Is having 64 bit realy worth it in non servers?

It allows for MUCH more adressable RAM and has register redesigns, but, these dont seem to be of much value to anyone outside of scientific or professional fields. basicly im debating with myself as weather to get Vista 64 bit and other 64 bit stuff or not (Im a hardcore Gamer). Anyone want to add to that? Thanks.

Yes, you get extra registers for a nice speed increase.

It's not even on my radar at the moment... all indications point to Vista running just fine with 4 GB of RAM... and no one has released a killer (consumer-grade) application in 64 bit... yes, I saw Far Cry, but the differences between it and the 32 bit version were minimal.

To answer your question... no, not yet.

As mentioned before, the extra registers give you a nice speed increase. I'd say a realy big one. If you compare the amount of memory access you need with the legacy ia32 due to the stack variables that dont fit in registers against the amd64 implementation, youll see a big speed boost for the last one. But of course, only if your app is compiled for it. In the windows world, given the fact that XPx64 runs 32 bit apps without any noticeable slowdown I'd go for it. You get an OS that runs much faster because the whole OS and drivers are x64 and if you have x64 apps they will fly too. The 32bit ones will run as fast as with a 32 bit OS.

The memory issue is important because x64 uses bit more of it due to pointer size and extra padding. The good thing is that being able to install more than 4 gb of ram allows you to have an enormous file cache which makes your system fly , no matter if you run 32bit apps or x64.

Salu2.

Not only are there no killer apps, I don't see the market tripping over themselves to create them.

Developers want to minimize compatability issues so they don't spend all their time fielding tech support calls and giving rebates for incompatible software. The vast majority of computer users own 32 bit processors. Of the few who own 64 bit processors, many (if not most) don't have a 64 bit OS installed, so they couldn't run the 64 bit apps anyway.

Eventually 64 bit apps dominate, but beween now and I think there will only be a trickle of titles comming down the pipe.

And it's a shame. The technology is there and it's affordable, but market forces will hold it back for a while yet.

Try booting up XP-64 and then play the 64bit version of HL2.

I think it depends on what you do. Most home users will go why do I need it. People who like to use 64 bit games will want it. But my suggestion right now if you have windows 64 Pro and Windows xp pro. Make a dual boot. for there some issues you might come across.

My personal Opinion is that 64bit will become mandatory but you have to wait for MS to fix the bugs before it gets to be a "must have" I frown becouse I had so much hope for XP 64 (I was gonna buy it but after hearing all the problems and also the trouble locating drivers) Im gonna check out the Vista Beta 2 in a virtual machine tomaro hmmm well later today its 64Bit by defult (if you have the hardware) the starter edition is 32bit only.... I have to wonder how they are going to handle that....

I dont know if you can or cant but what about drivers ? things are gonna be a mess for bit I think with that (at least untill everyone is running 64 bit) I guess its just gonna have to be dual for bit or maybe Vista will let you run 32bit drivers ??? Action Man tell me its so !!! lol I worry about these things

Thank you !!! Since you said it my mind is more at ease (not being sarcastic) hmmm I guess ill find out soon here lol 5 more hours till my download finishes. I wonder if VMware will work with it.

Try booting up XP-64 and then play the 64bit version of HL2.

Really, this is what I was getting after; one game showing alot of promise versus basically every engineering/scientific application getting a 64-bit version (or at very least compiled with the "3gb enabled" flag). But your point is valid: if you really enjoy HL2 and have hardware that's supported by 64-bit drivers, go for it.

x86_64 + AMD64 = 25-75% more performance.

uname -a
Linux host 2.6.16-1.2108_FC4 #1 Thu May 4 23:53:49 EDT 2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

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

linux_0, cutting-edge, now you've inspired me to try out the latest kernel goes to download it... btw, recompile that kernel for just your needs, makes things even faster! (but don't go too crazy, FC kinda expects some things to be modules...). For good measure, here's mine.
[code:1:08b8bdfb14]brad@the-uberbeast ~ $ uname -a
Linux the-uberbeast 2.6.13-gentoo-r5 #4 SMP Mon Jan 30 22:46:23 EST 2006 x86_64 AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 248 AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux[/code:1:08b8bdfb14]

Anyway, sorry all for the slight thread-jack, back to the topic at hand...

In general, I acknowledge that the future (read: at very least next year) is indeed 64-bit, as anyone can clearly see, but for the right-now, for Windows, and until Vista is released bringing with it many more 64-bit apps, the benefits of 64-bit Windows versus 32-bit Windows is dubious at best. I ran both on my home system, ended up sticking with 64 because of 2 reasons: the memory I have and a particular app I run, MATLAB (which is also installed in Linux, but if I am playing a game and I need to quickly crunch some data it's there) With that said, the software supporting my keyboard/mouse combo (for all those extra nice buttons and such) was not available in 64-bit and, as it needed ring0 access, the 32-bit version would not run on my system. My scanner was also not supported (HP site flatly said it will not support it ever in 64-bit systems) Add to that the fact that you still need a 32-bit browser for Flash/some media codecs/Java plugin and things look even less appealing.

That said, the real answer is to review what you'll be using your machine for, try out Windows Pro x64 (free trial download), see what issues if any you have with it aftrer using it for a week or so, then decide. As much as we would like to give you the final answer, it's ultimately your decision.

Gentoo is very nice :-D


I mostly use FC4/FC5 but I hand-compile mostly everything ;-)

I've been compiling my kernels for over 10 years but have gotten lazy recently and am currently using the stock kernel.

FC updates very frequently and often tweaks the kernel so it's sometimes better to stick with the stock kernel.

I use FC, Knoppix, CentOS, RHEL and many others. All my machines have Linux on them. Several are dedicated Linux machines. My gaming machine dual boots.

I use my primary dedicated Linux machine for everything I do except certain windoze games.

While 64-bits may be the future it necessary yet. The key for its success in the consumer space will be the available 64-bit drivers and must-have apps (i.e. games) that everyone will want to play.

I'm planning my next build for 2007 as yet I am undecided about going 64-bit or not.

I would be criminal not to get a 64bit system.

Well, make && make_modules && modules_install and you'll be good to go. Worked for me (it had to, look at the distro )

Linux manchester 2.6.16-gentoo-r7 #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun May 21 16:27:27 CDT 2006 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ GNU/Linux


The 64-bit Flash/codecs issue has been known to Linux users for some time. That's the trouble that happens when you have to rely on some proprietary code to do what you need to do. That is also why 64-bit drivers and apps in Linux are just as common as 32-bit ones- the devs (or you) have the source and can compile them with gcc on a 64-bit computer and get a working 64-bit module or application. The key to getting Flash, etc. to work is by installing a 32-bit version of Firefox and having flashplayer-installer link to that.

It fully depends on the mode/environment, my friend.
[code:1:55849d3293]brad@the-uberbeast ~ $ cat test.c
#include<stdio.h>

int main()
{
printf("%d %dn",(int)sizeof(int),(int)sizeof(int*));
return 0;
}
brad@the-uberbeast ~ $ gcc -m64 -o test test.c && ./test
4 8
brad@the-uberbeast ~ $ gcc -m32 -o test test.c && ./test
4 4[/code:1:55849d3293]

But I do agree, using the correct data types, precise calculations are much faster.

Yeah, I had a brain fart. I meant "long int." That is 2^32 on a 32-bit system and 2^64 on a 64-bit system. I was playing around finding perfect numbers and proved that the long int in 64-bit can get *much* bigger than 2^32, but with -m32 in the options, it overflows.

Once you have used Gentoo it's hard to like other distros. I've tried both Ubuntu and SuSE, but they just feel inferior. apt/dpkg is sluggish and clumsy to use, and yast is horrible. Portage is by far the best package managment software i've ever used.

I also love the way you build gentoo from the ground up, which allows you to create the perfectly customized system.

I just wish i could play all games natively or through wine, then i could totally abandon windows

Once you have used Gentoo it's hard to like other distros. I've tried both Ubuntu and SuSE, but they just feel inferior. apt/dpkg is sluggish and clumsy to use, and yast is horrible. Portage is by far the best package managment software i've ever used.

I also love the way you build gentoo from the ground up, which allows you to create the perfectly customized system.

I just wish i could play all games natively or through wine, then i could totally abandon windows


If a big player like google helped out the wine people a bit more we could make some major improvements to it's capabilities :-D

Google already hired CodeWeavers to patch wine for Picasa

http://code.google.com/wine.html

Now if we could get them to go a bit further that would be awesome :-D

www.planetamd64.com need I say more

Indeed :-D

$sane=AWESOME();

I write my code in assembly :-D

Action_Man is correct with the speed increase- but you generally only see it with AMD's 64-bit chips and the upcoming Core 2 architecture. Intel's first attempt with EM64T basically tacked 64-bit extensions on their i686 arch so the processors could run 64-bit applications. Intel said that they fixed it with the Core 2 arch, and from what the ES benches say, they did improve it. I can say that 32-bit on early Intel EM64T (a dual-Xeon Irwindale core box) on FC5 i386 and 64-bit on FC5 x86_64 makes just about *zero* difference whatsoever in speed. Timed makes (compiles) were within a second either way. On my Athlon X2 box, I tested SuSE 10.0 i586 vs. SuSE 10.0 x86_64 and the 64-bit version was faster by a little bit.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that you can put 4GB of RAM in a 64-bit box and it will handle it well, whereas 32-bit Windows gets flaky with 4GB RAM from what I have heard a lot of people say.