The 64-bit WoW client was released a few days ago, and I'm having trouble using MSI Afterburner with it. When I try to record on the 64-bit client, apparently MSI Afterburner starts recording the desktop instead. The file name shows up as Desktop_Date instead of WoW_Date as it does when I record on the 32-bit client. Seems that it's just not recognizing Wow-64.exe as a game? I tried adding it manually to the on-screen server list, but that didn't work (also, none of my other games are on that list and they work). I searched around on the settings but can't find anything related to the probem
Maybe one day the implementation will be worth it.. that is, when there are more than only a handful of 64-bit games in the world. What do you gain with the 64-bit WoW client versus 32-bit, if anything?
I wonder how much developing work the utility would require to add the 64-bit support, as the developer has been negative about it from the RivaTuner days. Probably the "juice" of a handful top-end games that support 64-bit does not worth the "squeeze" in development work. And in reality all games support 32-bit now and in Crysis and Far Cry that I personally tried, I didn't see any measurable performance difference with 64 bit compared to 32-bit. If 64-bit only games start hitting the shelves, then it will have to add support for it. I expect this to happen one day, but I can't predict how long it will take. PC can benefit from higher resolution textures. If those XBOX360/PS3 hadn't changed the developers approach, it would have happened years back already. Maybe with XBOX720/PS4 will change something.
I'm only a layman when it comes to programming but switching to 64bit shouldn't require that much, however maintaining a 64bit client for only a handful of games while 32bit works for 99.999% of all games as well as for a time dropping development somewhat of fully on the 32bit version for a time to get a 64bit version and with that adding extra work to maintain it (being there are now 2 versions) doesn't make any sense.
I thought Crysis 2 actually did break it, with the high resolution texture update. Regardless the fact that the city-based graphics are no match for the wildland of Far Cry of Crysis 1
I don't believe so. As far as I'm aware Crysis 2 is still a 32-bit application, just benefiting slightly from the extra memory that 64-bit platform provides. I'm fairly certain that the high res texture pack could've ran just fine on 32-bit platforms if the developers had chosen to do so.
A pretty sizable performance gain, with out without "ultra" settings. It is very disappointing to read (over the last few months) that when it comes to requests pertaining the recording aspect of AB, it is more often than not replied with the all too standard "if it does not work now, it will not be implemented in the future". Oh well... Perhaps FRAPS is able to record 64-bit applications. I will have to go look.
Yeah FRAPS does. It has actually been doing so for as long as I've been using it. I did some Crysis 64-bit testing with it and the top card of that time, 8800GTX.
It is up to 1 month of development time, it will cost me more than whole videocapture feature brings per year and sense of implementing it now is equal to zero. I won't invest time into it now, sorry, it is absolutely useless waste of time and money at the moment when 99.9% of games are 32-bit.
[Sarcasm mode on] I've heard that Sapphire provides overclocking tool as well and always follows requests of improving their video capture. [/Sarcasm mode off] Seriously, is very disappointing to see users thinking that it is Sapphire/ASUS/XFX Afterburner project.
