Why should gamers go 64bit?

althought a p4 is clocked faster than an amd...amd's do millions of more calculations per clock than p4's do..which is why i choose a 64 bit amd versus a p4. Ever hear of the word.."future" 32 bit will be a thing of the past...maybe not now, but soon. iv played 64 bit far cry...and the difference is amazing from the 32 bit version..

I have to straddle the fence on this one and agree with a couple of people. First of all, prozac is right. Not much support for gaming with the 64 bit processing. However, if nobody ever bothered to upgrade their computers at all, we'd all still be playing 386 games. So the more of a "user base" we get with 64 bit processors, the more gaming companies will respond with 64 bit games. Read LordBelial's post to see what happens then.....

Strictly talking capacities.........
2^32 = 4,294,967,296bytes, or 4GB
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,600,000bytes, or 17,179,869,184GB

So going to the point of absurd, though to make the point, 64 bit processing can realistically address over 17 BILLION GIG of memory! Say goodbye to memory limits for the next 20 years or so fellas.
A 32 bit processor can have an instruction bank of 4,294,967,296 different instructions (1 32-bit word at a time). A 64 bit processor can have an instruction bank of 18,446,744,073,709,600,000 different instructions. In other words, a complex set of instructions in 32 bit machine code might be accomplished by running 1 set of 64 bit code. The possibilities here are geometrically higher. 64 bit code does not represent a doubling of potential, it represents a geometrically higher potential.

So the sooner we can adopt 64 bit computing, the sooner we can reap some of these benefits--such as games made without developers worrying about machine limits.

So it's safe to say to gamers not to switch to 64 bit architecture yet and use the 32 bit for now?
Huh, I guess it's kind of like the Pci-e x16 SLI that people saying there's not much difference for the meantime. :?

I know you weren't responding to me, but my point was that gamers should upgrade. Otherwise, there will be no push for game companies go 64 bit processing, and we'll all be stuck playing PacMan.

So for all you gamers out there with the means, don't be a computing girlie man!

What 32 bit chips are faster than the 64bit chips in 32 bit mode? Sorry to dissalusion you but the AMD64 chips have been king in 32 bit mode since they were introduced. Intel has a sweet chip coming later this year, but that "32 bit is faster than 64 bit" argument can be filed away with "a 486 with 66mhz internal clock will never make a big difference because it still communitates with the outside world at 33mhz". (OK. Some of you may be too young to remember the introduction of the DX2's and the enormous skepticism that brewed over them when they were announced).

Ok so I see that first reply had the more logical version of it, while the rest went for the "Look to the future, young Marty". Yes, in time the 32bit will become boat anchors. No one made a comment on the prices I quoted. If most my games, (I play MMO's) run on 32bit and the upcomming ones still will run on 32bit, why would I spend 600 bucks to down-grade to a 2.4 when I can spend 300 bucks and run my games on a 3.6? Way I see it, why spend extra money for options I cant use, lower my performance (because i'm running in 32bit mode). When 64bit games hit the market then i'll go for the upgrade, by then that 600 dollar chip will be half or less of what it is today.

Cataclysm

ahh. You've fallen into the mhz trap.
Lets ignor 64bit for the moment. The AMD (and the next Intel). Are both faster than the 3.6Ghz CPu and they only run at 2.6 Ghz.
Thats because they do more work per clock cycle.
Even the latest 3.6Ghz Intel p4 can do 64bit. So don't worry about the 64bitness, think of it as an added bonus when you decide to go Vista.

The trouble with highly clocked chips (P4 and potentiall future AMDs) is massive heat output.
What you do have to decide however, is do you need dual core or single core.
E.g. An AMD X2 3800+ runs at a lower frequency that the AMD 3800+.
If you are purley interested in running games get the single core 3800+ or higher, but if you do something intesive in the background whilst playing a game (burning a DVD) get the X2 or intel equivalent.

Anyone who is comparing a single core Intel 3.6 GHz processor to a dual core AMD 2.4 GHz processor isn't really thinking straight. GHz to GHz there is no comparison in terms of real world performance... and then when you factor in the single core vs. dual core you're really talking about apples and oranges.

If you want a $300 AMD CPU to compare an Intel 3.6 to, choose an X2-3800... every one on the planet will likely OC to 2.4 GHz which will give it a tremdendous lead in gaming performance over that NetBurst Intel.

The 64bit chips run 32bit apps very, very fast. Check the Tom's CPU charts. Compare the top 32bit P4 (3.4GHz) listed there to the 4800+ X2, or almost any other 64bit chip for that matter (except some of the lowest end ones), the 64bit chips win in big in all the gaming apps, as well as almost every other app. You can get a 3800+ X2 or some other 64bit chip for $300 that will be faster in 32bit and have 64bit and dual core technology for the future.

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu. [...] 0&chart=68

I didnt purchase based upon 32bit 64 bit but wrather overall cpu performance. Nearly every bench mark you will see is done in 32bit anyhow so not like matters.

Dual cores at stock (like the X2 3800+) when running single threaded apps leave alot to be desired. Overclock them and run some mutli threaded apps and watch in awe...

Clockspeeds arn't the hype they used to be... ever wonder why Intel stopped naming their CPU's based upon clock frequency??

You gain maybe 5-10 FPS. Also, some games such as HL2 LOSE performance in 64bit.
64 bit is just worthless in gaming..
Not to mention 64to32 bit emulation WILL lose performance.

wusy

Not to roll a hand gernade in to the room here, but is Conroe based on EM-64T? Or does Conroe have it's own improved version of those extensions?

IF, and I'm just speculating here, Conroe is EM-64T and the above is true about the lack of registers slows down 64bit apps, Conroe might not be as fast as AMD64 based processors in a 64bit enviornment. The tests we saw were in XP Pro, not XP 64.

I'm probably wrong on this, but it's a theory. Someone will probably point out to me there is something faster in Conroe to replace EM-64T or something like that.

Not to roll a hand gernade in to the room here, but is Conroe based on EM-64T? Or does Conroe have it's own improved version of those extensions?

IF, and I'm just speculating here, Conroe is EM-64T and the above is true about the lack of registers slowing down 64bit apps, Conroe might not be as fast as AMD64 based processors in a 64bit enviornment. The tests we saw were in XP Pro, not XP 64.

I'm probably wrong on this, but it's a theory. Someone will probably point out to me there is something faster in Conroe to replace EM-64T or something like that.

Nobody cares. Intel didn't care about 64 bit for desktops, and honestly I agree. No real programs are coming out on 64bit, and the fact is that few companies are really planning for 64bit either...dual core is the rage now, and for good reason.

A 64 bit processor is not more expensive than a 32 bit processor these days, and you can get 64 bits in either Intel or AMD flavors. The big price difference you are seeing is because the X2 is a dual core, which means it has 2 processors on one chip.
So to answer the question should a gamer spend extra money on a 64 bit chip, one doesn't have to spend extra for 64 bit.

Hey you're right; 32-bit is worthless too. Why did we bother switching from 16-bit? Hell, we should all be running on multi core Intel 486s.

Just like 16bit 286s and 386s, they will slowly fade into the sunset.

No one has addressed my Conroe point yet. Does anyone know if Conroe will be an EM-64T processor or if it has a new 64bit technology for Conroe? Or if Conroe might not be so fast in 64bit mode because if EM-64T.

from the way the person who started this thread is talking they must really want an intel so here is the intel ya want you get 64 bit and dual core in the 300$ price range

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819116212

This issue is quite simple, from the first thread. If you plan on using your computer for a couple of years, you want something that is BACKWARD compatible. There is nothing that is FORWARD compatible. 64 bit processors are BACKWARD compatible. 32 bit processors are not FORWARD compatible. So if you plan on keeping your computer for the next five years and want the capability to run new games and apps (and can afford it), go 64 bit. If not, or you are happy with the current crop of games and apps, get the 32 bit system.

Thread's over.

Just like 16bit 286s and 386s, they will slowly fade into the sunset.

No one has addressed my Conroe point yet. Does anyone know if Conroe will be an EM-64T processor or if it has a new 64bit technology for Conroe? Or if Conroe might not be so fast in 64bit mode because if EM-64T.

Yes, it will be 64 bit.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/ [...] _l2_64bit/

I know Conroe is going to be 64bit, the question (that wusy is working on) is, will Intel's version of the 64bit technology hinder it in 64bit mode or have they corrected that yet?

Virtually no one buys a 64 bit desktop chip to actually run 64 bit operating systems... we buy 64 bit chips because they also happen to be the fastest chips at running 32 bit apps and operating systems. Don't want a fast CPU? Go back to some previous-gen CPU like a Pentium 4 500 series or an Athlon XP.

lol... I'm basically repeating what most people are saying, but I just can't help myself. 64 bit or 32 bit AT THE MOMENT isn't very important for games. IMO that will start to change when Vista comes out, but for now, either one will do.

What is getting confused here, are 4 major changes that took place in the processor world over the past year. (Some affect each other, but are fundamentally different)

First was the main stream 64 bit processors (which don't take a performance hit running in 32 bit mode btw... whoever says they are slower is either lying, or is ignorant)

Second, was the Multicore Architecture. One Dye, multiple processors.

Third is what Intel feels proud to label "Performance per Watt" to lower power consumption and make processors more efficient.

And Fourth is Instructions per Clock Cycle, which is I believe is the most important of all...

The last one here is where you’re getting hung up here Cataclysm. Intel and AMD didn’t slow down their processors so they can make them run 64 bit extensions. You’re seeing the 64 bit stuff, and then looking at the processor speeds, and thinking the 32 bit versions are faster, because they have higher MHz. But as the processor generations go on, they become more efficient. It’s like comparing a Harley with a 1000cc motor to a Honda Crotch Rocket with a 750cc motor. I promise you the Honda’s faster, because of the engine, weight, and design of the bike.

Because of More efficiency, processors can be running at slower speeds so they require less power, but have more processing power than their previous generation. I believe AMD picked this time to start releasing their 64 bit technology because of these other fundamental shifts in processor architecture; it’s just easier to design one processor that does them all at once. The 64 bit capability of the newer processors on the market has nothing to do with their performance compared to the previous generation.

If you read these forums, there’s quite a war with the whole Conroe processor. My reason for bringing this up, is that Intel’s Conroe processor running at just over 2 GHz, was beating the 3.6 GHz Pentium 4 over clocked to over 4 GHz!

The reason you’re getting such confusing information here, is because technically 64 bit CAN increase performance a lot; especially in a gamming environment. However, that’s not even the issue right now. 64 bit has nothing to do with the slower clock speeds of the newer processors, its more efficiency. The newer processors are much faster, and more capable, even at slower clock speeds.

My ONLY beef with 64bit as of now is freakin BF2. I formatted my computer and installed Xp64 with 0 issues, Proceeded to install 64 bit drivers, no issues. Then i figured wth why not fire up some BF2:SF, BAM BOOOM CRASH. I couldn't get it to run for the life of me. I updated everything I had on the computer, and nothing. So I reformatted AGAIN and reverted to XP32 and all was well again.... bastard BF2 is keeing me in 32 bit hehe.

how about 64 byte not bit so whats 8 x 64 = 512 so wow 512 bit that would be amazing