Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 news64-bit World of Warcraft game client now available for testing
by Chase Hasbrouck 
Jan 9th 2012 at 2:00PM
Now, before you get too excited, realize that this isn't a panacea. If you're running a 32-bit OS, you won't be able to use this at all, and a 64-bit system with limited memory (say, 4GB of RAM or less) may actually see decreased performance due to the increased memory usage of 64-bit programs. Systems with more memory, however, will be able to cache more program data in RAM. This should help speed up things that require large reads from the hard drive, such as changing zones, and may increase stability for those who run lots of addons.
A 64-bit client is now available for use with the 4.3.2 PTR. You can download it at the link below, unzip it into your PTR directory, and then run the executable to test it.
• The 64-bit client is being distributed separately from the PTR as it is not yet supported for use with World of Warcraft.
• This can only be used with the 4.3.2 PTR, it is not to be used with the live version of the game.
• A Mac version is not available yet, though we are working on one and plan for it to be available in the near future.
• The game's built in voice chat does not currently work in the 64-bit client.
• The 64-bit client is being distributed separately from the PTR as it is not yet supported for use with World of Warcraft.
• This can only be used with the 4.3.2 PTR, it is not to be used with the live version of the game.
• A Mac version is not available yet, though we are working on one and plan for it to be available in the near future.
• The game's built in voice chat does not currently work in the 64-bit client.
Filed under: News items
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 3)
Aceman67 Jan 9th 2012 2:50PM
@Drakkenfyre
How to make WoW use 4 cores:
Step #1
Locate your WoW Installation folder
Step #2
Open your WOW folder and find the "WTF" folder.
Step #3
Open your "WTF" folder and you should have 2 things inside, one folder "Accounts" and a file "Config.wtf"
Step #4
Open the Config.wtf file, use notepad or some other text doc.
Step #5
Once inside find the line SET ProcessAffinityMask "3" , now change the 3 to 15, save the file and close it.
Step #6
Once you have the file close, right click the file and click on properties, and place a check mark in the read-only box.
This make it so every time WOW starts it does not replace the 15 with a 3.
RS Jan 9th 2012 3:04PM
I'd doubt it. Multi-threading gets tricky. Not to say that they couldn't add that in the future though. Mods on one processor, game on another, or something.
Drakkenfyre Jan 9th 2012 3:20PM
The AffinityMask setting was rolled into the default game a couple of years ago. In fact, changing that setting in the config.wtf file does nothing, it ignores it. The game automatically sets it to whatever cores it detects. The settings are changed because the game defaults to all cores.
The point you missed was FULLY utilizing all cores. The game can take advantage of multiple cores, but it does not take full advantage of it. The extra cores are only doing a little processing. They aren't dividing up the load like they could, and increase the performance even more.
But you can still get more performance out of it. You can set your Windows to run on the third or fourth core as it's primary core, leaving the first two to be dedicated to the game.
Matt Jan 9th 2012 3:40PM
@Drakkenfyre
Could you explain, or post a link on how to set Windows to run the third or fourth core is its primary?
RS Jan 9th 2012 4:14PM
huh... the more your know*
learned something today, cool.
Drakkenfyre Jan 9th 2012 4:58PM
It's been a long time, and I can't find the article on changing the affinity for Windows itself, at least for Windows XP. I can find the article about forcing older programs to use other cores, leaving Windows on the first two, but with the changes to the game, it would probably override it.
The easiest way to do it is to run the program, then bring up Task Manager. Right-click the process, select Choose Affinity, and change it.
This places the game on other cores, and should let Windows take the first two cores for itself. With the OS and game on separate cores, it should increase performance. The old AffinityMask setting used to let you do this, but like I said, the game autodetects now. However, the perfomance increase might be minor. Newer versions of Windows are pretty good at shifting loads around, and the game might just try to ignore it anyway.
prinbball Jan 9th 2012 2:36PM
Can someone please explain what this means in a simpler way? I don't understand what this means?
Drakkenfyre Jan 9th 2012 2:45PM
In the most base level, applications and operating systems are written for a certain bit bandwidth. If an application is written for a 32-bit CPU, it will run on a 32-bit CPU. This has limitations. 32-bit operating systems can only address up to 4GB of RAM. It can only see up to 4GB, anything else is wasted. A single program can only use up to 2GB of RAM.
64-bit CPU's and operating systems can address much, much more. If you have a 64-bit CPU and OS, a program can use more RAM.
Most CPU's today are 64-bit, and 64-bit versions of OS's are common. But in order to take advantage of it, the program itself must be written to take advantage of it. By letting people use more than 2GB of RAM for the game, it increases performance, and stops the crashes alot of people have once the game runs out of RAM, and cannot access more than 2GB.
Edymnion Jan 9th 2012 2:59PM
Okay, I'll take a crack at this one, put that computer science degree to some practical use.
This is going to be a public library referenced example, so if you've never used an actual book library, well I at least hope you understand how it works enough to follow this.
Think of the CPU as being you wanting to read a book. The faster your CPU, the faster you can read.
Think of the RAM as being all the books in the library that you can just get up and go get whenever you want.
Think of the hard drive as being all of the books in the library system (in the city), that you can get any of them you want, but you have to wait for them to send it over to your library.
Think of the 32/64 bit stuff as being like an index that tells you where in the library the book you want to read is.
Lets say that index is on actual index cards, and that each index card can hold the info on where 10 books are in the library. Lets say you have 100 of these cards, that means the index can tell you where to find 1,000 different books. Long as your library is small (not much RAM), that index can easily tell you where everything is. But now lets say your library has 5,000 books, and the index still only tells you where to find 1,000. You've got a lot of extra space there, but since your index can't hold that many books, its basically wasted space.
By increasing the size of your index, you increase how much space you can utilize in your library. Which means if you suddenly need a book on the mating habits of frilled lizards, its more likely to be in your library where you can walk over and grab it instead of having to have it shipped over from across town.
-----
Another less "explain your computer to your grandmother" approach:
For your computer to access information in the RAM, the processor has to know where in the RAM it is. The more bits it can read, the bigger the "slot number" your computer can look in to pull stuff out of your RAM. If your system can only reference up to three digits in slots, then you can only see slots 1-999, anything in slot 1,000+ is wasted because the processor can't read a number that big to know how to go get it.
By making it so the processor can read bigger numbers (increase the number of bits it can read), it can then access greater amounts of RAM. Which means more of the game code can be stored in the RAM without having to load it off the slow-ass hard drive.
Arrohon Jan 9th 2012 3:24PM
How would performance decrease if you have 4 GB of RAM, but 32-bit WoW only uses 2 GB? Even if it can't do as well as computers with over 4 GB, shouldn't it do better with more than 2?
Drakkenfyre Jan 9th 2012 6:36PM
The game can't use more than 2GB, period. If you are running with 4GB, you have some left over for your OS. So performance won't go down. Unless you use the 64-bit version (AND have a 64-bit CPU, which you most likely do, and a 64-bit OS, which you may or may not) 2GB is all the game can use.
It WILL go down if you only have 4GB and try to use the 64-bit version because you won't have the extra to make up the slightly slower processing of the 64-bit version. If you have 4GB of RAM, stay with the 32-bit version unless you are crashing.
bluespacecow Jan 14th 2012 12:42AM
@Drakkenfyre Sorry for posting this late.
But you forget the wow client is now Large Address Aware. Meaning it should be able to access up to 3 GB of memory (3.5 GB on the mac client)
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1658706617?page=8#145
Aceman67 Jan 9th 2012 2:48PM
The only problem I can foresee during the testing will be memory leak issues...
Still, its nice that the game is finally getting a 64-Bit version. My system has 8 gigs of ram and I would LOVE for it to use more.
Cyno01 Jan 9th 2012 2:49PM
Do we have more info on the streamlining of the install yet? 64 bit is nice, but for those of us on small performance drives, the 25+gb install is getting out of hand.
Aceman67 Jan 9th 2012 2:58PM
This is just the norm when it comes to Major MMOs, and AAA games as well.
DC Universe Online is 17gb
Star Wars: The Old Republic is 19.5gb
The kind of streamlining you're speaking of would most likely involve compression being used on game files, more-so then is already being implemented, and I can only see that lengthening load times, which would piss even more people off.
Right now, normal SATA Hard Disc Drives are pretty cheap for size.
Considering you can pick up a 320gb drive for under 60 bucks is pretty nice. Keep an eye out for deals at Electronic/Computer shops for prices, you might find a deal, like the 1TB drive I nabbed from Futureshop for 70 bucks.
CollinBPage Jan 9th 2012 3:19PM
Well actually the Installation for wow is only 15gb but if you look in the Data folder there's a 2nd Cache folder at 10gigs
Drakkenfyre Jan 9th 2012 3:24PM
SATA hard drives are anything but cheap right now. There was flooding in Thailand which damaged some factories which manufacturer hard drives, and the manufacturers jacked the price to compsensate.
Even manufacturers which didn't suffer losses jacked up their prices to take advantage of it. A 1TB hard drive which went for $70 is now going for $250.
cyno01 Jan 9th 2012 3:33PM
@ Ace
Yes normal SATA drives are cheap, or were before the flooding, but theyre coming back down. I have several terabytes of normal drives.
I said performance drives, SSDs and 10k+ rpm magnetic drives, which are small and expensive, but the preferred option for system and gaming drives for anyone with a high end rig. I have 2 in mine, one is my system drive and has WoW on it, which takes up more space than everything else on the drive combined. And the other is my Steam drive, which has room for 2-3 big titles at a time (and TF2 and a bunch of smaller games).
I only brought it up because they were talking about slimming down the install size along with the 64 bit changes.
http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/01/03/patch-4-3-2-on-public-test-realms-now/
@Collin
Yeah, but if you delete that folder it will start repopulating as soon as you load the game again.
http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/975219800
Im guessing the install optimization has to do with caching instead of giving you the option to remove Outlands or Northrend from your install or something. At least i hope...
hicks Jan 9th 2012 3:36PM
I think in this case, "small performance drives" means SSDs, which are still a bit pricey--an 80GB SSD is still around $100-120, and I'm holding off buying one myself in hopes the prices on the quality 120GB drives drop below $190-200. WoW and its install size is the chief reason I wanted a bigger one.
Theyas Jan 9th 2012 2:56PM
So I have 4GB of RAM. I assume then that I should stick to the 32-bit client?