people,
I’ve been working on a cocos2dx game project, which is quite big. This game runs very fine on MacOS ( I5 processor), My old Ipad2, and a lot of middle ends android devices.
Unfortunately, I’m experiencing very serious performance issues on Windows 64. I have compiled the game for Win32.
I’m very worried that those performance issues have their origin on the 32bit limitations. It is true that Windows 64 is compatible with 32-bit software, but I also know that it is not the same thing as native 32-bit in several cases. Generally speaking, native 64-bit software is faster than native 32-bit software, and I’m almost sure that 32-bit apps running on 64 bit OS have to deal with one extra layer of abstraction or adaptations.
Most of the time, converting software from 32 to 64 bit is as easy as flipping a directive on the Visual Studio project. But it seems not to be the case on Cocos2dX.
I tried to change the win32 project changing the target to x64, but It resulted in an avalanche of linker errors on libcocos2d module. the other modules compiled correctly, including the game exe.
I’m still working on this problem in the hope that I could test if the performance issues can be fixed in 64 bit. And it is also good to have my software running with a full 64-bit compatibility.
Related
I was wondering to install a server on my windows machine and came to know that it is best to install a 32bit version on a 64bit machine. Is it really required.
Why is it recommended?
I want to install it for study.
Installing 32-bit software on a 64-bit machine is not recommended. No one with any credibility would make this senseless recommendation.
A major disadvantage of 32-bit software is that it cannot use more than 4GB of RAM, because memory addresses must fit into the word size of the software. This is a serious deficiency for a database server, which benefits from extra RAM.
I did consulting for a major company who was having database performance trouble. They were using Windows Server. They had been adding extra RAM DIMMs, having heard that RAM can be used to increase caching resources, but no matter how much RAM they added, it didn't help.
I logged into their site and found they were using Windows Server 32-bit. They had been spending a ton of money on RAM, but their operating system could not see it.
I listened to the YouTube video you linked to, to hear the justification of the speaker. He seems to be saying that since Windows 64-bit is backward-compatible and can run 32-bit binaries, but the reverse is not true (Windows 32-bit cannot run 64-bit binaries), he thinks you should use 32-bit binaries because they will work on both architectures.
That's bad advice.
The better advice is: Make sure you aren't using Windows 32-bit.
Come on, it's 2018. The days of 32-bit platforms is long gone.
It is definitely not required. I would say that it's not even recommended. Any 64 bit machine will be able to run a 32 bit server, however, a 32 bit server will highly underutilize the processor, especially when performing complex or graphical operations
I have win7 64 bit on my desktop and win7 32 bit on my laptop. I recently upgraded my php to 5.6.2 and amfphp to 2.2.2. As a result I had to modify several ActionScript 3 scripts to access my data. I got the scripts working on my 32 bit laptop, but they looked "fractured" on win 7 64 bit.
I know that the 64 bit flash player installer now installs both a 32 bit version and a 64 bit version of flash player.
Is there a way to specify that these AS3 scripts are to use the 32 bit flash player when launching with 32 bit Firefox on a 64 bit system?
An Adobe Staff member provided the following info and upon loading Firefox 54.0b6 (beta) I found that he was right. Most of my animations run as expected, although some of the games run with significant lag time on keyboard nav.
"Just for clarity, the bitness of Flash Player is dependent on the bitness of the host browser. If you're running a 32-bit browser on a 64-bit OS, you're still going to get the 32-bit Flash Player. The only case where you'll get 64-bit Flash Player at runtime is when you're running a 64-bit browser on a 64-bit operating system."
"I was able to reproduce this on Win7 x64 with Firefox 54.0b4 (32-bit), but upgrading to the latest beta - Firefox 54.0b6 (32-bit) seems to resolve it. I'm using the latest publicly available Flash Player (25.0.0.171) to test. For completeness, I'm also unable to reproduce the problem on Chrome or IE on Win7 x64, or on Firefox with MacOS 10.12."
"Mozilla has been doing a lot of work on their rendering pipeline, and I suspect that the behavior you're seeing is fallout from that. Since it's already fixed, it's just a matter of waiting for the changes to propagate to the release builds. They're on a 6-week cycle, so assuming those fixes get promoted in the next release, you should see them land relatively soon."
This is a fairly common question, but I haven't seen an answer for Windows Store Apps, which generally don't have access to the full Win32 API. I'm currently building ARM and x86 versions. I don't care if the processor is 64-bit or not, or if the process is WoW64, or whatever (unless that answers the underlying question). Specifically, I want to know how many of my users would be able to run an x64 build.
So, my question: From an x86 XAML/C++ Windows Store App, how can I tell if the user is running the 64-bit version of the OS?
If that's not possible, is there a way to tell if the processor is 64-bit?
The download page does not have a Windows build for the most recent version - 2.0.1. There is a windows 64 bits installation for the version 2.0.0.
I was wondering about the reasons of not supporting Windows 32 bits since 2.0.0 and Windows at all since 2.0.1.
Is it that they do not provide the binaries, but one could still build it for Windows 32 bits using the build instructions ?
Or there is a deeper reason, like using an API unavailable for Windows 32 bits (2.0.0) or unavailable for Windows at all (2.0.1) ?
I am asking because I am considering building it on Windows, both 32 and 64 bits, but would like to be sure the effort is not doomed to failure from the start.
we are well aware of the situation. The plan is to release 2.0.1 for 64 bits as soon as possible. We're having some delays for our Windows builds and want to make sure the quality is as high as possible. So expect a 2.0.1 64bit soon.
That said, I don't think that we'll have production ready versions of 2.0.x 32bit. What we are currently working on is a 32bit build that people can use to develop against, but is not recommended to use in production (similar to our Mac OS X builds).
I can't give you a specific timeline, but I think we're talking about "weeks". If you want to get direct feedback from one of the developers, please get in touch with Trond Norbye over twitter (#trondn).
Does this answer your question?
I'm trying to set up a cuda development environment under windows, and lurked many cuda-tagged posts, but few things are still unclear:
Can I debug cuda applications under windows without the need of a second video card, using nsight and VS2010 express?
Can I debug cuda applications under linux without the need of a second video card, AND without shut down the graphical interface?
Answered thousands of times, but perhaps something has changed, so I ask again just to be sure: Can I develop under windows without installing a cuda-enabled video card? There is some kind of emeulator? (Ocelot for windows is practically inexistent).
Thanks.
Can I debug cuda applications under windows without the need of a second video card, using nsight and VS2010 express?
You can apparently debug with a single video card, but nsight requires vs2010 professional (not express edition)
https://developer.nvidia.com/nsight-visual-studio-edition-requirements
Can I debug cuda applications under linux without the need of a second video card, AND without shut down the graphical interface?
I don't think so, from the eclipse nsight docs (http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/nsight-eclipse-edition-getting-started-guide/index.html#linux-requirements):
"A GPU that is running X11 (on Linux) or Aqua (on Mac) cannot be used to debug a CUDA application and will be hidden from the application ran in the debugger. Such GPU can still be used for profiling GPU applications."
Answered thousands of times, but perhaps something has changed, so I ask again just to be sure: Can I develop under windows without installing a cuda-enabled video card? There is some kind of emeulator? (Ocelot for windows is practically inexistent).
no, if you want to use cuda, you'd be best off just getting a cheap cuda-enabled card (e.g. a GTX 650 is ~$100 and is the most recent (kepler) architecture)