TPT Win64 build (91.5)

  • BobGamer455
    30th Dec 2016 Member 2 Permalink

    Hello everyone! I couldn't find any 64-bit Windows binaries for version 91.5, so I made one myself.

    [EDIT]I added the rest of the SSE builds[/EDIT]



    Version 91.5.330


    Lua console


    Only 1 additional file (gcc dll, because it didn't get statically included)

    [EDIT] No OpenGL, because it doesn't work



    Virustotal results:






    Downloads here (You NEED the libgcc_s_seh-1.dll to run these builds)


    --Checking FPS increase compared to official WIN32 build--


    When the game is opened, open the console and tpt.setfpscap(1000), then browse for a save named "R16K1S60" with the save id:[1932845] (It's a computer by LBPHacker, but it's good for constant fps test), unpause, but don't do anything. Check the fps.


    My fps for each build:

    Win32 (the one downloadable from the main site): 59.5-60.5

    Win64-SSE: 74-75

    Win64-SSE2: 75-77

    Win64-SSE3: 74-75


    For some reason, SSE2 performed better for me than SSE3. That might not be the case for you.

    Edited 4 times by BobGamer455. Last: 31st Dec 2016
  • QuanTech
    30th Dec 2016 Member 0 Permalink


    Edited once by QuanTech. Last: 30th Dec 2016
  • jacob1
    30th Dec 2016 Developer 2 Permalink
    Maybe it's about time I do a 64 bit Windows build instead of 32 bit. The reasons we don't have one now is that, 64 bit isn't actually too much faster. I haven't done any benchmarks though. Your results kind of surprise me, maybe I need to do more testing. Some things might also work differently on the 64 bit build, but the only difference I know about right now is in the Lua API.

    I'd also like to point out that your legacy and SSE 64 bit builds are pointless, because x86_64 CPUs always have at least SSE2. I stopped providing "legacy" builds because probably every computer made in the last 10 years supports SSE2. I also find it a little unlikely that there is much difference between Legacy and SSE2/SSE3.

    Last thing, compiling TPT with Visual Studio is going to be 10-20% faster than compiling TPT from Linux with a cross compiler. I increased the speed of the snapshots that way. I wouldn't be surprised if these builds are actually slower than the snapshots. The current official Windows version was cross compiled from Linux though, which is why it is so slow.
  • BobGamer455
    31st Dec 2016 Member 2 Permalink

    @jacob1 (View Post)

     Oh, alright then, I'll remove the Legacy, and i'll test a win64 build made with VS. By the way, IDK why, but some antivirus software think that the snapshots are viruses

  • jacob1
    31st Dec 2016 Developer 2 Permalink
    @BobGamer455 (View Post)
    Yes, i'm not sure why either ... it happened when I started compiling them with visual studio.

    BTW when I tested it your version was a lot faster than the snapshots. I don't remember an exact % but it was more than 20% faster (and that's on top of the 10-20% boost from the official version to the snapshots). So if I compile it right, the next version of TPT should be really fast :)
  • QuanTech
    31st Dec 2016 Member 0 Permalink

    @jacob1 (View Post)

     Wat. 20% boost! But that's only for Win64, isn't it :(

  • jacob1
    31st Dec 2016 Developer 2 Permalink
    @QuanTech (View Post)
    Don't tell me you have 32 bit windows

    If I made a 64 bit version I might consider dropping 32 bit support ... but not sure some people still use 32 bit windows for whatever reason.
  • QuanTech
    31st Dec 2016 Member 0 Permalink

    @jacob1 (View Post)

     Oh nvm I do have win64 :P I switched to another older computer so I thought it'd be 32-bit

    I'm such an idiot

    Edited 2 times by QuanTech. Last: 2nd Jan 2017
  • BobGamer455
    2nd Jan 2017 Member 0 Permalink

    Quick news: I tested the fps without Large Screen mode, and I got 95+ fps on that save I mentioned in the OP post.

    TL;DR: Use small window on laggy saves.

  • BobGamer455
    14th Jan 2017 Member 0 Permalink

    Any news on the official 64 bit support?