Just as an aside to the topic, WTF is with intel's naming convention? I read the charts and THG's explination of it and it doesn't make a lick of sense... guess I should expect nothing less from Intel. At least AMD hasn't given in to this numerical feature description naming. BAH! DOWN with Intel 9xx lol
Also 64-bit, as I understand it now, does not give you a real performance boost at all. Further, the compelete lack of true 64-bit apps, and drivers to an extent, makes it less worthwhile to change over to 64 bit now, unless you want to have bragging rights among friends
Nah. People don't change until it hurts significantly more not to change than it does to change.
Since 16-bit was a pretty serious limitation, it got painful.
But 32-bit isn't so bad really. It's mostly when you start getting into things like memory addressing that you want more. So eventually it'll be painful enough to remain in 32-bit land that the move to 64-bits will become serious.
And then it'll be hella-long before a move to 128-bit because, honestly, how many people would really need it?
Anyone know if intel plans on going to 64 bit processors soon for their pentium chip or any other desktop computer other than their xeon
64-bit is no revolution. You should ask yourself: Anyone know if Intel plans on going to INTEGRATED MEMORY CONTROLLER soon for their pentium chip.
No because they need something for their old fabs to do while their newest fabs are producing their newest procs and it makes them money.