it.



(Sayeth the man without a 64bit set-up yet... :bleh: )

m$ was supposed to have released this os a while back but true to form they haven't done so yet..

there are PLENTY of athlon64 users out there right now who are more than happy to start using winxp64 were the drivers from various IHV's appropriately ready and offered decent enough support..

RobHague
02-08-04, 09:06 PM
Whooa :eek:

This has the be the most stupid thread ive seen all day.

Considering ATI dont have any 64bit drivers right now, id stay mute on the subject if i was you. I mean tell me, with ATI's PR release about supporting AMD64...over three months ago.....where are their 64bit Linux drivers? Thats an official release yet i see no sign of those on ATI's site....

I mean 32bit drivers 'hacked' to run in a 64bit environment. Where did you get this information from?? Or is it just speculation based on the fact that you know nothing about windows driver development and feel the need to have a pop at NVIDIA because they are doing something ATI isnt?

They are BETA drivers, running on a BETA OS. At least NVIDIA are like trying you know... :rolleyes:

Really, i mean what is the forum comming too? :|

Skuzzy
02-08-04, 09:56 PM
The whole 32bit versus 64bit is just flat silly. Sure, if you need a number too big to fit in a 32 bit space, then it definately helps.

Just think about it folks. There is only one time, I can recall, where I needed a number that would not fit into a 32 bit space and had to tap dance around.

I do not understand why anyone would be all that excited about it. If the AMD 64 processors are faster than the 32 bit counterparts, it has little to do with the fact it is a 64 bit CPU.
Hell, the performance gains in Windows is more due to the fact that Microsoft finally dumps its 16bit code from the OS to get to 64bit.

The current set of Pentium class opcodes will all fit in 32 bits. So, nothing to gain there. Game software is mostly 16 and 32 bit code as Visual C still does not generate full 32 bit code.

Ok,..add some 64 bit opcodes. Hmmm. they probably do several operations at one time, which is a good thing.

Floating point operations could benefit, if they added more opcodes for it.


Overall, any performance gains to be had using a 64bit CPU is probably due to a better design than to the ability to use 64bit opcodes. Takes the exact same amount of cycles to fetch as a 32 bit CPU does. I would say 99.9% of the time, the CPU will never see a value large enough to get past 32bits.
People get wound up over the silliest things.

EDIT: It is not as simple as recompiling to make use of a 64bit CPU. Every shift operation would have to be changed, or at least, reviewed. Any sign checks would have to be reviewed. Anything that depends on a specific size fo storage would hve to be checked. It could take a lot of work to port to 64bit.

Richteralan
02-08-04, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The whole 32bit versus 64bit is just flat silly. Sure, if you need a number too big to fit in a 32 bit space, then it definately helps.

Just think about it folks. There is only one time, I can recall, where I needed a number that would not fit into a 32 bit space and had to tap dance around.

I do not understand why anyone would be all that excited about it. If the AMD 64 processors are faster than the 32 bit counterparts, it has little to do with the fact it is a 64 bit CPU.
Hell, the performance gains in Windows is more due to the fact that Microsoft finally dumps its 16bit code from the OS to get to 64bit.

The current set of Pentium class opcodes will all fit in 32 bits. So, nothing to gain there. Game software is mostly 16 and 32 bit code as Visual C still does not generate full 32 bit code.

Ok,..add some 64 bit opcodes. Hmmm. they probably do several operations at one time, which is a good thing.

Floating point operations could benefit, if they added more opcodes for it.


Overall, any performance gains to be had using a 64bit CPU is probably due to a better design than to the ability to use 64bit opcodes. Takes the exact same amount of cycles to fetch as a 32 bit CPU does. I would say 99.9% of the time, the CPU will never see a value large enough to get past 32bits.
People get wound up over the silliest things.

EDIT: It is not as simple as recompiling to make use of a 64bit CPU. Every shift operation would have to be changed, or at least, reviewed. Any sign checks would have to be reviewed. Anything that depends on a specific size fo storage would hve to be checked. It could take a lot of work to port to 64bit.


I'm sorry but you are Out-Of-Topic.

We are not talking about 32bit vs. 64bit
We are talking about 64bit Drivers.

No matter how silly is teh 32bit vs. 64bit thing, it isn't an excuse for not releasing an single testing driver especially when your opponents already done something(at least something but not everything).

P.S, if we do like you do, we'll never advancing ;)

digitalwanderer
02-08-04, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The whole 32bit versus 64bit is just flat silly. Sure, if you need a number too big to fit in a 32 bit space, then it definately helps.

Just think about it folks. There is only one time, I can recall, where I needed a number that would not fit into a 32 bit space and had to tap dance around.

I do not understand why anyone would be all that excited about it. If the AMD 64 processors are faster than the 32 bit counterparts, it has little to do with the fact it is a 64 bit CPU.
Hell, the performance gains in Windows is more due to the fact that Microsoft finally dumps its 16bit code from the OS to get to 64bit.

The current set of Pentium class opcodes will all fit in 32 bits. So, nothing to gain there. Game software is mostly 16 and 32 bit code as Visual C still does not generate full 32 bit code.

Ok,..add some 64 bit opcodes. Hmmm. they probably do several operations at one time, which is a good thing.

Floating point operations could benefit, if they added more opcodes for it.


Overall, any performance gains to be had using a 64bit CPU is probably due to a better design than to the ability to use 64bit opcodes. Takes the exact same amount of cycles to fetch as a 32 bit CPU does. I would say 99.9% of the time, the CPU will never see a value large enough to get past 32bits.
People get wound up over the silliest things.

EDIT: It is not as simple as recompiling to make use of a 64bit CPU. Every shift operation would have to be changed, or at least, reviewed. Any sign checks would have to be reviewed. Anything that depends on a specific size fo storage would hve to be checked. It could take a lot of work to port to 64bit.
Thanks, seriously.

I've been wondering how much a diff in the real world 64 would be compared to 32, sounds like I ain't gonna be an early adopter of it. :)

Malfunction
02-08-04, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Richteralan
I'm sorry but you are Out-Of-Topic.

We are not talking about 32bit vs. 64bit
We are talking about 64bit Drivers.

No matter how silly is teh 32bit vs. 64bit thing, it isn't an excuse for not releasing an single testing driver especially when your opponents already done something(at least something but not everything).

P.S, if we do like you do, we'll never advancing ;)

Amen! :D That's what the processor forum is for... hehe. That would suck if this turned out to be a processor thing like the 64bit processor with a 32bit emulation, that would really suck eggs.

Peace,

:afro:

Richteralan
02-08-04, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Malfunction
Amen! :D That's what the processor forum is for... hehe. That would suck if this turned out to be a processor thing like the 64bit processor with a 32bit emulation, that would really suck eggs.

Peace,

:afro:

Exactly.
Obvioulsy they didn't know how 64bit processors and OS work, and what's 64bit mean for.
Bah~~:rolleyes:

Anyway...

LS32
02-08-04, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The whole 32bit versus 64bit is just flat silly. Sure, if you need a number too big to fit in a 32 bit space, then it definately helps.

Just think about it folks. There is only one time, I can recall, where I needed a number that would not fit into a 32 bit space and had to tap dance around.

I do not understand why anyone would be all that excited about it. If the AMD 64 processors are faster than the 32 bit counterparts, it has little to do with the fact it is a 64 bit CPU.
Hell, the performance gains in Windows is more due to the fact that Microsoft finally dumps its 16bit code from the OS to get to 64bit.

The current set of Pentium class opcodes will all fit in 32 bits. So, nothing to gain there. Game software is mostly 16 and 32 bit code as Visual C still does not generate full 32 bit code.

Ok,..add some 64 bit opcodes. Hmmm. they probably do several operations at one time, which is a good thing.

Floating point operations could benefit, if they added more opcodes for it.


Overall, any performance gains to be had using a 64bit CPU is probably due to a better design than to the ability to use 64bit opcodes. Takes the exact same amount of cycles to fetch as a 32 bit CPU does. I would say 99.9% of the time, the CPU will never see a value large enough to get past 32bits.
People get wound up over the silliest things.

EDIT: It is not as simple as recompiling to make use of a 64bit CPU. Every shift operation would have to be changed, or at least, reviewed. Any sign checks would have to be reviewed. Anything that depends on a specific size fo storage would hve to be checked. It could take a lot of work to port to 64bit.

To my knowledge, only pointers in x86-64 are 64 bits, the fpu and alu are largely unchanged though. An int/float 32bits long and long/double 64bits even in x86-64. THere are other moderate differences, but the biggest change is under 64 bit modes, there are twice as many general purpose registers. This will reduce data thrashing and possibly increase performance 10% or more.

fivefeet8
02-08-04, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by digitalwanderer
I've been wondering how much a diff in the real world 64 would be compared to 32, sounds like I ain't gonna be an early adopter of it. :)

Unless you do a lot of Media Encoding, then you'd want 64bit software/hardware early.

saturnotaku
02-08-04, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by RobHague
I mean 32bit drivers 'hacked' to run in a 64bit environment. Where did you get this information from?? Or is it just speculation based on the fact that you know nothing about windows driver development and feel the need to have a pop at NVIDIA because they are doing something ATI isnt?

Oh he knows, he just won't provide you any proof because he is almighty and we must ph34r his presence! :eek:

:bs:

GlowStick
02-09-04, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The whole 32bit versus 64bit is just flat silly. Sure, if you need a number too big to fit in a 32 bit space, then it definately helps.

Just think about it folks. There is only one time, I can recall, where I needed a number that would not fit into a 32 bit space and had to tap dance around.

I do not understand why anyone would be all that excited about it. If the AMD 64 processors are faster than the 32 bit counterparts, it has little to do with the fact it is a 64 bit CPU.
Hell, the performance gains in Windows is more due to the fact that Microsoft finally dumps its 16bit code from the OS to get to 64bit.

The current set of Pentium class opcodes will all fit in 32 bits. So, nothing to gain there. Game software is mostly 16 and 32 bit code as Visual C still does not generate full 32 bit code.

Ok,..add some 64 bit opcodes. Hmmm. they probably do several operations at one time, which is a good thing.

Floating point operations could benefit, if they added more opcodes for it.


Overall, any performance gains to be had using a 64bit CPU is probably due to a better design than to the ability to use 64bit opcodes. Takes the exact same amount of cycles to fetch as a 32 bit CPU does. I would say 99.9% of the time, the CPU will never see a value large enough to get past 32bits.
People get wound up over the silliest things.

EDIT: It is not as simple as recompiling to make use of a 64bit CPU. Every shift operation would have to be changed, or at least, reviewed. Any sign checks would have to be reviewed. Anything that depends on a specific size fo storage would hve to be checked. It could take a lot of work to port to 64bit. Nice post
I do like how you kind of touch up of whats diffrent about 32bit and 64bit drivers, i suspected HellBinders theory of 'hacked drivers' made no sence, and infact it dose not make any sence.

However, The Unreal guys said something in the lines of 'most of our code is in pure Cpp, but we had to edit about 1% of it that was optimized for a 32bit processor, then we recompiled UT2k3 and we gained about a 15% preformance boost'

so eather the Athlon 64's naturally run 32bit code 15% slower, or there is a gain in 64bit games. it could go both ways really.

Ady
02-09-04, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Richteralan
No matter how silly is teh 32bit vs. 64bit thing, it isn't an excuse for not releasing an single testing driver especially when your opponents already done something(at least something but not everything).


There are beta 64bit ATi drivers included with the beta winXP 64.