Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

whats so good about 64bit cpus?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 18, 2006 12:04:08 AM

Orig topic: http://forums.amd.com/index.php?&showtopic=79750

What advantages does 64bit have over 32bit? I can't see many advantages, other than to make 32bit hardware incompatible with 64bit operating systems and programs, almost forcing you to buy an entire new system if you want to use the operating system (vista). Why would I want to spend $1,000 and end up with almost exactly the same functionality of the computer I had before?

Yes, its true 64bit cpu's offer more ram, however 4gb is more than enough ram for the average gamer, and most 64bit motherboard I see only support 4gb, the 32bit maximum. Thats because it can only support a certian amount of eletricity to power the ram. So even 64bit systems are still limitted almost as 32bit systems are. Ontop of that, most gamers don't mess with the pagefile. So they'll be having 4gb of ram, and only 2gb is the max they'll ever use with pagefile, leaving 2.75gb of ram thats never been touched thanks to pagefile. I ran the "next operating system", and it used 400mb ram, with 200mb allocated to running the most useless services that I would ever need.

64bit allows apps to use more than 2gig on 32bit systems, however I've never seen an app use more than 1.5gig of memory. With programming, i'm quite certian they could remove that limit. The 4gb limit can go MUCH higher. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PA... , It is clear that the 4gb limit everyone is complaining about is an IMPOSED limit. So your buying 64bit cpu's to remove this artificial barrier?

What else would 64bit cpu's offer? Anyone want to explain?

I gtg anyways

More about : whats good 64bit cpus

July 18, 2006 12:20:02 AM

Well if it's a real 64bit CPU then you get a performance increase on certain types of applications. Hack job's basically give the same results as in 32bit. Given the recent trends in memory pricing and vista's hunger for RAM I'd say that average system's will have 4gig's + of RAM this time next year.
July 18, 2006 12:24:36 AM

Wow, I think your way out in your estimate, I think by next year, most people will not have more than 2 gb's of ram in there system and windows vista still uses pagefile by default. Remember that most of the system I see out there (64bit), only support up to 4gb of ram due to the eletricity requirements to power the ram, so your not even getting the benefits of 64bit compared to 32bit comps without PAE.
Related resources
July 18, 2006 12:26:14 AM

Only a handful of people here are using a 64bit OS anyway, the vast majority of users are still on a 32bit OS.

The "64bitness" of a CPU is just an architectural feature among many others, the pressure to upgrade is'nt due to 64bit apps & OS, it is because CPUs that can handle 64bit code are just faster than their predecessors.
July 18, 2006 12:33:01 AM

The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.
July 18, 2006 12:35:40 AM

Quote:
64bit allows apps to use more than 2gig on 32bit systems, however I've never seen an app use more than 1.5gig of memory.


Have you never run a 'modern' game like BF2, X3 or Oblivion?

Turn the settings up to max, crank up the resolution and watch the RAM drain.

Try using Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. You can easily exceed 1.5gb RAM with those.
July 18, 2006 12:38:22 AM

You can support up to 1 terabyte of ram with PAE

windows xp = (16kb x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) = 4gb

windows xp with PAE = (16kb x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) x (16 x 16) x 16 = 64gb

Ram is out of the equation, if MS wanted to, they could add PAE to windows xp, but of course they won't. They already have PAE for there 32bit server products.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PA...

Infact they put this limit on windows xp, so people that need a bigger limit must spend more money.

Why do most motherboards that are 64bit, still have a maximum amount of ram? Because it takes more eletricity the more memory a ram module can hold.
July 18, 2006 12:40:15 AM

Most boards now support 4 gb of ram. But there are also boards that support 8 gb of ram. There is only going to be more of these boards by next year. Making 4 gb boards the minority. So just like k8man said around this time next year their will be lots of systems with 4 gb. Also 32-bit has troubles with 4 gb. It can only efficiently use 2-3 gb i think.
July 18, 2006 12:42:14 AM

Quote:
Most boards now support 4 gb of ram. But there are also boards that support 8 gb of ram. There is only going to be more of these boards by next year. Making 4 gb boards the minority. So just like k8man said around this time next year their will be lots of systems with 4 gb. Also 32-bit has troubles with 4 gb. It can only efficiently use 2-3 gb i think.


Totally untrue, there are servers out there running stable with PAE. Windows xp just isn't programmed or programmed NOT to handle more than 4gb, and more than 2gb an app.

Most gamers have 1gb or less of ram currently.
July 18, 2006 12:48:11 AM

Quote:
Totally untrue, there are servers out there running stable with PAE. Windows xp just isn't programmed or programmed NOT to handle more than 4gb, and more than 2gb an app.
Well I meant that windows XP has trouble with 2-3 gb. See http://www.brianmadden.com/content/content.asp?ID=69

And PAE cant have 1TB.
Quote:
"# In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE) allows for up to 64 gigabytes of memory to be used in 32 bit systems, given appropriate operating system support. PAE is provided by Intel Pentium Pro and above CPUs (including all Pentium-series processors except the original Pentium and the Pentium MMX), as well as by some compatible processors such as those from AMD. The CPUID flag PAE is assigned for the purpose of identifying CPUs with this capability. "
Takin from Wikipedia.
July 18, 2006 12:53:13 AM

Quote:
Totally untrue, there are servers out there running stable with PAE. Windows xp just isn't programmed or programmed NOT to handle more than 4gb, and more than 2gb an app.
Well I meant that windows XP has trouble with 2-3 gb. See http://bink.nu/forums/8805/ShowPost.aspx

And PAE cant have 1TB.
Quote:
"# In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE) allows for up to 64 gigabytes of memory to be used in 32 bit systems, given appropriate operating system support. PAE is provided by Intel Pentium Pro and above CPUs (including all Pentium-series processors except the original Pentium and the Pentium MMX), as well as by some compatible processors such as those from AMD. The CPUID flag PAE is assigned for the purpose of identifying CPUs with this capability. "
Takin from Wikipedia.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PA...

From the article,

"Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition


32 processors and 64 GB RAM

Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition


32 processors and 128 GB RAM"

how would you go about getting 128gb ram on a 32bit system?


-----
FROM: http://bink.nu/forums/8805/ShowPost.aspx

Thats because windows see's pagefile and non-paged memory as one, so only 3gigabyte sticks and 1gig of pagefile was seen. Reaching the 4gb limit.


http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2005/05/26/4223...

Wikipedia seems to be wrong, as its possible to support 128gb of ram with PAE, not 64gb. And its currently not possible to have that much ram using 1 power outlet.
July 18, 2006 12:57:47 AM

Quote:
32 processors and 128 GB RAM"

how would you go about getting 128gb ram on a 32bit system?
32 cpus with 4 gb each. 32*4 128 Gb ram. If you find 32 32 bit cpus with more than 128 gb ram then I will be amazed.
July 18, 2006 1:00:42 AM

Quote:
32 processors and 128 GB RAM"

how would you go about getting 128gb ram on a 32bit system?
32 cpus with 4 gb each. 32*4 128 Gb ram.

That is incorrect, You install the OS on 1 system, which can have 1 cpu.

Why does,

Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition = 32 processors and 64 GB RAM
Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition = 32 processors and 128 GB RAM

Windows 2000 Advanced Server = 8 processors and 8 GB RAM

It just means it supports that many cpus. 8 x 4 = 32

http://blogs.msdn.com/adioltean/archive/2005/05/26/4223...
July 18, 2006 1:09:39 AM

Quote:
The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.


"Aren't too big" ? I want some of what you are smoking ! The difference between the two uarch is striking ! Even with a 200MHz advantage over a 2GHz Venice, the 2.2GHz Barton just can't touch its A64 counterpart.

Socket A has been dead and buried quite a while ago, the few leftover remaining are now twice as expensive as the current CPUs as you can see Here and Here

As I have been explaining earlier, the "64bitness" of a CPU is'nt a factor, it is all about the improvements that were made over the previous generation. The K8 uarch can peform more work per clock than what the K7 was capable of and the newer manufacturing process allows the K8 to achieve much higher operating frequency, further increasing the gap between the old and the new.
July 18, 2006 1:10:39 AM

Thats becouse those OS have PAE witch allows it to do that. And I dont really care Im never going to probly use Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition. Im just going to use a home usage OS like win 2k, win XP, win vista. And they dont have PAE (Well I dont know about Vista but its 64 bit so I wont have to worry about 4 gb limitations). I dont feel like arguing any more dont have the time and I dont think anything anyone sais will change your mind so im going to bed.
July 18, 2006 1:54:06 AM

Quote:
Thats becouse those OS have PAE witch allows it to do that. And I dont really care Im never going to probly use Windows Server 2003 SP1, Datacenter Edition. Im just going to use a home usage OS like win 2k, win XP, win vista. And they dont have PAE (Well I dont know about Vista but its 64 bit so I wont have to worry about 4 gb limitations). I dont feel like arguing any more dont have the time and I dont think anything anyone sais will change your mind so im going to bed.


So your buying a 64bit system because MS purposely put the 4gb limit on windows xp. Your 64bit motherboard prob doesn't support more than 4gb of ram, so the ram issue is not one to begin with.

The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.
July 18, 2006 2:26:26 AM

Quote:

The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.


O Rly ? I tought those two were completely unrelated ! [/sarcasm]

Do you really think that someone who have been posting here since 2001 would'nt know that for a fact ?

Thing is, the improvements the K8 got over the K7 are tremendous, at no point in time did they "performed roughly the same", the K7 was outclassed as the K8 is a much wider uarch which is capable of more IPC and reaching higher operating frequencies, the ODMC is just the cherry on top.

I held on to my Mobile Barton 2500+ which was OC'ed to 2.6GHz up until December '05, I know what the AXP was capable of but even at that speed, it was easely outclassed by 2.2GHz A64 running stock.
July 18, 2006 2:26:32 AM

754 1MB cache chips were 30% faster clock/clock than barton. Dont know what you guys are smoking.
July 18, 2006 2:31:26 AM

Quote:
So your buying a 64bit system because MS purposely put the 4gb limit on windows xp. Your 64bit motherboard prob doesn't support more than 4gb of ram, so the ram issue is not one to begin with.
There are plenty of motherboards that support 8 gb of ram. Here are a bunch http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=4... And in the future there will only be more especially after vista. I wonder if you really are smoking something.
July 18, 2006 2:35:40 AM

First of all, the word tremendous to you means a 10% performance difference. The word big performance means a 5% performance difference and I am sure that if athlon 64 didn't support 64bit, it would still show the same performance increases.

Ohh i see, everyone buys parts online and not from Dell, gateway, or levono. Tell me if DELL is going to have 8gb supported motherboards, I think not. And they could clearly add PAE to 32bit systems on windows xp by just an update. The pentium PRO supported PAE.
July 18, 2006 2:38:18 AM

64bit ...

its nothing magical or special about it. 64 bit doesn't mean its twice as fast as 32bit. It's relative to how the application and drivers are optimized.

That's all 64 bit means is that it can access LARGER chunks of memory. Allows for LARGER amounts of RAM also.

Now does accessing larger chunks of memory mean twice the performance? NO it does not. It might be at most 30% improvement as an educated guess.

Difference between 32bit and 64bit?
For average users like everyone single person here, absolutely nothing. It benefits no one here to have 64bit processing.

the 64bit you see now is not true 64bit processing. It's more of a hybrid all 32bit with some 64bit general instruction sets.

Keep this in mind

www.google.com and look it up yourself I know for a fact microsft has articles on this stuff.

Quote:
Orig topic: http://forums.amd.com/index.php?&showtopic=79750

What advantages does 64bit have over 32bit? I can't see many advantages, other than to make 32bit hardware incompatible with 64bit operating systems and programs, almost forcing you to buy an entire new system if you want to use the operating system (vista). Why would I want to spend $1,000 and end up with almost exactly the same functionality of the computer I had before?

Yes, its true 64bit cpu's offer more ram, however 4gb is more than enough ram for the average gamer, and most 64bit motherboard I see only support 4gb, the 32bit maximum. Thats because it can only support a certian amount of eletricity to power the ram. So even 64bit systems are still limitted almost as 32bit systems are. Ontop of that, most gamers don't mess with the pagefile. So they'll be having 4gb of ram, and only 2gb is the max they'll ever use with pagefile, leaving 2.75gb of ram thats never been touched thanks to pagefile. I ran the "next operating system", and it used 400mb ram, with 200mb allocated to running the most useless services that I would ever need.

64bit allows apps to use more than 2gig on 32bit systems, however I've never seen an app use more than 1.5gig of memory. With programming, i'm quite certian they could remove that limit. The 4gb limit can go MUCH higher. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PA... , It is clear that the 4gb limit everyone is complaining about is an IMPOSED limit. So your buying 64bit cpu's to remove this artificial barrier?

What else would 64bit cpu's offer? Anyone want to explain?

I gtg anyways
July 18, 2006 2:39:18 AM

Stop posting.
July 18, 2006 2:44:06 AM

it supports 8GB's of RAM only if you have a dual core processor.

Because you have a dual core processor you can have up to 4GB per processor. that makes it 8GB's. Has NOTHING to do with it having 64bit general instruction sets.

If you it was a true 64bit you would be able to have around 2 terabytes of RAM installed i think. Either 2 or 21 terabytes... not sure but its a lot larger than 8gb's

do any of you need 100gigabytes of RAM? so that begs the question - do you even need 64bit processing at all? no you don't...

Quote:
So your buying a 64bit system because MS purposely put the 4gb limit on windows xp. Your 64bit motherboard prob doesn't support more than 4gb of ram, so the ram issue is not one to begin with.
There are plenty of motherboards that support 8 gb of ram. Here are a bunch http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php/page_id=4... And in the future there will only be more especially after vista. I wonder if you really are smoking something.
July 18, 2006 2:48:51 AM

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/47669/476...

How pathetic, they are purposely putting limits.

From the article,

"As you might expect, Vista Starter will be the most constrained edition. It will support one 32-bit microprocessor and up to 256MB of RAM. The screen resolution will be limited to 1024 x 768 (up from 800 x 600 in Windows XP Starter Edition)."

I want to see anyone give me an explaination on why would they make it support up to 256mb of ram?

"Home Basic and Home N will be limited to 8GB of RAM, whereas Home Premium will support up to 16GB of RAM on both 32-bit and 64-bit PCs"

8gb for home basic, 64bit Home Premium will support 16gb of ram. All do they is change a few lines of coding and pictures, and add a $200+ pricetag.

If you heard that 32bit systems can only support 4gb of ram, you have been LIED to!
July 18, 2006 2:58:37 AM

Why did we ever go to 32-bit? :roll:
July 18, 2006 3:03:52 AM

Becuase of the programming limitations of 16bit, and the extreme lack of ram it can support up to. Programs however really look and function the same in 32bit and 64bit. Programs look completely different 16bit and 32bit.

Why is Vista starter edition limitted to 256mb of ram? Awnser that first.

Why is there Win2K3 Server(least expensive), Win2K3 Advanced Server(more expensive), and Win2K3 Enterprise Server(you can buy a gaming computer or this.), all with huge different price tags.

I think Microsoft is trying to charge more for people that use there operating system for how they want to use it. The difference between those operating systems is different pictures, and only a few lines of hardcoded code that makes the limitations purposely put inside the operating system.
July 18, 2006 3:17:35 AM

Quote:
First of all, the word tremendous to you means a 10% performance difference. The word big performance means a 5% performance difference and I am sure that if athlon 64 didn't support 64bit, it would still show the same performance increases.

Ohh i see, everyone buys parts online and not from Dell, gateway, or levono. Tell me if DELL is going to have 8gb supported motherboards, I think not. And they could clearly add PAE to 32bit systems on windows xp by just an update. The pentium PRO supported PAE.


Again, the advantage the A64 has over the AXP goes well beyond 5~10% (you're obviously making those numbers up) and got nothing to do with the x86-64 extention, the K8 can process more Instructions Per Cycle than the K7 can.

Please have a look at This article where an XP-M OC'ed to 2.4GHz (~600MHz over stock) was pitted against early A64 CPUs. My personnal experience confirm their results, even when overclocked, the K7 just can't keep up.

P.S. 1K posts !
July 18, 2006 3:21:13 AM

Quote:
First of all, the word tremendous to you means a 10% performance difference. The word big performance means a 5% performance difference and I am sure that if athlon 64 didn't support 64bit, it would still show the same performance increases.

Ohh i see, everyone buys parts online and not from Dell, gateway, or levono. Tell me if DELL is going to have 8gb supported motherboards, I think not. And they could clearly add PAE to 32bit systems on windows xp by just an update. The pentium PRO supported PAE.


Again, the advantage the A64 has over the AXP goes well beyond 5~10% (you're obviously making those numbers up) and got nothing to do with the x86-64 extention, the K8 can process more Instructions Per Cycle than the K7 can.

Please have a look at http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlonxp-m-2500/" target="_blank">This[/a] article where an XP-M OC'ed to 2.4GHz (~600MHz over stock) was pitted against early A64 CPUs. My personnal experience confirm their results, even when overclocked, the K7 just can't keep up.

First of all I did not ask for XP-mobile. Its performance is below the athlon xp barton. Second of all, even if AMD did NOT add 64bit support for its athlon 64 cpu's, I bet they would still perform the same. In other words, the performance advatange that A64 has isn't due to its 64bit support. I am talking about the advantages that 64bit offers over 32bit, of course newer cpus are usually better than their predicessors.

You still have not awnsered the question,
Why does Windows Vista Starter Edition support only 256mb of ram when microsoft could easily make it support 4gb like the rest of the 32bit systems?

Consider the fact that Microsoft has taken extra time to program those limitations in.
July 18, 2006 3:41:12 AM

Quote:
Why is Vista starter edition limitted to 256mb of ram? Awnser that first.
Because Microsoft is an "evil monopoly"? :roll:
July 18, 2006 3:41:41 AM

First of all, 64 bit means that there can be twice as many things completed at once over 32 bit. And then you have to ask your self, why not stick with 16 bit, or go back to 8 bit? Whats the difference, you can adjust for the memory differences using software, but its the benifit of having more done per cycle that matters. So, 64 bit is an advantage over 32 even if we ignor the memory, and 128 bit will be an advantage over 64 bit if we go to that. So, in the end, speed will come about due to the change.
July 18, 2006 3:42:29 AM

Quote:

First of all I did not ask for XP-mobile. Its performance is below the athlon xp barton. Second of all, even if AMD did NOT add 64bit support for its athlon 64 cpu's, I bet they would still perform the same. In other words, the performance advatange that A64 has isn't due to its 64bit support. I am talking about the advantages that 64bit offers over 32bit, of course newer cpus are usually better than there predicessors.

You still have not awnsered the question,
Why does Windows Vista Starter Edition support only 256mb of ram when microsoft could easily make it support 4gb like the rest of the 32bit systems?

Consider the fact that Microsoft has taken extra time to program those limitations in.


The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !
July 18, 2006 3:47:59 AM

Quote:
First of all, 64 bit means that there can be twice as many things completed at once over 32 bit. And then you have to ask your self, why not stick with 16 bit, or go back to 8 bit? Whats the difference, you can adjust for the memory differences using software, but its the benifit of having more done per cycle that matters. So, 64 bit is an advantage over 32 even if we ignor the memory, and 128 bit will be an advantage over 64 bit if we go to that. So, in the end, speed will come about due to the change.


Wow, you just completely made that paragraph up and have NO IDEA what you are talking about! 64bit does NOT mean double the performance, it just is another Bit, the cpu still has to make calculations. 16bit and 8bit have limitted programming abilities, 16bit /8bit does not support enough memory. The nintendo 64 had a 64bit cpu, did it perform good? I think not. I wonder why the gamecube is 32bit....

Quote:
The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?


That is whats called an OVERCLOCKED XP-m, athlon 3200+ = 11multi and 200fsb, not 12 multiplier.
July 18, 2006 3:51:17 AM

Quote:

First of all I did not ask for XP-mobile. Its performance is below the athlon xp barton. Second of all, even if AMD did NOT add 64bit support for its athlon 64 cpu's, I bet they would still perform the same. In other words, the performance advatange that A64 has isn't due to its 64bit support. I am talking about the advantages that 64bit offers over 32bit, of course newer cpus are usually better than there predicessors.

You still have not awnsered the question,
Why does Windows Vista Starter Edition support only 256mb of ram when microsoft could easily make it support 4gb like the rest of the 32bit systems?

Consider the fact that Microsoft has taken extra time to program those limitations in.


The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !

I am talking about the advantages of 64bit cpus, not in debate of 32bit cpu performance. The 64bit support on the athlon 64 simply does not attribute to its performance in 32bit OS and APPS!
July 18, 2006 4:08:27 AM

Quote:

The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !


I am talking about the advantages of 64bit cpus, not in debate of 32bit cpu performance. The 64bit support on the athlon 64 simply does not attribute to its performance in 32bit OS and APPS!

You were back a few posts ago, I'll go ahead and refresh your short lived memory :

Quote:
The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.


Quote:
The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.


Either you're a smart chimp that escaped from a research lab or your trailerpark just got "The Internets"...
July 18, 2006 4:20:11 AM

I'm new here and just poking around, but I have a question; Why is this even being discussed? Every new AMD and Intel CPUs are 64bit anyways so why even argue "32-bit vs 64-bit"? Regardless of how much is gained directly from 64bit every new 64-bit CPU is better then their 32-bit predecessors.
July 18, 2006 4:21:01 AM

Quote:

The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !


I am talking about the advantages of 64bit cpus, not in debate of 32bit cpu performance. The 64bit support on the athlon 64 simply does not attribute to its performance in 32bit OS and APPS!

You were back a few posts ago, I'll go ahead and refresh your short lived memory :

Quote:
The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.


Quote:
The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.


Either you're a smart chimp that escaped from a research lab or your trailerpark just got "The Internets"...

I will still stand by the statements I made, a performance difference thats huge is 50%, not 10%. And your message's point? My definition of a major performance difference, means its justifiable to buy a new pc. Your definition must be the same, you prob waste money to get the "greatest" and overclock it 1mhz more.

After and even before AMD made the price decreases to the barton family, a 3200+ barton > its A64 counterpart at the same price.
July 18, 2006 4:25:18 AM

Quote:
I'm new here and just poking around, but I have a question; Why is this even being discussed? Every new AMD and Intel CPUs are 64bit anyways so why even argue "32-bit vs 64-bit"? Regardless of how much is gained directly from 64bit every new 64-bit CPU is better then their 32-bit predecessors.


The problem is the added pricetag added to the cpu, just so it supports 64bit. The Sempron and celeron family doesn't support 64bit for the reason that it adds to the cost of the cpu. Not only that, but upgrading means you really need to buy a new computer just to support 64bit.

Software can only be compiled to work in either 32bit or true 64bit, not both. That means 2 cds (32bit and true 64bit) for 1 game. Later, you'll be left in the dust as no apps support 32bit.
July 18, 2006 4:29:55 AM

Quote:
The Sempron and celeron family doesn't support 64bit for the reason that it adds to the cost of the cpu. Not only that, but upgrading means you really need to buy a new computer just to support 64bit.


Actually both do. Enough said you are an idiot.

edit- Sempron 64 = 69.97, Celeron w/EM64T = 39.99. Where are they packing in the extra cost?
July 18, 2006 4:34:57 AM

Quote:
The Sempron and celeron family doesn't support 64bit for the reason that it adds to the cost of the cpu. Not only that, but upgrading means you really need to buy a new computer just to support 64bit.


Actually both do. Enough said you are an idiot.

WRONG, you are refering to the sempron 64, I said just sempron. And I was refering to the celeron Northwood-128. Both have no 64bit support.

Quote:
edit- Sempron 64 = 69.97, Celeron w/EM64T = 39.99. Where are they packing in the extra cost?


The extra cost comes in research and devolpment. It IS being added to the cost. Not only that, but they have to add many transistors on the cpu just for 64bit support.

Back to the topic: What advantages does 64bit cpu give again?

You STILL have no explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

and what advantages do 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didnt have 64bit support?
July 18, 2006 4:40:08 AM

Sorry I'm reffering to NEW CPUs, which both those prices are good for, so still where's the extra cost. If somebody has an older 32 bit system and don't want a new PC then fine. But it sounds like you're advocating buying old technology for no good reason seeing as 64 bit is all there is today and just as cheap. Complete 64 bit systems easily go for around $300 if not cheaper. You'd probably have to pay more to build a 32 bit system if you really wanted to, so why?
July 18, 2006 4:42:01 AM

$40 CPUs, how much cheaper do you expect? Forget R&D $40 is barely covering everything else.
July 18, 2006 4:42:32 AM

You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?
July 18, 2006 4:50:57 AM

1-
Quote:
You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.


This was already explained as "Microsoft is an evil corporation...", if you can't figure out what that means then there is no helping you.

2 -
Quote:
And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?


It's called progress. Maybe the benifets aren't huge right now but eventually they will be. It has no affect on current CPU prices so why wouldn't you want the technology there for when it's need?
July 18, 2006 4:52:49 AM

Quote:
You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.


I dont know if this is even true I do know they are releasing a legacy version of XP wich will work on older machines (its stripped down a bit)

Quote:
And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?


No advantages right now (well in some cases aplications are faster but not the majority) Its true of all things electronic your TV rocks right now becouse its a Plasma HD with HDMI and 1080p but 5 years from now its gonna look outdated when compared to the carbon nano tube sets :)  32bits where great and still work realy well but eventualy HD games and higher resolutions will force 64bits on you.... resistance is futile ! lol
July 18, 2006 4:55:30 AM

Quote:
1- You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.


This was already explained as "Microsoft is an evil corporation...", if you can't figure out what that means then there is no helping you.

2 -
Quote:
And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?


It's called progress. Maybe the benifets aren't huge right now but eventually they will be. It has no affect on current CPU prices so why wouldn't you want the technology there for when it's need?

1. Good u got the awnser correct, the reason why bill gates gave his money away is cuz he'll get 10x back with vista.

2. No, you still have no explained the benefits of 64bit. You just given me blank statements.


Actually the main problem with windows vista is its activation, looks like ms got dumb again and it'll be easy to bypass... Who would want to pay $500 for something you should get for $100.

Quote:
I dont know if this is even true I do know they are releasing a legacy version of XP wich will work on older machines (its stripped down a bit)


They already released windows xp starter edition, its so restricted than not even mainstream comp manufactors in the U.S. are giving it out, however unfortunate people in other countries are running this junk, lol.
July 18, 2006 4:58:41 AM

Quote:
You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.


Because its a cut down version for poor countries. You can't rock up to a store and buy it.

Quote:
2. No, you still have no explained the benefits of 64bit. You just given me blank statements.


Benefits: more SSE and GP registers, extra memory addressing, cleaner ISA.

My advice is to start a new account and not be such an idiot if you want to stick around here.
July 18, 2006 5:03:43 AM

Quote:
1. Good u got the awnser correct, the reason why bill gates gave his money away is cuz he'll get 10x back with vista.

Why would you be so insistent on getting such an obvious answer that was already stated?

Quote:

2. No, you still have no explained the benefits of 64bit. You just given me blank statements.

Didn't think I'd have to. If 64bit is no better then 32 and never will be then why not just go back to 16, 8, 4, 2, or just 1 bit systems. Software along with fast enough hardware could theorotically use a single bit CPU to do the same as a 64, so why not? Because it's much easier to just use more bits and free up software/hardware to do better things.

So then why are you so against having 64 bit CPUs at no extra cost?
July 18, 2006 5:05:06 AM

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+pitches+pay-as-you-go+PCs...

It turns out Microsoft is now stripping even the poor of their wallets. After you buy the computer with the pay as you go system, you pay about 2x the price of the computer.

Here is your error message, "Please insert a card code to continue unrestricted use." translated to "PLEASE INSERT 10 DOLLARS TO CONTINUE TO RUN WINDOWS"

Quote:
So then why are you so against having 64 bit CPUs at no extra cost?


Why are you so against having 32bit / 128bit CPUs at no extra cost?


Microsoft expects people to spend their week's pay to run windows for 1 hour instead of buying / getting food and water.
July 18, 2006 5:06:56 AM

Quote:
Why are you so against having 32bit / 128bit CPUs at no extra cost?


Show me one that meets price/performance of current CPUs.
!