FSX-SP2(DX10): 3rd public post

[PhilTaylor 45]

When I see the 4 year roadmap from Intel and AMD, I see multi-core growing from almost 0% in 2005 to 10% in 2006 to close to 50% in 2007 and then higher in 2008 and 2009.That trend line is what got buy-off for doing multi-core work. I do not see Intel and AMD dropping 32-bit processors in favor of 64-bit processors like they are single core for multi-core.There is no trend line for 64 replacing 32 yet. The current emergent trend is multi-core, not 64-bit. I can spend some time when I come back from vacation looking at various market research data we have access to but do you really think its going to show anything but 64-bit makes an impact in servers? Think about it. If 64-bit was overtaking 32-bit on the desktop, there would be so many articles about it we wouldnt need to do research.The Steam data is just to show how far the masses trail the leading edge.

[Glynn 405]

Hello PhilI have just had a look at some hardware suppliers here in the UKIt is virtually impossible to buy a 32 bit CPU now and it has been this way for some time.If 32 bit CPU's still have such a large market share then i would have thought that AMD would have gone out of business by now, its been years since they moved to 64 bit in both Single and Dual core parts.

[PhilTaylor 45]

And what OS runs on them? 32-bit Windows in the vast majority of the cases. Does it even matter its a 64-bit chip then? I repeat, its just too early for this from a market share perspective for us.

[Guest Robin R.]

64bit processor where available to the home masses back in 2003, you can't even find a 32bit ONLY processor these days?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bitAs pointed out, the AMD64bit processor line was so successful that Intel felt it worthy to clone AMD64 extensions back in 2004.Sounds like you missed a market change that has already happened some time ago. This is really kinda surprising actually -- but there again maybe not?

[Guest Robin R.]

Then you've clearly missed the boat, again!I know Microsoft were VERY slow to adopt 64bit processors for the home market with WinXP 64bit, but this has NOTHING to do with market share cause well, Microsoft OWN most of the market and hence control it.If this is just more leverage talk, then good luck to you because all "leveraging" a consumer does is create bad relationships or NO relationships.And I'm not even going to point out the market share of folks that have DX10 capable video cards yet that somehow got funding approval for you to make a DX10 version?? Geee, funny how that works huh Phil!

[Mace 1,956]

>64bit processor where available to the home masses back in>2003, you can't even find a 32bit ONLY processor these days?>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit>>As pointed out, the AMD64bit processor line was so successful>that Intel felt it worthy to clone AMD64 extensions back in>2004.>>Sounds like you missed a market change that has already>happened some time ago. This is really kinda surprising>actually -- but there again maybe not? >The market change hasn't fully happened! Sure, most people have 64-bit capable cpu's these days. But home many of us have 64-bit operating systems? Not as many. Furthermore, while many cpu's may be 64-bit, how fast are their apps?There is a lot more to market adoption than simply having the cpu be capable of running 64-bit programs. That is only part of the equation. I am sure you know that. So why do you still think "a market change was missed", when there are many more pieces of the puzzle that have not yet come to pass?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,956]

>And what OS runs on them? 32-bit Windows in the vast majority>of the cases. >>Does it even matter its a 64-bit chip then? >>I repeat, its just too early for this from a market share>perspective for us.Exactamundo...That's all I'm sayin in my above post...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,956]

>I know Microsoft were VERY slow to adopt 64bit processors for>the home market with WinXP 64bit, but this has NOTHING to do>with market share cause well, Microsoft OWN most of the market>and hence control it.>How is Microsoft going to MAKE a person purchase and install a 64-bit operating system?Once the user base shifts to 64-bit, software makers will too--on a large scale. It happened with 16 to 32 bit, it'll happen here. I don't see what the big deal is.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest Robin R.]

Rhett,How many folks have DX10 capable graphics cards? Has that stopped the development of FSX SP2(DX10)? Apparently market share is NOT the driving factor.DX10 cards were available late 2006, home 64bit processors were available 2003 -- you see the picture now?Personally I don't understand Microsoft's/Phil's resistance to 64bit processing -- I can only assume it is because they can't figure out how to market 64bit vs. 32bit apps -- maybe that's why Microsoft spent 6 billion on an advertising company?But lets assume the DX10 version of FSX is to help Vista home sales (cause clearly it isn't done to due to market share) and convert existing WinXP base. I would think having the benefit of both a 64bit and DX10 capable FSX for Vista 64 (Vista provides both versions in one package) would be a huge selling point. Two incentives rather than one to move to Vista because I don't think DX10 alone is gone be enough convert people. But what is more puzzling, is that you can run 32bit apps on Vista x64 so it's a win win. Most people are going to have to upgrade hardware if they elect to move to Vista so again I don't understand where nor why Phil is going in this direction. It makes no sense from market share, no sense from selling Vista, and just no sense for any end user that would like to see the death of blurries and other "out of memory" issues they run into with FSX and Vista 32bit or WinXP 32bit.I know these are intelligent people so I just don't understand this imaginary 64bit wall they've created for themselves?

[PhilTaylor 45]

Just by virtue of shipping Vista that means DX10 gets guaranteed marketshare. That should be obvious. And FSX was a large part of the G4W effort so we have made a commitment to the public, to other parts of the company, and to hw partners. Those are not small considerations either. Any group that doesnt honor its commitments doesnt get asked back to the table for the next round.The shipments of Win64, otoh, are just not large enough. And looking at the hw roadmaps, 64-bit-edness is not something that is showing the domination of multi-core in how the IHVs are selling the platform.BTW, my point about marketshare of multi-core should show FSX actually didnt miss the boat by that much there. We shipped our multi-core patch before mid-year of the year of transition from 10% to 50% of CPU volume. Just for the record.When is right to go 64-bit is something we have ongoing discussions about all the time, but its not something where we have felt the corner was turned like multi-core. At least so far.And yes, its always going to be true we are ahead on some transitions and behind on others. That also seems normal to me, being its all predictions/estimates and you can't win them all.

[Guest Robin R.]

The same way they make you buy Vista -- you release a featured version (DX10) that is only available on that Vista.You get a user base to shift, buy producing an app/game that makes use of the hardware they already have. Trust me, 90+% of you would shift to Vista 64bit if the software was up to the task and demonstrated the advantages of 64bit.

[n4gix 4,955]

>I don't know where or why you make that assumption? Where>did this 80% number come from? When a 64bit CPU is < $25>(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819104249)>I don't think an 80% target is even relevant.>>This CPU will run circles around your P4:>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819103037>and is $54.99Let's get real, shall we? Anyone wishing to upgrade to 64 bit will need more than a processor replacment... it would require at least a new motherboard, and one may as well get one with a wider, faster front side bus as well, otherwise the MB itself would simply be a choke point for the screaming new processor.Oh dear! One would also have to upgrade their operating system as well! What good would a 64 bit processor be without OS support? Oops, we just busted our budget: $229.99 just for the Windows Vista 64-Bit Home Basic for System Builders 3 Pack DVD version:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16832116201Of course, since I need advanced LAN support, I'd have to invest significanly more for one of the "Professional" versions...

[Guest Robin R.]

Are you suggesting NO 64bit processors shipped and established a marketshare? Take your DX10 arguement and apply it to 64bit. It really is that simple and the analogy is dead on the same. Current Vista market share is still <1% compared to WinXP at 70+%.Microsoft are in a position to drive/guide the consumer -- they're doing exactly this with DX10 (hardware for which was only really available late 2006), but Microsoft have NOT done so with 64bit computing when the hardware was available to the masses in 2003.If there is so little interest in 64bit computing why would Microsoft invest the time and money in producing 64bit versions of Vista and include it with 32bit version?Doesn't make much sense to me at all -- Microsoft have the opportunity to lead the way to 64bit computing (ok well maybe Apple beat to the punch there), but don't -- I suppose in some ways it does demonstrate why Microsoft desparately need a marketing/advertising company under their wing. Lets hope your marketing decision makers get a little more educated.

[Guest Robin R.]

Point being that the majority marketshare already has 64bit processors so no upgrade in the hardware is needed. Yes you would have to upgrade the OS just as you will have to do if you want the FSX DX10 version.I am real Bill, you seem to be the one out of touch.Talk to Phil about Vista pricing, maybe he can get you a discount -- weren't you on the Beta team and got FSX for free anyway?

[Mace 1,956]

>Lets hope your marketing decision makers get a little more educated.>Come on now, Robin R. be niceRhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian