Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

64 bit Cpus, what are the fine details?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 23, 2006 4:49:06 PM

I want to know what are the differences between 32 and 64 bit. No, not just "one is 32 and one is 64!", I want architechure differences in the cpu itself and application differences. Also if someone could find out what current cpu is the best 64 biter and how much 64 bit cpus need to be refined before they are as good as 16 bit to 32 bit was, that would be great. Thanks.

More about : bit cpus fine details

April 23, 2006 5:02:12 PM

How about you learn to use a search engine and find out for yourself ? Same goes for the carbon nanotubes thread that you spawned...
April 23, 2006 5:22:40 PM

Easy 64 bit cpus can process 64 bit instructions which are twice as long as 32 bit.
Related resources
April 23, 2006 5:31:09 PM

Quote:
how about no?


Like it or not, no one here will go out of their way to spoon-feed you information when you are too lazy/stupid to find it on your own.
April 23, 2006 5:38:26 PM

Did you read my first reply or no?"
April 23, 2006 5:43:42 PM

Quote:
I want to know what are the differences between 32 and 64 bit. No, not just "one is 32 and one is 64!", I want architechure differences in the cpu itself and application differences. Also if someone could find out what current cpu is the best 64 biter and how much 64 bit cpus need to be refined before they are as good as 16 bit to 32 bit was, that would be great. Thanks.


to try and answer ur question in a helpfull manner:

far as i know, 64bit cpus differ from 32 bit ones in that they have 64wide registers, as opposed to 32 bit ones. Although thers lots of different sized registers in there besides just 64 or 32 bit ones. 64 bit cpus are designed to work with data and instructions that are 64bits long.. This means you can either work on data with greater accuracy (cos u have more bits) or you could just split your 64 bits and process 2 32 bit words at the same time, hence why 64 bit code on a 64bit cpu is faster than 32 bit code on a 32bit cpu.. OR supposing you wanted to add two 64 bit numbers on a 32 bit cpu. It would take multiple operations to do the job, whereas on a 64bit cpu it could add them right away.

and as for refinging them, well as far as i know thers nothing particularly magical about them. They just have larger registers, and wider internal buses.
April 23, 2006 5:48:24 PM

Quote:
I want to know what are the differences between 32 and 64 bit. No, not just "one is 32 and one is 64!", I want architechure differences in the cpu itself and application differences. Also if someone could find out what current cpu is the best 64 biter and how much 64 bit cpus need to be refined before they are as good as 16 bit to 32 bit was, that would be great. Thanks.


to try and answer ur question in a helpfull manner:

far as i know, 64bit cpus differ from 32 bit ones in that they have 64wide registers, as opposed to 32 bit ones. Although thers lots of different sized registers in there besides just 64 or 32 bit ones. 64 bit cpus are designed to work with data and instructions that are 64bits long.. This means you can either work on data with greater accuracy (cos u have more bits) or you could just split your 64 bits and process 2 32 bit words at the same time, hence why 64 bit code on a 64bit cpu is faster than 32 bit code on a 32bit cpu.. OR supposing you wanted to add two 64 bit numbers on a 32 bit cpu. It would take multiple operations to do the job, whereas on a 64bit cpu it could add them right away.

and as for refinging them, well as far as i know thers nothing particularly magical about them. They just have larger registers, and wider internal buses. 8O Dude hes a noob so try to explain it in lamenst terms(or whatever the heck it's called)
April 23, 2006 5:56:26 PM

Quote:
I want to know what are the differences between 32 and 64 bit. No, not just "one is 32 and one is 64!", I want architechure differences in the cpu itself and application differences. Also if someone could find out what current cpu is the best 64 biter and how much 64 bit cpus need to be refined before they are as good as 16 bit to 32 bit was, that would be great. Thanks.


to try and answer ur question in a helpfull manner:

far as i know, 64bit cpus differ from 32 bit ones in that they have 64wide registers, as opposed to 32 bit ones. Although thers lots of different sized registers in there besides just 64 or 32 bit ones. 64 bit cpus are designed to work with data and instructions that are 64bits long.. This means you can either work on data with greater accuracy (cos u have more bits) or you could just split your 64 bits and process 2 32 bit words at the same time, hence why 64 bit code on a 64bit cpu is faster than 32 bit code on a 32bit cpu.. OR supposing you wanted to add two 64 bit numbers on a 32 bit cpu. It would take multiple operations to do the job, whereas on a 64bit cpu it could add them right away.

and as for refinging them, well as far as i know thers nothing particularly magical about them. They just have larger registers, and wider internal buses. 8O Dude hes a noob so try to explain it in lamenst terms(or whatever the heck it's called)

laymans terms ehhh.. let me think about this... a 64 bit cpu has double the number of clever monkeys working abacus's, with each monkey having a nice wide path accross the office floor so it can go chatter to the other monkeys at the water cooler, where they exchange usefull chatter.

A 32 bit cpu however only has a megre 32 tired monkeys, working 32 squeaky abacus's, with annoyinglittle cluttered passages to the water cooler
April 23, 2006 5:56:45 PM

The kid can't even use a search engine, do you really think that he'll understand a word you said despite your best attempt to dumb it down to the n'th degree ?

Now that you fed him, he'll just come back for more everytime that he come across something he can't understand.
April 23, 2006 6:35:11 PM

i can but hope.. and people have to learn somehow, although i agree he should go look himself, but thers no harm giving him a bit of a shove in the right direction. Hopefully hel b interested and go read up some basics on processors and then understand properly the 32/64 bit differences

maybe his desire to be "fed " as u put it will in time lead to some genuinely discussionworthy conversations
April 23, 2006 7:22:08 PM

Quote:
I want to know what are the differences between 32 and 64 bit. No, not just "one is 32 and one is 64!", I want architechure differences in the cpu itself and application differences. Also if someone could find out what current cpu is the best 64 biter and how much 64 bit cpus need to be refined before they are as good as 16 bit to 32 bit was, that would be great. Thanks.


to try and answer ur question in a helpfull manner:

far as i know, 64bit cpus differ from 32 bit ones in that they have 64wide registers, as opposed to 32 bit ones. Although thers lots of different sized registers in there besides just 64 or 32 bit ones. 64 bit cpus are designed to work with data and instructions that are 64bits long.. This means you can either work on data with greater accuracy (cos u have more bits) or you could just split your 64 bits and process 2 32 bit words at the same time, hence why 64 bit code on a 64bit cpu is faster than 32 bit code on a 32bit cpu.. OR supposing you wanted to add two 64 bit numbers on a 32 bit cpu. It would take multiple operations to do the job, whereas on a 64bit cpu it could add them right away.

and as for refinging them, well as far as i know thers nothing particularly magical about them. They just have larger registers, and wider internal buses. 8O Dude hes a noob so try to explain it in lamenst terms(or whatever the heck it's called)

laymans terms ehhh.. let me think about this... a 64 bit cpu has double the number of clever monkeys working abacus's, with each monkey having a nice wide path accross the office floor so it can go chatter to the other monkeys at the water cooler, where they exchange usefull chatter.

A 32 bit cpu however only has a megre 32 tired monkeys, working 32 squeaky abacus's, with annoyinglittle cluttered passages to the water cooler Ok thats much better :lol: 
April 23, 2006 9:03:54 PM

Quote:
I want to know what are the differences between 32 and 64 bit. No, not just "one is 32 and one is 64!", I want architechure differences in the cpu itself and application differences. Also if someone could find out what current cpu is the best 64 biter and how much 64 bit cpus need to be refined before they are as good as 16 bit to 32 bit was, that would be great. Thanks.


men, you reall sound damn.

you got an answer!

64 bit cpus can process 64 bit instructions which are twice as long as 32 bit

What is a diference between 32 a$$holes and 64 a$$holes?

64 a$$holes need twice much more room!
April 23, 2006 9:28:43 PM

Quote:
How about you learn to use a search engine and find out for yourself ? Same goes for the carbon nanotubes thread that you spawned...


how about no?

Listen bud, he clearly wants us to give him lip-service, that's not how someone who is proactively seeking knowledge act.
April 23, 2006 9:57:19 PM

Quote:
so if he had asked the same question but dressed it up differently, say he had said "since 64-bit is twice as much as 32-bit and 64-bit are desgioned to process that does that make them twice as powerful" would you have said the same thing or would you have tried to set him straight. his knowledge would have been the same but would your response have been too.


What if the young Adolf Hitler had been accepted in the Vienna Art Academy ?

Did'nt happen and we can only theorize about how the events would have unfolded.
April 23, 2006 10:39:32 PM

In basic terms...

64-bit in theory is more robust and addresses much more memory, in practice tho, currently it is just a marketing gimmick until we get an operating system and applications which home/small business users can utilize...
April 23, 2006 10:48:51 PM

twice the processing algorithms and runs processes much efficiently :twisted:
April 23, 2006 11:50:05 PM

dude u need to be a little less bitter towards the world, the reason why i asked here instead of googling is because i already did. i didnt think i found all there was to know, so i asked here. simple. next time pause and give the benefit of the doubt.
April 24, 2006 12:32:05 AM

Bottom line , the software has to be written to take advantage of 64 bit information and very little is capable of that right now. Until then, a 64bit cpu needs to be able to handle 32bit instructions, thus no real advantage is gained. ( I think)
April 24, 2006 12:45:49 AM

Quote:
dude u need to be a little less bitter towards the world, the reason why i asked here instead of googling is because i already did. i didnt think i found all there was to know, so i asked here. simple. next time pause and give the benefit of the doubt.


Consider that this subject, along with many others, have been discussed at lenght in this very forum. Sceptic ? Use the search feature and be awestruck in front of 20+ pages long threads about 64bit computing.

I may be harsh but you never hinted having done any research on your own, your initial post was poorly written and lacked a specific question. All I saw was a patchwork that spanned across four different topics somewhat related to the subject at hand.

If you want a complex question answered, try putting as much time asking it as you think answering it would take. Structuring your posts not only makes them easier to read, it allows you to lay down your ideas in an orderly manner, disambiguating your thoughts and making everything clearer.

Something along the lines of "I read about X on Y website (link provided), I'm wondering if Z would hold true if ..." would have been met with a different attitude.
April 24, 2006 1:22:39 AM

God will I ever be glad when Monday comes around and all the children will be back in school, AND OFF THIS BOARD!
April 24, 2006 1:53:24 PM

Quote:
I want to know what are the differences between 32 and 64 bit. No, not just "one is 32 and one is 64!", I want architechure differences in the cpu itself and application differences. Also if someone could find out what current cpu is the best 64 biter and how much 64 bit cpus need to be refined before they are as good as 16 bit to 32 bit was, that would be great. Thanks.

You are looking for an answer on the wrong place. You can learn nothing or learn something wrong on this forum. Almost all answers are not only untrue, but are rediculous. Some discutants have no ide how CPU is working and what is the difference between 32bit nad 64bit CPU and are giving answers(saying what they have on mind with no clue, argument, prove, knowledge and experience) like they are an experts.
Try using apropriate literature if you really want to learn something in detail, or just try wikipedia.
May 9, 2006 4:44:07 AM

Quote:
he wanted a bit more than that. why do you have to be such an ass. its probably cause you don't know half of what he wants to know. if you do, how about lending him a hand. he may be wondering wether or not to upgrade to 64-bit windows or not and wants some background knowledge. people with less knowledge than others should be encouraged to use these forums. i am not saying they shouldn't get of their backsides and look themselves, just that asking for help should not be frowned upon.


Why don't you GROW UP?

I am not here to argue with you what is obvious!

While people with less knowledge are enouraged to use the forum, this is not a place for scientific disertations.

The issue of 64 bit should be researched using GOOGLE by the interested party until he'll found and understand the issue, and not on forums were only non scientific opinions and advices are briefly expressed. And if you do not understand the answer doesn't mean that others don't! You also need to learn how to think and not what to think.
May 9, 2006 5:10:08 AM

A 32 bit cpu however only has a megre 32 tired monkeys, working 32 squeaky abacus's, with annoyinglittle cluttered passages to the water cooler[/quote]


LMAO.

Mean, but clever. Nicely done :lol: 
May 9, 2006 8:44:37 AM

I think that what jDOG is afraid of is this.
Currently, AMD processors have a clear execution advatage over Intel, when using 64 bit kernal, under linux. Since Core2 duo is not expected to have better 64 bit execution than P4, this advantage will be taken to Vista.
In other words, K8 will outperform conroe, once M$ brings out thier new OS.
Personnally, I dont believe, or disbelieve. I want to see it before I decide.
May 9, 2006 9:40:30 AM

Quote:
whilst in theory i agree that he should search, in practice these forums are about the sharing of info. if someone already understands what he is asking then he is more likely to get an answer here that he understands than some technical paper in the subject he finds by googling.


I totally agree what your are said. And personally, I think he is very smart. No need to use the browser & but can get the answer.
May 9, 2006 11:26:56 PM

Quote:
I think that what jDOG is afraid of is this.
Currently, AMD processors have a clear execution advatage over Intel, when using 64 bit kernal, under linux. Since Core2 duo is not expected to have better 64 bit execution than P4, this advantage will be taken to Vista.
In other words, K8 will outperform conroe, once M$ brings out thier new OS.
Personnally, I dont believe, or disbelieve. I want to see it before I decide.


Who expects this, You? Talk about being a hypocrite; you constantly claim that the engineering samples of the Conroe aren't to be taken seriously because it isn't the official release. Yet here you are saying you know what the performance delta will be on Vista in 64bit mode, and no one has seen Conroe's 64bit performance so now you sound like 9-inch guessing at what you hope will be the ideal situation.
May 10, 2006 1:06:03 AM

I think I'll try an answer that should bring some perspective to the 32 bit-64 bit question. 64 bit is not just twice as large as 32 bit. It also relates to how much memory the chip can access. A 32 bit system can access about 4.3 billion bytes of information in memory (2 to the 32 power= 4.3e9). A 64 bit system can access about 18 million terabytes of information in memory (2 to the 64 power =1.8e19). No programs are available that I know of which take advantage of the true power of a 64 bit system. I find the idea of 18 million terabytes mindboggling. At the same time, it might allow some real holographics in video imaging (think of the holodeck from Star Trek).

Check http://artechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86*64/x86-64-2.html for further technical description.

Another way of comparing it might be to compare one of the original video games like Pong to a new one like Oblivion. Such might be the comparison of Oblivion to a game possible using the full power of a 64 bit processor/operating system. But all that's in the future and depends on the gaming industry to write programs to use the 64 bit system. Oh yes, if you think the games have bugs now on 32 bit systems, think of how buggy they could get when they fully use a 64 bit system.
May 10, 2006 2:22:49 AM

Quote:
I think that what jDOG is afraid of is this.
Currently, AMD processors have a clear execution advatage over Intel, when using 64 bit kernal, under linux. Since Core2 duo is not expected to have better 64 bit execution than P4, this advantage will be taken to Vista.
In other words, K8 will outperform conroe, once M$ brings out thier new OS.
Personnally, I dont believe, or disbelieve. I want to see it before I decide.


Who expects this, You? Talk about being a hypocrite; you constantly claim that the engineering samples of the Conroe aren't to be taken seriously because it isn't the official release. Yet here you are saying you know what the performance delta will be on Vista in 64bit mode, and no one has seen Conroe's 64bit performance so now you sound like 9-inch guessing at what you hope will be the ideal situation.

Speaking of 9inch, I havent had the mis pleasure of seeing any posts from him or or Mad Mod Mike lately. Have they been kicked, or did their mommies just ground them?
May 10, 2006 6:20:59 AM

Quote:
Talk about being a hypocrite;

Oh, so you have to believe before you can comment on conroe. Let me tell you what I believe.
1 Benchmarks. Had you put the latest XE chip up against that FX60, it would have done almost as well. Does that mean P4s are better than K8s?
2 The "FX62" Well, it seems that one of the Intel PR team has already linked to a sight that shows thier own non-OCed FX60 beats Intel's OCed version.
3 The AMD mobo. Okay, so the FX only looses a couple of persent there.
4 Algorithms It seems that Victor Wang's sciencemark2 score may have been aided by some non-standard algorithms
Quote:
like I said, that lately SM result is with some unofficial binaries (I haven't them, and I don't know if they are available for download, at least, I've not found them).

link Wonder where he got them? and if maybe an overzelous Intel tech installed similar on the conroe benchmark machine.
5 No, they did not compensate for AM2 at all
6 64 bit. Anyone who does not accept that the A64s are better than the P4s at 64 bit, has thier head in the ground. I have seen nothing to suggest that Intel has enhanced thier 64 bit perf on conroe. I am reasonably sure that had Intel done anything along those lines, one of the Intel PR team here would have picked up on it. You would be a prime source, since you did so much investigative reporting on prescott.

None of that proves a gd thing. I still expect that conroe will be a ggodly chip. I fully expect to get one in the fall. However, I wont know for sure, until I know for sure how well it truly performs.
May 10, 2006 6:21:41 AM

Quote:
Talk about being a hypocrite;

Oh, so you have to believe before you can comment on conroe. Let me tell you what I believe.
1 Benchmarks. Had you put the latest XE chip up against that FX60, it would have done almost as well. Does that mean P4s are better than K8s?
2 The "FX62" Well, it seems that one of the Intel PR team has already linked to a sight that shows thier own non-OCed FX60 beats Intel's OCed version.
3 The AMD mobo. Okay, so the FX only looses a couple of persent there.
4 Algorithms It seems that Victor Wang's sciencemark2 score may have been aided by some non-standard algorithms
Quote:
like I said, that lately SM result is with some unofficial binaries (I haven't them, and I don't know if they are available for download, at least, I've not found them).

link Wonder where he got them? and if maybe an overzelous Intel tech installed similar on the conroe benchmark machine.
5 No, they did not compensate for AM2 at all
6 64 bit. Anyone who does not accept that the A64s are better than the P4s at 64 bit, has thier head in the ground. I have seen nothing to suggest that Intel has enhanced thier 64 bit perf on conroe. I am reasonably sure that had Intel done anything along those lines, one of the Intel PR team here would have picked up on it. You would be a prime source, since you did so much investigative reporting on prescott.

None of that proves a gd thing. I still expect that conroe will be a goodly chip. I fully expect to get one in the fall. However, I wont know for sure, until I know for sure how well it truly performs.
May 10, 2006 6:35:53 AM

Oh boy another stuck up Moron who trying to act so cool. Grow up SidVicious. This dont make you look cool. If you want to help People then help people. If you dont. Then shut the Hell up and live with your mommy.

See MatTheMurdera asking a honest question. I think we need more Mods on the forums. For this is a place where people should get help.
May 10, 2006 11:45:06 PM

Quote:
Talk about being a hypocrite;

Oh, so you have to believe before you can comment on conroe. Let me tell you what I believe.
1 Benchmarks. Had you put the latest XE chip up against that FX60, it would have done almost as well. Does that mean P4s are better than K8s?
2 The "FX62" Well, it seems that one of the Intel PR team has already linked to a sight that shows thier own non-OCed FX60 beats Intel's OCed version.
3 The AMD mobo. Okay, so the FX only looses a couple of persent there.
4 Algorithms It seems that Victor Wang's sciencemark2 score may have been aided by some non-standard algorithms
Quote:
like I said, that lately SM result is with some unofficial binaries (I haven't them, and I don't know if they are available for download, at least, I've not found them).

link Wonder where he got them? and if maybe an overzelous Intel tech installed similar on the conroe benchmark machine.
5 No, they did not compensate for AM2 at all
6 64 bit. Anyone who does not accept that the A64s are better than the P4s at 64 bit, has thier head in the ground. I have seen nothing to suggest that Intel has enhanced thier 64 bit perf on conroe. I am reasonably sure that had Intel done anything along those lines, one of the Intel PR team here would have picked up on it. You would be a prime source, since you did so much investigative reporting on prescott.

None of that proves a gd thing. I still expect that conroe will be a ggodly chip. I fully expect to get one in the fall. However, I wont know for sure, until I know for sure how well it truly performs.

1. What are you talking about I never mentioned anything about the Pentium 4?
2. Again what are you talking about?
3. ?
4. Conspiracy theories again?
5. AM2 is a platform that’s AMD's failure not the users.
6. We all know K8's are better at 32bit and 64bit why do you have to rehash it every single day? As per 64 bit mode, you have also seen nothing that suggests anything in regards to either of our arguments, because no one has seen anything on the subject. I'm also reasonably sure you have no reasons to base your unreasonable assumptions based on that fact you have no reasonable amount of information to say yes or no on the 64bit performance.

Again with the Prescott good god man I had no clue they were adding additional stages, I had no clue the software used to redesign the Prescott failed miserably, I had no clue they increased latencies on the L1 and L2 caches, all I knew was what was provided by Intel and online sources which appeared to for all purposes feasible and reasonable assessments based on that information.

At this point I don't have a clue what the 64bit performance will be like on the Core processors and frankly neither do you for that matter. One can be certain there will be a performance increase due to the change in architecture, but no one can say for sure.

Also what if it sucks then what? What changes in this dominate 32bit machine market? What possible outcome is possible if it sucks so bad at 64bit it makes baby Jesus cry? Nothing because we are still in a very dominate 32bit market and well be that way for years to come regardless of Vista being 64bit or not.
May 11, 2006 10:09:15 AM

In a nutshell, I just showed you that the conroe will be on par or slightly better than the real FX62, until vista comes into play.
Ever hear the expression "fool me once, shames on you. Fool me twice shame on me?" Intel is about to fool you again. Pity.
As for vista, there should be a major delta going to long mode. It will be nice that windows will be basicly held to the high registers, on one core. Well at least for AMD. Remember, Intel hasn't set up thier EM64T that way. Access to the extra SSE unit will add some as well.
AMD should gain about 20% from a workable 64 bit OS, just like it does with linux.
So, yup Intel will have a paper crown till Vista. Three cheers.
May 11, 2006 11:52:19 AM

could you put a link or some infomation up on where you are getting your data on 64bit performance for both AMD and Intel processors please, it should make for some interresting reading
cheers
PS i know this is in reply to action man but but a question for all!
May 11, 2006 1:45:44 PM

A short question like this actually has two pages 8O
May 11, 2006 4:51:28 PM

I might get flamed for being helpful and on-topic, but here it goes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16-bit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-bit

That ought to keep you busy for a while!

From Wikipedia:

A change from a 32-bit to a 64-bit architecture is a fundamental alteration, as most operating systems must be extensively modified to take advantage of the new architecture. Other software must also be ported to use the new capabilities; older software is usually supported through either a hardware compatibility mode (in which the new processors support an older 32-bit instruction set as well as the new modes), through software emulation, or by the actual implementation of a 32-bit processor core within the 64-bit processor die (as with the Itanium processors from Intel, which include an x86 processor core to run 32-bit x86 applications). One significant exception to this is the AS/400, whose software runs on a virtual ISA, called TIMI (Technology Independent Machine Interface) which is translated to native machine code by low-level software before being executed. The low-level software is all that has to be rewritten to move the entire OS and all software to a new platform, such as when IBM transitioned their line from the older 32/48-bit "IMPI" instruction set to 64-bit PowerPC (IMPI wasn't anything like 32-bit PowerPC, so this was an even bigger transition than from a 32-bit version of an instruction set to a 64-bit version of the same instruction set). Another significant exception is IBM z/Architecture, which readily handles applications concurrently with different addressing expectations (24, 31, and 64 bit).

While 64-bit architectures indisputably make working with huge data sets in applications such as digital video, scientific computing, and large databases easier, there has been considerable debate as to whether they or their 32-bit compatibility modes will be faster than comparably-priced 32-bit systems for other tasks.

Theoretically, some programs could well be slower in 64-bit mode. Under some architectures, instructions for 64-bit computing take up more storage space than the earlier 32-bit ones, so it is possible that some 32-bit programs will fit into the CPU's high-speed cache while equivalent 64-bit programs will not. In basic terms moving 64 bits at a time to perform otherwise 32 bit work simply requires more processing effort to/from memory. A common argument is that, in applications like scientific computing, the data being processed often fits naturally in 64-bit chunks corresponding to double-precision floating-point types, and will be faster on a 64-bit architecture because the CPU will be designed to process such information directly rather than requiring the program to perform multiple steps — this is erroneous, however, because most 32-bit CPUs already have a 64-bit wide data bus and 64-bit registers for floating-point quantities. The only speed advantages come for manipulating 64-bit integer quantities, but this is rarely a performance-limiting task even for applications (such as large-file I/O) that require such manipulations.

All performance assessments are complicated, however, by the fact that in the process of designing the new 64-bit architectures, the instruction set designers have also taken the opportunity to make other changes that address some of the deficiencies in older instruction sets by adding new performance-enhancing facilities (such as the extra registers in the AMD64 design).
May 11, 2006 5:11:42 PM

Quote:
stealing my thunder eh :-) i already posted a wikipedia link about 64-bit.


Guess I stopped reading after the flame-fest started, eh?

I, TechnologyCoordinator, officially give all the thunder to strangest stranger I (don't) know: StrangeStranger

But you've got to admit that my posting of links to the 32-bit, 16-bit, and 8-bit articles as well as quoting some text from the 64-bit article was truly ingenious.
May 11, 2006 5:56:10 PM

Quote:
Easy 64 bit cpus can process 64 bit instructions which are twice as long as 32 bit.


Incorrect. The word size is double that of 32 bit. This means that chips add additional 64 bit registers. The instruction size is not 64bit, it's simply the addressable width of pointers, and the maximum width at which basic operations can be performed.
May 12, 2006 12:09:48 AM

Quote:
In a nutshell, I just showed you that the conroe will be on par or slightly better than the real FX62, until vista comes into play.
Ever hear the expression "fool me once, shames on you. Fool me twice shame on me?" Intel is about to fool you again. Pity.
As for vista, there should be a major delta going to long mode. It will be nice that windows will be basicly held to the high registers, on one core. Well at least for AMD. Remember, Intel hasn't set up thier EM64T that way. Access to the extra SSE unit will add some as well.
AMD should gain about 20% from a workable 64 bit OS, just like it does with linux.
So, yup Intel will have a paper crown till Vista. Three cheers.


Ok let’s start by apologizing, I snapped in that post needlessly, I just got frustrated.

As per showing me that a Conroe will be equal or slightly faster than a FX62, I don't see it that way. Because at this point you and me and been bickering over opinions not facts.

I have heard the expression but there is a slight difference this time around. Benchmarks of engineering samples are available, which was not the case for the Prescott.

The long mode comment I don't know to argue the point because I don't know how Intel has implemented EM64T on the Conroe but I personally I care very little about the 64bit performance or potential. With regards to the fact I have never been supportive of 64bit machines at this point in time. The last 3 years have shown how serious the industry is into the transition.
May 12, 2006 12:49:00 AM

My gosh. I posted this a few weeks ago, people are still on it?
a c 87 à CPUs
May 12, 2006 2:02:24 AM

Hey all, got some more fuel for this fire....

Who here knows that emt64 and AMD64 are (almost) the same? The only difference in EMT64 and AMD64 is that Intels EMT64 includes support for Hyperthreading, while AMDs doesn't. This is so that EMT64 will/would work with "current" p4 CPUs. Both chips aren't "real" 64bit CPUs. They still process things internally as 32bit CPUs. AMD simply added 64bit memory registers to their chips. Some reading for anyone who wants to... http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/37587 Don't forget to read the links to MS and Intels websites.
May 12, 2006 2:21:36 AM

Quote:
I think that what jDOG is afraid of is this.
Currently, AMD processors have a clear execution advatage over Intel, when using 64 bit kernal, under linux. Since Core2 duo is not expected to have better 64 bit execution than P4, this advantage will be taken to Vista.
In other words, K8 will outperform conroe, once M$ brings out thier new OS.
Personnally, I dont believe, or disbelieve. I want to see it before I decide.


Who expects this, You? Talk about being a hypocrite; you constantly claim that the engineering samples of the Conroe aren't to be taken seriously because it isn't the official release. Yet here you are saying you know what the performance delta will be on Vista in 64bit mode, and no one has seen Conroe's 64bit performance so now you sound like 9-inch guessing at what you hope will be the ideal situation.

It's not a big mistery to know that Intel's upcoming processors will not perform as expected once running in 64-bit mode.
When you see a company like Intel Shouting-Out-Loud about all the enhancements on their new architecture like 4-issue, macro and micro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, etc, etc, but still DON'T say anything about 64-bit performace, then you start to think hard about it.
Even Hannibal (the guy from Arstechnica) in his extensive review of the core architecture didn't mention any "enhancements" or "additions" to intel's EMT64.

Conroe might perform good on plain old 32-bit apps, but once you put in 64-bit on the table things will start to look nasty for intel.
May 12, 2006 2:24:46 AM

So basically your proof is a bunch of assumptions.
May 12, 2006 2:35:02 AM

:lol:  You win the internets. Well at least he read Hannibals article this time, its some progress, very little but something.
May 12, 2006 2:40:09 AM

Quote:
I think that what jDOG is afraid of is this.
Currently, AMD processors have a clear execution advatage over Intel, when using 64 bit kernal, under linux. Since Core2 duo is not expected to have better 64 bit execution than P4, this advantage will be taken to Vista.
In other words, K8 will outperform conroe, once M$ brings out thier new OS.
Personnally, I dont believe, or disbelieve. I want to see it before I decide.


Who expects this, You? Talk about being a hypocrite; you constantly claim that the engineering samples of the Conroe aren't to be taken seriously because it isn't the official release. Yet here you are saying you know what the performance delta will be on Vista in 64bit mode, and no one has seen Conroe's 64bit performance so now you sound like 9-inch guessing at what you hope will be the ideal situation.

It's not a big mistery to know that Intel's upcoming processors will not perform as expected once running in 64-bit mode.
When you see a company like Intel Shouting-Out-Loud about all the enhancements on their new architecture like 4-issue, macro and micro-ops fusion, memory disambiguation, etc, etc, but still DON'T say anything about 64-bit performace, then you start to think hard about it.
Even Hannibal (the guy from Arstechnica) in his extensive review of the core architecture didn't mention any "enhancements" or "additions" to intel's EMT64.

Conroe might perform good on plain old 32-bit apps, but once you put in 64-bit on the table things will start to look nasty for intel.

I beg to differ 3 64bit integer units; each unit can do one 64-bit integer operation per cycle. That is a significant improvement over Netbursts 16bit double pumped integer units.

Frankly I could care less about 64bit at this point in time but with the changes to the reorder buffer (96 from 40), an additional integer unit, and additional float point unit. I personally think the performance will be there, how much is yet to be determined but if it’s even close to linear from the performance enhancement over Netburst, I see it at least being something to talk about.
!