64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
70 answers Last reply
More about matter
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Hey Aether, I'm getting ready to get a N4 and amd 3.2 winchester cpu...
    plus just using the xp home sp2 for software....
    I know MS 64bit OS will be out soon, but I see no real need to get it
    even with a 64bit cpu until games start coming out running in 64bit..
    that's just me.....
    good luck

    "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
    > it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
    > whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
    > how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
    > slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
    > long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
    > programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
    > obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
    > years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
    > assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
    >
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

    > Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
    > it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
    > whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
    > how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
    > slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
    > long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
    > programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
    > obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
    > years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
    > assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?

    I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight plus
    right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting 64-bit CPUs
    drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support. It's quite possible
    that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games, the CPU you buy today will
    already be obsolete.

    DS
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
    > it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
    > whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
    > how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
    > slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
    > long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
    > programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
    > obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
    > years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
    > assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
    >

    Intel are releasing their 64-bit Processors into the market right now I
    think..
    If not visually then they are at least doing it on paper..
    I'd bet your safe for 2 years using a non-64b system. I doubt you'll save
    any real cost savings by building anything other than a a64 system.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    On 1 Mar 2005 02:27:41 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
    >it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
    >whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
    >how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
    >slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
    >long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
    >programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
    >obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
    >years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
    >assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?


    When I build a new PC the old one gets used as our 2nd PC, the 2nd then
    becomes the 3rd and so on... so when I built my last PC (6 months ago) I
    went with AMD64 so when it becomes my 2nd PC I'll have two 64-bit
    supported PCs. If you sale the box in 2 years it may be worth more if it
    has a 64-bit CPU inside also.
    Good luck and happy building,
    Ed
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    > Ed wrote:
    > On 1 Mar 2005 02:27:41 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > When I build a new PC the old one gets used as our 2nd PC, the 2nd
    then
    > becomes the 3rd and so on... so when I built my last PC (6 months
    ago) I
    > went with AMD64 so when it becomes my 2nd PC I'll have two 64-bit
    > supported PCs. If you sale the box in 2 years it may be worth more if
    it
    > has a 64-bit CPU inside also.
    > Good luck and happy building,
    > Ed


    Another question: can the Abit AA8XE 'Fatal1ty' board support the new
    Intel EM64T processor? It's an LGA775 based motherboard.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    > Ed wrote:
    > On 1 Mar 2005 14:31:01 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >> Ed wrote:
    > >> On 1 Mar 2005 02:27:41 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> When I build a new PC the old one gets used as our 2nd PC, the 2nd
    > >then
    > >> becomes the 3rd and so on... so when I built my last PC (6 months
    > >ago) I
    > >> went with AMD64 so when it becomes my 2nd PC I'll have two 64-bit
    > >> supported PCs. If you sale the box in 2 years it may be worth more
    if
    > >it
    > >> has a 64-bit CPU inside also.
    > >> Good luck and happy building,
    > >> Ed
    > >
    > >
    > >Another question: can the Abit AA8XE 'Fatal1ty' board support the
    new
    > >Intel EM64T processor? It's an LGA775 based motherboard.
    >
    > http://www2.abit.com.tw/test_report/Fatal1ty%20AA8XE/index.php
    >
    > hth,
    > Ed


    I honestly overlooked that. Appreciate it, Ed.

    I suppose that means the AA8XE is 'future proof' for a couple years.
    Or, am I missing something?
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Intel will be releasing their 64 bit P4's shortly. I would recommend
    waiting if you want the computer to be current for several years.

    --
    DaveW


    "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
    > it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
    > whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
    > how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
    > slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
    > long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
    > programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
    > obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
    > years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
    > assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
    >
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    On 1 Mar 2005 14:31:01 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >> Ed wrote:
    >> On 1 Mar 2005 02:27:41 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> When I build a new PC the old one gets used as our 2nd PC, the 2nd
    >then
    >> becomes the 3rd and so on... so when I built my last PC (6 months
    >ago) I
    >> went with AMD64 so when it becomes my 2nd PC I'll have two 64-bit
    >> supported PCs. If you sale the box in 2 years it may be worth more if
    >it
    >> has a 64-bit CPU inside also.
    >> Good luck and happy building,
    >> Ed
    >
    >
    >Another question: can the Abit AA8XE 'Fatal1ty' board support the new
    >Intel EM64T processor? It's an LGA775 based motherboard.

    http://www2.abit.com.tw/test_report/Fatal1ty%20AA8XE/index.php

    hth,
    Ed
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    On 1 Mar 2005 15:16:35 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >I honestly overlooked that. Appreciate it, Ed.
    >
    >I suppose that means the AA8XE is 'future proof' for a couple years.
    >Or, am I missing something?

    Hopefully someone else can answer your Qs, I haven't done Intel in
    years.
    Good Luck,
    Ed
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    David Schwartz wrote:
    > "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >> Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll
    >> use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction.
    >> Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not,
    >> when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I
    >> understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more
    >> interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By
    >> the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I
    >> purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for
    >> at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel),
    >> would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
    >
    > I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
    > plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
    > 64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
    > It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
    > the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.

    If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
    whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.

    I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that.

    Ben
    --
    A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    aether wrote:
    > Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
    > it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
    > whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
    > how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
    > slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
    > long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
    > programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
    > obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
    > years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
    > assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?

    I actually don't think you will have to worry at all about whether your
    processor will be obsolete by the time 64-bit software becomes more
    prevalent. There used to be a time in the not-too-distant past when
    processors were getting faster and faster all of the time -- those days
    have now past. You won't get more than a few percentage points of
    additional performance even after several years; and the processors are
    way overpowered for the most part. These days they seem to compete on
    "features", such as USB 2.0, or WiFi, or SATA; another feature that they
    compete on is of course 64-bit.

    Go ahead get the 64-bit "feature". The next feature after that might be
    the dual-core feature.

    Yousuf Khan
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
    cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
    through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
    things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.

    Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
    place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
    upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
    available.

    In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
    Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
    'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
    EM64T' -- right?
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    aether wrote:
    >>>Another question: can the Abit AA8XE 'Fatal1ty' board support the
    >
    > new
    >
    >>>Intel EM64T processor? It's an LGA775 based motherboard.
    >>
    >>http://www2.abit.com.tw/test_report/Fatal1ty%20AA8XE/index.php
    >>
    >>hth,
    >>Ed
    >
    >
    >
    > I honestly overlooked that. Appreciate it, Ed.
    >
    > I suppose that means the AA8XE is 'future proof' for a couple years.
    > Or, am I missing something?
    All boards which can use the 5xx series of intel prescott p4 cpus can
    also use the emt64-capable 6xx series (with a bios update, if there's a
    board which can't yell at the manufacturer until it can...).
    As for future proof, this doesn't exist. With intel, it is already
    certain you will need another board for the upcoming dual-core P4 cpus
    (release sometime this year). With AMD, it wouldn't be that much better,
    you could likely upgrade to some (expensive high-end) dual-core Athlon64
    at the end of the year or so (with socket 939, nothing but new low-end
    cpus are to be released for socket 754), but next year AMD will
    introduce a new socket (M2, boards/cpus will support DDR2-667) too.

    Roland
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    On 1 Mar 2005 23:23:34 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
    >cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
    >through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
    >things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.
    >
    >Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
    >place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
    >upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
    >available.
    >
    >In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
    >Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
    >'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
    >EM64T' -- right?


    I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64.
    When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and
    32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under a
    32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit
    applications and operating systems.

    Ed
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Could anyone tell me if this motherboard
    (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=240159)
    supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but what
    of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the
    board
    (http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/products.php?categories=1&model=262),
    and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm thinking
    that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    I read recently that MS expects the number of deployments of XP64 bit to be
    in the millions in the first year.
    Secondly, that MS will be aggressively moving apps it markets over to 64bit.
    IE 64 bit is the future, it is here in h/w and the s/w is coming.

    S/W vendors that do not move across quickly will get lost in the rush so
    expect some new Big Names. H/W vendors that do not provide 64 bit drivers
    promptly will be in the shyte. The good thing about the AMD 64 bit
    implementation is the ability to run 32 bit systems. The bad thing about it
    is the ability to run 32 bit systems.

    If you need a system Now then buy what you can Now. The old formular of 1
    step down from the best has always worked well for me IE a Winchester 3500
    on an SLI motherboard would be a good bet. (There used to be 1 very sharp
    price increment between fastest and 2nd fastet).

    The "best" system now tends to last the longest into the future - so long as
    the componentry is good.

    - Tim


    "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
    > it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
    > whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
    > how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
    > slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
    > long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
    > programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
    > obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
    > years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
    > assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
    >
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    > Ben Pope wrote:
    > aether wrote:
    > > Could anyone tell me if this motherboard
    > >
    (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=240159)
    > > supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but
    what
    > > of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the
    > > board
    > >
    (http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/products.php?categories=1&model=262),
    > > and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm
    thinking
    > > that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros.
    >
    > All socket 939 boards support Dual Channel.
    >
    > Thats the reason they aren't socket 754.
    >
    > Ben
    > --
    > A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    > Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    > I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


    Gotcha. Thanks!
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "Ed" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:qoua21pi12qn4162f0ubeac049ir9r71q6@4ax.com...
    > On 1 Mar 2005 23:23:34 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
    >>cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
    >>through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
    >>things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.
    >>
    >>Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
    >>place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
    >>upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
    >>available.
    >>
    >>In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
    >>Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
    >>'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
    >>EM64T' -- right?
    >
    >
    > I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64.
    > When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and
    > 32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under a
    > 32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit
    > applications and operating systems.
    >
    > Ed
    >

    I am not sure about the Intel offerings, but the AMD 64bit chips do not
    experience performance degradation when executing 32bit code. If the new
    Xeon/P4 chips will be anything like the Itanum implimenations, you can
    expect horrific 32bit performance. ( 32cpu cycles to execute 1 32bit
    instruction, as opposed to the native 64bit RISC implimenation where its
    nearly a 1:1 ration of clock cycle to instruction execution for native 64bit
    code).

    I have been working with the 64bit Itanium 2 systems from HP ( entry,
    midlevel, and superdomes) ... i like the systems, but not a fan of the lack
    of 32bit performance, since nearly every 64bit app has 32bit code in it
    somewhere. I have been working with 2003 enterprise IA64 and Datacenter
    IA64. Havent been able to play with the enterprise linux platforms yet.

    - NuTs
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Don't look now, but I've got another question.

    Will this memory
    (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=80097-20)
    function on this motherboard
    (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=240159)?

    The reason I ask, is that it states for the memory on the Zipzoom site
    that:

    *Note 1: HyperX is high performance memory and may not be compatible
    with your computer. Please check your system specifications to ensure
    compatibility.
    *Note 2: Kingston's HyperX kits are designed and tested to meet dual
    channel architecture requirements such as those found on chipsets and
    motherboards like NVidia's Nforce2, and Intel's Canterwood and
    Springdale."

    I'm hazarding a guess, but I think if it works on an Nforce2
    motherboard, it'll work on an Nforce4 board. Again, just making sure.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Remove the question mark at the end of the second link.

    http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=240159

    It's the AN8 nForce4 motherboard.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "NuTCrAcKeR" <nutcracker@internationalhacker.org> wrote in message
    news:QrKdnciIxrrDs7vfRVn-vg@speakeasy.net...
    >
    > "Ed" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:qoua21pi12qn4162f0ubeac049ir9r71q6@4ax.com...
    >> On 1 Mar 2005 23:23:34 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
    >>>cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
    >>>through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
    >>>things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.
    >>>
    >>>Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
    >>>place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
    >>>upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
    >>>available.
    >>>
    >>>In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
    >>>Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
    >>>'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
    >>>EM64T' -- right?
    >>
    >>
    >> I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64.
    >> When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and
    >> 32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under
    >> a
    >> 32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit
    >> applications and operating systems.
    >>
    >> Ed
    >>
    >
    > I am not sure about the Intel offerings, but the AMD 64bit chips do not
    > experience performance degradation when executing 32bit code. If the new
    > Xeon/P4 chips will be anything like the Itanum implimenations, you can
    > expect horrific 32bit performance. ( 32cpu cycles to execute 1 32bit
    > instruction, as opposed to the native 64bit RISC implimenation where its
    > nearly a 1:1 ration of clock cycle to instruction execution for native
    > 64bit code).
    >
    > I have been working with the 64bit Itanium 2 systems from HP ( entry,
    > midlevel, and superdomes) ... i like the systems, but not a fan of the
    > lack of 32bit performance, since nearly every 64bit app has 32bit code
    > in it somewhere. I have been working with 2003 enterprise IA64 and
    > Datacenter IA64. Havent been able to play with the enterprise linux
    > platforms yet.
    Dead right.
    I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large
    application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the
    source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application,
    but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64,
    I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and
    get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!.
    Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some
    things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real
    'killer' for 90% of users.

    Best Wishes
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:2MqVd.595$n41.573@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

    > Dead right.
    > I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large
    > application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the
    > source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application,
    > but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64,
    > I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and
    > get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!.
    > Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some
    > things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real
    > 'killer' for 90% of users.

    Don't confuse the Itanium processors, which are 64-bit processors, with
    the new 64-bit Pentium processors, which are 32-bit processors that also
    perform 64-bit operations natively. Itanium processors do not perform 32-bit
    operations as quickly as they perform 64-bit operations. 32-bit processors
    with 64-bit extensions should be essentially equally fast at both (depending
    upon how you measure).

    DS
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    aether wrote:
    > Could anyone tell me if this motherboard
    > (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=240159)
    > supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but what
    > of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the
    > board
    > (http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/products.php?categories=1&model=262),
    > and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm thinking
    > that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros.

    All socket 939 boards support Dual Channel.

    Thats the reason they aren't socket 754.

    Ben
    --
    A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    aether wrote:
    > Remove the question mark at the end of the second link.
    >
    > http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=240159
    >
    > It's the AN8 nForce4 motherboard.


    It should be fine.

    Ben
    --
    A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Ben Pope wrote:

    >David Schwartz wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll
    >>>use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction.
    >>>Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not,
    >>>when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I
    >>>understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more
    >>>interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By
    >>>the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I
    >>>purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for
    >>>at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel),
    >>>would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
    >>>
    >>>
    >> I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
    >>plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
    >>64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
    >>It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
    >>the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
    >whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
    >
    >I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that.
    >
    >Ben
    >
    >
    And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
    chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
    yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong
    habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa
    stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool
    dude, smoked stogies).
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    signmeuptoo wrote:
    > Ben Pope wrote:
    >> If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able
    >> to whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
    >>
    >> I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like
    >> that.
    >>
    > And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
    > chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
    > yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong
    > habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa
    > stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool
    > dude, smoked stogies).

    Dual Processors are going into socket 939 in under 6 months, that hardly
    sounds like a socket thats gonna die soon.

    When did Socket A come into existance? 5 years ago? And it's still going.

    OK, so you've had socket 754 and 939 introduced. How long was 754
    around before 939 came out? Not very long... there weren't that many
    people who bought a 754 and were unable to do the research and find out
    that it was gonna die pretty quick. So AMD made a mistake. However,
    socket 754 will be around in the cheap market for some time too.

    There's talk of a DDR2 CPU (new socket, over 1000 pins), but thats not
    gonna be for a year or so.

    Thats hardly that many sockets, look at what Intel are doing...

    Ben
    --
    A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start being
    coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released.. There arent many
    out there right now, but until then, all programs run in 32 bit, regardless
    of weather or not you have a 64 bit processor installed.
    --
    http://www.techfreakz.com - PC Enthusiasts


    "signmeuptoo" <signmeuptoo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:xibXd.6177$603.1872@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Ben Pope wrote:
    >
    >>David Schwartz wrote:
    >>
    >>>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll
    >>>>use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction.
    >>>>Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not,
    >>>>when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I
    >>>>understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more
    >>>>interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By
    >>>>the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I
    >>>>purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for
    >>>>at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel),
    >>>>would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
    >>>>
    >>> I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
    >>>plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
    >>>64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
    >>>It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
    >>>the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.
    >>>
    >>
    >>If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
    >>whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
    >>
    >>I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like
    >>that.
    >>
    >>Ben
    >>
    > And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
    > chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
    > yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong habit
    > of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa stinks up
    > the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool dude, smoked
    > stogies).
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    <dums39@hotmail.com> writes:

    > Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start
    > being coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released..
    > There arent many out there right now, but until then, all programs
    > run in 32 bit, regardless of weather or not you have a 64 bit
    > processor installed.

    Unless you want to use an alternative OS (Linux, BSD, Solaris). Since
    there are a lot of programs whose source is also available making
    them 64-bit is just a recompile away.

    Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for
    recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main
    thing.


    P.S. Could you please not top-post?

    --
    David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
    Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
    the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
    under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "David Magda" <dmagda+trace050112@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote in message
    news:86r7iiqasd.fsf@number6.magda.ca...

    > Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for
    > recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main
    > thing.

    That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors
    and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors
    and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of
    software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However,
    there is very little currently existing software that can significantly
    benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with
    numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with
    numbers larger than a hundred thousand.

    DS
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    I think David has a point, if it's speed your looking for but you dont
    want to risk it use Parallel boards instead.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    David Schwartz wrote:
    > That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors
    > and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors
    > and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of
    > software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However,
    > there is very little currently existing software that can significantly
    > benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with
    > numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with
    > numbers larger than a hundred thousand.

    In the case of x86 64-bits, the real gain is to be had from the
    additional registers, and the onboard memory controller (in some cases).
    Also some unrecompiled 32-bit apps can gain from having additional
    address space specifically devoted to them and not shared with the OS,
    which now has its own address space well out of the way of these apps.

    Yousuf Khan
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    <gkalsisoft@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1110844869.442915.154290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >I think David has a point, if it's speed your looking for but you dont
    > want to risk it use Parallel boards instead.
    >

    what?

    please elaborate.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    While for the most part that may be true for the majority of users, there
    are applications where the added memory and address space would make a
    significant difference, most notably where massive amounts of data requiring
    extremely accurate calculations are slugged around. There are also a
    significant number of businesses whose data mining operations, and on
    occasion regular database requirements, would benefit from the extra hard
    memory. Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
    64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy operating
    system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway there.

    "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
    news:2IOdnfPC8uKP3qvfRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
    > David Schwartz wrote:
    > > That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit
    processors
    > > and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit
    processors
    > > and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge
    base of
    > > software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability.
    However,
    > > there is very little currently existing software that can significantly
    > > benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal
    with
    > > numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal
    with
    > > numbers larger than a hundred thousand.
    >
    > In the case of x86 64-bits, the real gain is to be had from the
    > additional registers, and the onboard memory controller (in some cases).
    > Also some unrecompiled 32-bit apps can gain from having additional
    > address space specifically devoted to them and not shared with the OS,
    > which now has its own address space well out of the way of these apps.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "DD" <ddgamerMAPS@ONcogeco.ca> writes:

    > Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
    > 64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy
    > operating system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway
    > there.

    While I don't necessarilly disagree with you, now that Intel and AMD
    are producing commodity 64-bit processors (I don't classify Itanium
    as commodity), this may (probably will) lower the cost of getting a
    64-bit system.

    In the past 64-bit platforms could only be had as a premium. They
    were generally engineered as servers or "workstations" (e.g.,
    UltraSPARC, Alpha). In the near future any old "PC" will be 64-bit.

    It's not so much a case of what will happen when 64-bit is available
    -- it's been around for a while. Rather it's a case of: will anything
    interesting happen when everyone and their dog has a 64-bit machine?

    --
    David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
    Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
    the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
    under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    David Magda wrote:
    > "DD" <ddgamerMAPS@ONcogeco.ca> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
    >>64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy
    >>operating system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway
    >>there.
    >
    >
    > While I don't necessarilly disagree with you, now that Intel and AMD
    > are producing commodity 64-bit processors (I don't classify Itanium
    > as commodity), this may (probably will) lower the cost of getting a
    > 64-bit system.
    >
    > In the past 64-bit platforms could only be had as a premium. They
    > were generally engineered as servers or "workstations" (e.g.,
    > UltraSPARC, Alpha). In the near future any old "PC" will be 64-bit.
    >
    > It's not so much a case of what will happen when 64-bit is available
    > -- it's been around for a while. Rather it's a case of: will anything
    > interesting happen when everyone and their dog has a 64-bit machine?
    >
    Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
    than server apps, benefit from 64bit?

    --
    bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
    SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    Project Leader, USENET news
    http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    In article <EuBee.2188$6E.2032@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Bill Davidsen wrote:

    > Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
    > than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
    >
    The HPC community already benefits as well. Our sims run significantly
    faster in 64bit mode than in 32bit, and several *couldn't* be run
    on a 32bit system due to the limited memory space.

    --
    Joshua Baker-LePain
    Department of Biomedical Engineering
    Duke University
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    On Fri, 6 May 2005 23:10:27 +0000 (UTC), Joshua Baker-LePain
    <jlb17@begone.spam.duke.edu> wrote:

    >In article <EuBee.2188$6E.2032@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Bill Davidsen wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
    >> than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
    >>
    >The HPC community already benefits as well. Our sims run significantly
    >faster in 64bit mode than in 32bit, and several *couldn't* be run
    >on a 32bit system due to the limited memory space.


    C'mon, Josh, don't scare the children ;)

    They're so happy with their little itty bitty computers and microsoft.

    Micro... what a concept.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Bill Davidsen wrote:
    > Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
    > than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
    >

    I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
    32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
    from 64-bit.

    Yousuf Khan
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    > C'mon, Josh, don't scare the children ;)
    >
    > They're so happy with their little itty bitty computers and microsoft.

    Resistance is futile . . . you will be fitted with a 'Bill' face to carry on
    the mission.

    -g
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Bill Davidsen wrote:
    >
    >>Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
    >>than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
    >>
    >
    >
    > I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
    > 32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
    > from 64-bit.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan

    Right answer. Using a machine that cannot address its own installed memory
    from an application is sad, and takes us back to 1987, when 386 was used
    to run DOS.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    Yousuf Khan wrote:
    > Bill Davidsen wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody
    >> other than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
    >>
    >
    > I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
    > 32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
    > from 64-bit.

    I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT
    used as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think
    of the majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will
    any of these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business
    the huge databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual
    on a GB machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need
    that will get people to upgrade?

    There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone
    hit the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for
    most of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add
    memory, even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

    And even on servers it's hard to find a benefit for many applications.
    The bottleneck is i/o, and even if the hardware could do it I wouldn't
    spend the money to put 10TB databases in memory. I can go to 16GB with
    32 bits, and the individual processes are only a few MB, so address
    space per process isn't an issue.

    I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
    replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

    --
    bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
    SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    Project Leader, USENET news
    http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
    news:aMZke.1477$uu.726@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

    > I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
    > as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
    > majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
    > these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
    > databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
    > machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
    > people to upgrade?

    The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
    that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
    'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks of
    address space for sparse data.

    If you don't think 90% of computers are servers or game machines, what
    do you think they're doing? I think a lot more than 10% of general-purpose
    computers have games as a significant application.

    > There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone hit
    > the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
    > of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
    > even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

    The need will be the things that are easier to do on 64-bit platforms,
    and so over time they will only be available on them. But you are right that
    the 32-bit limit is not being hit hard, so the change will not be nearly as
    swift as the change from 16-bit to 32-bit was, and that change wasn't all
    that swift.

    > I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
    > replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

    Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow at
    the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit pretty soon
    now, in about three years if memory serves me.

    It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
    processors than don't.

    DS
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:aMZke.1477$uu.726@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

    > I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
    > as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
    > majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
    > these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
    > databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
    > machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
    > people to upgrade?

    ?

    PlayStation
    Nintendo


    > There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone hit
    > the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
    > of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
    > even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

    But the Industry forgot to move the 16bit programmers, too. :-)
    All I see today is 16bit programming with a couple of overlayed programs
    (Visual... Virtual..) to program the 32bit machines. Where are the times, of
    realtime screen outputs programmed in machine code, or assembler?

    > And even on servers it's hard to find a benefit for many applications. The
    > bottleneck is i/o, and even if the hardware could do it I wouldn't spend
    > the money to put 10TB databases in memory. I can go to 16GB with 32 bits,
    > and the individual processes are only a few MB, so address space per
    > process isn't an issue.

    Bank Switching? Like the 8bit CP/M machines with some MB of Memory!
    Lets Say, 16 times 4GB.


    > I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
    > replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

    An impossible mission to substitute analogue technik. Even with 512bit (I
    suggest Industry having a great number in mind) it could not compare, by
    picture quality, to a 70mm Cinemascope. Realtime, and at least 24 pictures a
    second ;-)
    I would not have one peni left for such a project. That would be, just mad.

    Also a today 64bit DVD Player cannot compare to a 45 Years UHF,
    air-broadcasted BetaCam or U-Matic Video. Digital is just a dazzling,
    jerking picture.


    > --
    > bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
    > SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    > Project Leader, USENET news
    > http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com


    Best Regards,

    Daniel Mandic
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    David Schwartz wrote:
    > "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
    > news:aMZke.1477$uu.726@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
    >>as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
    >>majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
    >>these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
    >>databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
    >>machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
    >>people to upgrade?
    >
    >
    > The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
    > that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
    > 'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks of
    > address space for sparse data.

    Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that? I keep
    hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but we
    have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
    common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
    have now. Where's the killer app?

    My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users
    will not need the address space, because the common things are bounded
    by the human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web
    page, graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in
    the USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet
    of huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better
    served by a database.

    >
    > If you don't think 90% of computers are servers or game machines, what
    > do you think they're doing? I think a lot more than 10% of general-purpose
    > computers have games as a significant application.
    >
    >
    >>There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone hit
    >>the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
    >>of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
    >>even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.
    >
    >
    > The need will be the things that are easier to do on 64-bit platforms,
    > and so over time they will only be available on them. But you are right that
    > the 32-bit limit is not being hit hard, so the change will not be nearly as
    > swift as the change from 16-bit to 32-bit was, and that change wasn't all
    > that swift.
    >
    >
    >>I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
    >>replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.
    >
    >
    > Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow at
    > the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit pretty soon
    > now, in about three years if memory serves me.
    >
    > It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
    > processors than don't.

    New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
    inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
    upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.

    --
    bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
    SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    Project Leader, USENET news
    http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
    news:Klble.1821$uu.728@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

    > David Schwartz wrote:

    >> The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
    >> that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
    >> 'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks
    >> of address space for sparse data.

    > Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?

    All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
    only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

    > I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
    > we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
    > common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
    > have now. Where's the killer app?

    It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
    of address space and using it.

    > My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
    > not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
    > human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
    > graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the USA
    > the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of huge
    > size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served by a
    > database.

    How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
    high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

    >> Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow
    >> at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
    >> pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.
    >>
    >> It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
    >> processors than don't.
    >
    > New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
    > inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
    > upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.

    I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
    sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will still
    only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit market is
    really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher percentage of the
    target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely that 64-bit only
    software will be released.

    One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
    64-bit mode.

    DS
  46. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
    news:d73ho3$eh0$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
    >
    > "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
    > news:Klble.1821$uu.728@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >> David Schwartz wrote:
    >
    >>> The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit
    >>> platforms that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For
    >>> example, you can 'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that
    >>> reserves large chunks of address space for sparse data.
    >
    >> Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?
    >
    > All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
    > only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.
    >
    >> I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
    >> we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
    >> common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
    >> have now. Where's the killer app?
    >
    > It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
    > of address space and using it.
    >
    >> My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
    >> not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
    >> human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
    >> graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the
    >> USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of
    >> huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served
    >> by a database.
    >
    > How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
    > high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?
    >
    >>> Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to
    >>> grow at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
    >>> pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.
    >>>
    >>> It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
    >>> processors than don't.
    >>
    >> New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
    >> inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
    >> upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.
    >
    > I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
    > sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will
    > still only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit
    > market is really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher
    > percentage of the target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely
    > that 64-bit only software will be released.
    >
    > One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
    > 64-bit mode.
    >
    > DS
    >
    >

    I think the only reason I would need to upgrade to 64bit in the future
    will be software written for it. My guess anyways, I can already do
    pretty much all I want on a 3.5 P4E with 2 gigs ram, not weather mapping
    here or doing HD encoding yet but DVD encoding works great.


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  47. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    supp@darkstar.prodigy.comDavid Schwartz wrote:
    > "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
    > news:Klble.1821$uu.728@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>David Schwartz wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
    >>>that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
    >>>'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks
    >>>of address space for sparse data.
    >
    >
    >>Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?
    >
    >
    > All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
    > only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

    Hate to keep asking, but what "high end ones" are those? Outside of BIG
    database apps, which are usually server functions rather than user apps,
    and high end graphics, which are usually done on dedicated workstations,
    I don't see where the benefit will come. And to use all that address
    space will require rewriting the applications which now use the 64 bit
    file addressing which has been around for about a decade.
    >
    >
    >>I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
    >>we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
    >>common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
    >>have now. Where's the killer app?
    >
    >
    > It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
    > of address space and using it.

    I keep hearing that, too, what's the app which benefits?
    >
    >
    >>My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
    >>not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
    >>human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
    >>graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the USA
    >>the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of huge
    >>size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served by a
    >>database.
    >
    >
    > How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
    > high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

    Which applications read an entire DVD into memory, and why? And other
    than a tiny reduction in code complexity, where's the gain? That's a
    real gain for a "from scratch" new program, but what vendor will lock
    out the 32 bit market by doing it? The gain is not in performance, if
    the data doesn't fit in physical memory performance will be limited by
    disk speed.
    >
    >
    >>> Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow
    >>>at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
    >>>pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.
    >>>
    >>> It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
    >>>processors than don't.
    >>
    >>New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
    >>inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
    >>upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.
    >
    >
    > I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
    > sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will still
    > only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit market is
    > really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher percentage of the
    > target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely that 64-bit only
    > software will be released.

    You express my thoughts exactly in that paragraph! I just don't see many
    places where there will be a co$t advantage or a performance advantage
    with applications which sell in any significant volume. I talked to an
    archetect about 64 bit when the UltraSPARC came out, and he said that
    the drawing programs were all vector, and took almost no space at all.
    That was one place I thought 64 bits would help, and it doesn't.
    >
    > One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
    > 64-bit mode.

    I doubt that make a difference. There's so much register aliasing in
    modern processors that (from what I read) the program logic is more of a
    limiting factor. That and the quality of the compilers.

    --
    bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
    SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    Project Leader, USENET news
    http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
    news:JkMne.10224$4u.7521@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

    >>>Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?

    >> All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app
    >> that only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

    > Hate to keep asking, but what "high end ones" are those?

    Physics engines such as are used in 3D games. Graphics applications.
    Development tools. Encryption. All the applications that don't exist yet
    because today's computers can't run them efficiently.

    > Outside of BIG database apps, which are usually server functions rather
    > than user apps, and high end graphics, which are usually done on dedicated
    > workstations,

    What about the high end graphics, where by high end I mean high end for
    what's done on PCs? Things are done on dedicated workstations only when they
    can't be done on PCs.

    Don't forget, when the '486 first came out, everyone was saying that
    nobody would ever need that much power on the desktop. If you give people
    the ability to do things, they will want to do them.

    > I don't see where the benefit will come. And to use all that address space
    > will require rewriting the applications which now use the 64 bit file
    > addressing which has been around for about a decade.

    Not necessarily. A lot of work can be done by the OS. And the 80/20
    rules means that only 20% of the application has to be rewritten to get the
    benefit.

    >>>I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
    >>>we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
    >>>common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
    >>>have now. Where's the killer app?

    >> It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having
    >> lots of address space and using it.

    > I keep hearing that, too, what's the app which benefits?

    All applications that use disks and files. Games. Document preparation
    tools. Encryption. Once people can do things, they will insist on being able
    to.

    >>>My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
    >>>not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
    >>>human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
    >>>graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the
    >>>USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of
    >>>huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served
    >>>by a database.

    >> How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the
    >> next high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

    > Which applications read an entire DVD into memory, and why?

    That's not the point. The point is that the application may need any
    part of the DVD at any time.

    > And other than a tiny reduction in code complexity, where's the gain?

    It's much more than a tiny reduction in code complexity. Managing a
    limited address space is a major PITA.

    > That's a real gain for a "from scratch" new program, but what vendor will
    > lock out the 32 bit market by doing it? The gain is not in performance, if
    > the data doesn't fit in physical memory performance will be limited by
    > disk speed.

    The gain is also in performance. Not having to view the world through a
    narrow window will improve performance as the OS manages the caching rather
    than the application, which has a more limited view of system resources and
    priorities.

    >> I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
    >> sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will
    >> still only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit
    >> market is really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher
    >> percentage of the target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more
    >> likely that 64-bit only software will be released.

    > You express my thoughts exactly in that paragraph! I just don't see many
    > places where there will be a co$t advantage or a performance advantage
    > with applications which sell in any significant volume. I talked to an
    > archetect about 64 bit when the UltraSPARC came out, and he said that the
    > drawing programs were all vector, and took almost no space at all. That
    > was one place I thought 64 bits would help, and it doesn't.

    The issue is not what current applications will benefit, but what new
    applications will be possible.

    >> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
    >> 64-bit mode.

    > I doubt that make a difference. There's so much register aliasing in
    > modern processors that (from what I read) the program logic is more of a
    > limiting factor. That and the quality of the compilers.

    More registers will mean you won't need as high a compiler quality to
    get the performance. Or, to put it another way, for the same compiler
    quality, you can get more performance with more registers.

    DS
  49. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

    David Schwartz wrote:

    This has become pointless, I keep asking for the name or type of
    application which any significant postion of desktop users (personal or
    business) would find useful enough to justify buying a 64 bit computer
    before the normal lifespan of the existing 32 but unit. Haven't gotten
    it yet.

    I don't expect any rush to 64 bit, when it's cheap and time for a new
    computer, then people will go 64 bit. I would guess that means 90% of
    the office desktops and 75% of the home units will be 32 bits until they
    hit end of useful life.

    > "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
    > news:JkMne.10224$4u.7521@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>>>Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?
    >
    >
    >>> All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app
    >>>that only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.
    >
    >
    >>Hate to keep asking, but what "high end ones" are those?
    >
    >
    > Physics engines such as are used in 3D games. Graphics applications.
    > Development tools. Encryption. All the applications that don't exist yet
    > because today's computers can't run them efficiently.
    >
    >
    >>Outside of BIG database apps, which are usually server functions rather
    >>than user apps, and high end graphics, which are usually done on dedicated
    >>workstations,
    >
    >
    > What about the high end graphics, where by high end I mean high end for
    > what's done on PCs? Things are done on dedicated workstations only when they
    > can't be done on PCs.
    >
    > Don't forget, when the '486 first came out, everyone was saying that
    > nobody would ever need that much power on the desktop. If you give people
    > the ability to do things, they will want to do them.
    >
    >
    >>I don't see where the benefit will come. And to use all that address space
    >>will require rewriting the applications which now use the 64 bit file
    >>addressing which has been around for about a decade.
    >
    >
    > Not necessarily. A lot of work can be done by the OS. And the 80/20
    > rules means that only 20% of the application has to be rewritten to get the
    > benefit.
    >
    >
    >>>>I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
    >>>>we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
    >>>>common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
    >>>>have now. Where's the killer app?
    >
    >
    >>> It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having
    >>>lots of address space and using it.
    >
    >
    >>I keep hearing that, too, what's the app which benefits?
    >
    >
    > All applications that use disks and files. Games. Document preparation
    > tools. Encryption. Once people can do things, they will insist on being able
    > to.
    >
    >
    >>>>My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
    >>>>not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
    >>>>human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
    >>>>graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the
    >>>>USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of
    >>>>huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served
    >>>>by a database.
    >
    >
    >>> How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the
    >>>next high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?
    >
    >
    >>Which applications read an entire DVD into memory, and why?
    >
    >
    > That's not the point. The point is that the application may need any
    > part of the DVD at any time.
    >
    >
    >>And other than a tiny reduction in code complexity, where's the gain?
    >
    >
    > It's much more than a tiny reduction in code complexity. Managing a
    > limited address space is a major PITA.
    >
    >
    >>That's a real gain for a "from scratch" new program, but what vendor will
    >>lock out the 32 bit market by doing it? The gain is not in performance, if
    >>the data doesn't fit in physical memory performance will be limited by
    >>disk speed.
    >
    >
    > The gain is also in performance. Not having to view the world through a
    > narrow window will improve performance as the OS manages the caching rather
    > than the application, which has a more limited view of system resources and
    > priorities.
    >
    >
    >>> I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
    >>>sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will
    >>>still only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit
    >>>market is really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher
    >>>percentage of the target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more
    >>>likely that 64-bit only software will be released.
    >
    >
    >>You express my thoughts exactly in that paragraph! I just don't see many
    >>places where there will be a co$t advantage or a performance advantage
    >>with applications which sell in any significant volume. I talked to an
    >>archetect about 64 bit when the UltraSPARC came out, and he said that the
    >>drawing programs were all vector, and took almost no space at all. That
    >>was one place I thought 64 bits would help, and it doesn't.
    >
    >
    > The issue is not what current applications will benefit, but what new
    > applications will be possible.
    >
    >
    >>> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
    >>>64-bit mode.
    >
    >
    >>I doubt that make a difference. There's so much register aliasing in
    >>modern processors that (from what I read) the program logic is more of a
    >>limiting factor. That and the quality of the compilers.
    >
    >
    > More registers will mean you won't need as high a compiler quality to
    > get the performance. Or, to put it another way, for the same compiler
    > quality, you can get more performance with more registers.
    >
    > DS
    >
    >


    --
    bill davidsen
    SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
    http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Processors Intel Motherboards