Some Frostbite 2-based PC games to require 64-bit OS in 2013

If you are still running a PC that is using a 32-bit based operating system, you might want to consider upgrading sooner rather than later to run some upcoming PC games. In a new Twitter message (via, Digital Illusions' team member Johan Anderson said that upcoming games that will use the developer's Frostbite 2 graphics engine will need something with a little more kick on the PC.

The message states:

We'll have Frostbite-powered games in 2013 that will _require_ a 64-bit OS. If you are on 32-bit, great opportunity to upgrade to Windows 8.

Frostbite 2 was first used in DICE's Battlefield 3 and also in Need for Speed: The Run, both published by Electronic Arts. It will be used again this fall in EA's first person shooter Medal of Honor Warfighter. So far, the only game that will use the Frostbite 2 graphics engine that has been officially announced for 2013 is Command and Conquer Generals 2, the RTS sequel that's being developed exclusively for the PC by BioWare's Victory Games division.

Nothing has been shown of Command and Conquer: Generals 2 since it was first announced back in December 2011. However, there are rumors that a number of other EA games that have not yet been officially announced will also employ Frostbite 2.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Leap Motion aims to outperform Kinect on PC and Mac

Next Story

Windows Phone 8 concept shows serious potential


Commenting is disabled on this article.

The reason for the persistence of x32 can be summed up thusly - older hardware compatibility. What was the last non-x64 mainstream CPU from Intel or AMD? x64 P4s (Prescott) date back to XP (which stealth-launched in an x64 Professional Edition in 2005). Despite the persistence of the "x64 requires more RAM" FUD, what's really driven the adoption of x64? The combination of OEM preloading and falling RAM prices. DDR2 (despite price increases) remains cheaper in terms of cost per GB than ordinary DDR; however, DDR3 continues to slide in terms of per-gigabyte pricing in absolute dollars. I bought 8 GB of DDR3-1333 for my planned upgrade to i5-3570K *last year* (right around Thanksgiving); since then the (non-sale) price (at the same source - MicroCenter of Fairfax, VA) for the same RAM has fallen by twenty percent.

randomevent said,
Actually the Core Duo was also 32 bit...that was 2006. They were discontinued at the end of 07 by the looks of it.

And that (and the derivative Core Solo) were the last non-x64 mainstream processors out of Intel - they were also the *only* non-x64 Core architecture processors Intel would ship. The Core Duo would be replaced with the Core 2 Duo, while the Core Solo would be replaced with the Celeron and Pentium tag-team. All three (like Core Duo, Core Solo, and Prescott P4 for the most part) were, of course, LGA775. You could upgrade from Prescott to Pentium-D via a combination of CPU and BIOS upgrade/swap; however, you could NOT upgrade to Core 2 (or their Celeron/Pentium derivatives) without replacing the motherboard (despite their having the entire Intel 3-series chipset family in common - the HP DC7600, depending on the CPU, used one of three G31-chipset-based motherboards, which have NO BIOS commonality among them - *ewwww*).

Have to admit, for once microsoft made the move easy. It's been years since I went 64bit and can't think of a single problem aside from an occasional obscure hardware not having drivers.

Finally. Any home user who "chooses" 32-bit Windows on their machines these days is an idiot... unless of course they did it because they needed to run old 16bit software, in which case they're allowed

Glad to see 64-bit finally start to be enforced. Just need Microsoft to make Windows 9 64-bit only now, which I'd say is fairly likely. Windows server went 64-bit only last generation.