Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why should gamers go 64bit?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
March 10, 2006 4:33:59 PM

Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm

More about : gamers 64bit

March 10, 2006 4:56:59 PM

Quote:
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm


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..
March 10, 2006 5:04:26 PM

Quote:
Ever hear of the word.."future" 32 bit will be a thing of the past...maybe not now, but soon.

My thoughts exactly.

32-bit is a dying legacy. Eventually 32-bit will be like old 386s ya know. Go ahead a dig a 6 foot hole for both 32-bit stuff and AGP.
Related resources
March 10, 2006 5:25:24 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 5:34:51 PM

Quote:
CPUs support 64bit for the future, so it's useless now for a gamer. Unless you're on XP 64bit Edition running like a workstation. It's not really an issue for a gamer, since he doesn't need XP 64bit Edition.


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. :?
March 10, 2006 5:42:08 PM

Quote:
CPUs support 64bit for the future, so it's useless now for a gamer. Unless you're on XP 64bit Edition running like a workstation. It's not really an issue for a gamer, since he doesn't need XP 64bit Edition.


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!
March 10, 2006 5:44:47 PM

I'm really hopeing that Vanguard will take some use out the 64-bit arch, or dual core for that matter. That's just me though :) 
March 10, 2006 5:49:04 PM

Quote:
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm


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).
March 10, 2006 5:49:47 PM

If optimized for a 64-bit processor, games can and will receive a performance increase. Look at Half-Life2 64-bit and Far Cry 64-bit.
March 10, 2006 5:53:44 PM

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
March 10, 2006 5:56:59 PM

thats right. Its easy to dismiss 64 bit gaming for now, but with FarCry, Doom3, and HalfLife2 all using 64 bit versions, its only a matter of time before they all are 64bit. The same can be said for dual-cores too.
March 10, 2006 6:04:45 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 6:04:56 PM

There is really no harm in going to 64bit now. Just to get used to it. Almost all of your programs will run on a 64bit OS as it is right now. The exceptions are few, standouts being Diskeeper (older version) and WinRAR. Though I think if you get the latest and greatest versions of these, they work fine.

I have Vista 64 sitting on my desk to test out, and also XP64, just have been waiting for my Opteron to get stable (just bought it).

This is often my gripe over at the BF2 forums, why gaming companies don't push forward and take advantage of all the potential x64 CPUs and a 64bit OS has to offer. There is always the driver support issue they would have to contend with, but when EA, Activision, Serria, and Blizzard start pushing the software, the hardware will already be there.

You could say it is the chicken/egg problem. Gaming companies don't build much support for WS FOV, because they think statically there is not a lot of WS LCDs. But, you put it in there, are a chunk of us that will take advantage of it.

just my two cents....

But if you want some further help, here is some more information...

http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=406695
March 10, 2006 6:06:17 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 6:07:22 PM

I use both 32bit and 64bit. :) 
To bad F.E.A.R. doesn't have 64-bit or dual core support... :( 
March 10, 2006 6:07:42 PM

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.html?modelx=33&model1...
March 10, 2006 6:11:28 PM

Vista, aside from the several versions comes in 32bit and 64bit flavors. I really wish MS had just put their foot down and said they are going 64bit only. Considering they are putting their foot down on everything else (aside form DRM).
March 10, 2006 6:28:08 PM

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??
March 10, 2006 6:30:17 PM

Never mind the brand of processor, intel or amd...i'm looking at the 32bit prices over the 64bit prices. I'm looking for the debate over why a gamer should spend extra money going 64bit when games run at 32bit. The processors I used where picked for pricing matters. Should a gamer spend extra money on going 64bit when most games and even upcomming titles run on 32bit? Yeah there are a few games out there that run on 64bit, but I can only count those games on one hand.

continue to discuss.....

Cataclysm
March 10, 2006 6:36:58 PM

Quote:
If optimized for a 64-bit processor, games can and will receive a performance increase. Look at Half-Life2 64-bit and Far Cry 64-bit.

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.
March 10, 2006 6:37:04 PM

Quote:
The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode.


What makes you think that considering the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2 are faster than both 32-bit only P4s and 64-bit capable P4s and Pentium Ds.
Doesn't matter if its in 32-bit Windows or 64-bit Windows.


All consumer level 64-bit processors are mostly just a 32-bit processor with 64-bit extensions on them so they can run 64-bit code.
March 10, 2006 6:41:43 PM

wusy
Quote:
EM-64T DOES NOT have those extra registries to increase speed in x86-64 environment.


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.
March 10, 2006 6:43:14 PM

Boy.. I can't wait till 256bit comes out.. I'll be weally old.
March 10, 2006 6:44:55 PM

Quote:
wusy EM-64T DOES NOT have those extra registries to increase speed in x86-64 environment.


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.
March 10, 2006 6:50:28 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 6:51:15 PM

I'm thinking lots of software will be 64bit and multi-threaded for Windows Vista comes out. I think in the next few years most everything will fit this description.
March 10, 2006 6:52:32 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 6:56:55 PM

And whatever happens to the cpu that doesn't support 64 bit? I still have an old p3 and AMD chips? But the system's are mainly for internet?
March 10, 2006 7:04:33 PM

Quote:
And whatever happens to the cpu that doesn't support 64 bit? I still have an old p3 and AMD chips? But the system's are mainly for internet?


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.
March 10, 2006 7:09:53 PM

So it's basically pointless to buy a non-64 bit cpu right now for it will just be outdated within a year or two. Am I right? :) 
March 10, 2006 7:26:27 PM

Quote:
And whatever happens to the cpu that doesn't support 64 bit? I still have an old p3 and AMD chips? But the system's are mainly for internet?


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/2004/03/17/intel_plots_4mb...
March 10, 2006 7:36:58 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 7:40:14 PM

I'd imagine conroe would have 64 bit extensions similar to AMDs. it'd be foolish not to include the extra registers especially with vista being 64bit.
March 10, 2006 7:40:31 PM

Quote:
And whatever happens to the cpu that doesn't support 64 bit? I still have an old p3 and AMD chips? But the system's are mainly for internet?


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/2004/03/17/intel_plots_4mb...

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?
March 10, 2006 7:42:08 PM

Quote:
And whatever happens to the cpu that doesn't support 64 bit? I still have an old p3 and AMD chips? But the system's are mainly for internet?


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/2004/03/17/intel_plots_4mb...

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?
That's something nobody can answer until it releases...
March 10, 2006 8:04:52 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 8:51:12 PM

If it will be anything like game going to DVD then it will be a slow process. man i'd really love to find a DVD version of unreal tournament instead of its 5-8 CD's
March 10, 2006 8:54:52 PM

Quote:
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm


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.
March 10, 2006 9:57:35 PM

Quote:
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm


You seem a little confused.

The latest P4s are also 64bit compatible. The AMD A64 X2 4800 is two 2.4ghz CPUs on one die, certain parts of the chip (extra registers etc) are inactive in 32-bit mode but you seem to think it runs at a slower frequency too (it does not).

The fact is that the A64s 12 stage instruction pipeline is vastly more efficient than the 40? stage pipelines of the latest P4s.

The Athlon 64 is not only the fastest 64 bit processor on the market today (maybe intels Merom - that will run far slower than 3.6ghz will beat it eventually, but it isnt out yet), it is also the fastest 32 bit CPU on the market.

It also comes out top on performance/$ and performance/watt right now.

As such, why should gamers NOT use 64 bit hardware? All Athlon 64 boards support 64bit, so I'm not sure where you get 'need a new mobo' from, and you can happily run Windows32 as long as you like.

The 3.6ghz P4 you mention is not *nearly* as capeable as the 4800 you mention. yes, it has a higher clockrate, but thats like saying:- 'I can take 10000 little steps in a minute if i shuffle my feet really quickly so I am faster than an olympic sprinter because he is taking big strides and only doing 100 steps in a minute'. You are also comparing a Dual core CPU to a single core CPU. The 4800 there is *two* CPUs in one. A fairer comparison would be the 3.6ghz P4 ($300) and a 3500 Athlon64 (2.4Ghz single core, approx $220)

I prefer AMD right now, for games and general personal use (However the last workstation I recommended to someone was an Intel as he was using it for mainly video encoding - what the P4 is good at) but I'm eagerly awaiting Intels new Merom platform.
March 10, 2006 10:38:53 PM

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.
March 10, 2006 10:57:00 PM

Quote:
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

A 2.4 Athlon 64 will crush a 3.6 P4 in virtually every test case. In gaming, there will NEVER be a case where the 3.6 P4 wins over a 2.4 Athlon 64.
March 10, 2006 11:02:55 PM

how about 64 byte not bit so whats 8 x 64 = 512 so wow 512 bit that would be amazing :D 
March 10, 2006 11:18:09 PM

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


Please, now your talking Star Trek type power 8O
March 10, 2006 11:24:19 PM

what/ i never watched star trek <everyone one the forums gasping> what you hear me i never watched star trek
March 10, 2006 11:42:30 PM

Quote:
Ok first thread and might as well start a war here.

Why should a gamer go with 64bit? Most games dont support it yet. You have to get a new OS and MoBO. The 32bit chips are faster than the 64bit in 32bit mode. IE get a P4 3.6 for 300 bucks, or get an AMD dualcore 4800 (which only runs at 2.4 in 32bit mode) for 600 bucks.

discuss

Cataclysm



In windows 64bit doesn't make sense yet. Besides 64bit windows OSes have issues ( ranging from minor to very major ).

On Linux 64bit ( x86_64 on AMD64 CPUs ) works 25-70% faster in many benchmarks and a lot better than comparable windoze operating systems :D  There are some issues but they are usually minor.

P4 EMT64 CPUs actually run slower in 64bit mode because they emulate it using 32bit instructions.

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/17...

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163

http://www.intel.com/performance/desktop/extreme/em64t....


Most well-written applications will work faster when recompiled in 64bit mode and quite a bit faster when they are optimized for x86_64.


Gaming on Linux is not always a piece of cake but with the right tools you can have a great gaming experience with certain games. Native Linux games work best but even certain windows games work.
March 11, 2006 12:03:32 AM

Quote:
And whatever happens to the cpu that doesn't support 64 bit? I still have an old p3 and AMD chips? But the system's are mainly for internet?


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/2004/03/17/intel_plots_4mb...

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?
That's something nobody can answer until it releases...


Weren't the 386's (not sx) the 1st 32 bit procs?
March 11, 2006 12:56:59 AM

I read somewhere that the amd64/emt64 was stolen from the nintendo64......just goes to show you how far we have come.
March 11, 2006 1:01:04 AM

Quote:
I read somewhere that the amd64/emt64 was stolen from the nintendo64......just goes to show you how far we have come.

what dude thats just bulls**t whoever told you that was a moron geez and btw nintendo meant 64bit gpu not cpu duh and also they are 2 different architectures the n64 chip cpu and gpu were made by sis
!