Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

64 bit, ram slots, and multi cores

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
December 10, 2006 7:52:26 PM

Ok. I'm a tech and I know quite a bit about pcs. (so I think)

When is the actual step to 64 bit going to take place? XP64 bit was kind of a joke, and with vista coming in 32 bit and 64 bit, I would think that developers will be happy to update code rather than rewrite it.

Also I am a musician and the fact that 64 bit could support up to 128gbs of RAM, obviously way more than anyone will need for a long while, I am quite excited about it. The problem is that once again, most MBs only support 4GBs and usually have 4 slots or less. When do you think this will change?


Finally, Multicore technology has so far been awesome, but we all know the sucky feeling you get when you realize that an app isn't coded for multicore, thus it reaps very little benefit. With all this awesome technology, when will it all gel, and become the standard.


I am also looking foward to flash memory harddrives, although because of cost this is way off.

I currently have a AMD 3400+ dual core 64 and 2 GBs of ram.
Maybe I am being unrealistic but it doesn't seem much faster than the 3000+ single core I had with 1GB or ram. Actually I cannot notice a difference at all, and at times it seems slower.


No real problem here, just want to talk tech with other people.

I have been saving up cash and am about to build a dedicated machine for my music. I just suffer from hesitation, as I know the next new thing is always right over the horizon.




Stitches
December 10, 2006 8:39:39 PM

Quote:
When is the actual step to 64 bit going to take place? XP64 bit was kind of a joke, and with vista coming in 32 bit and 64 bit, I would think that developers will be happy to update code rather than rewrite it.


well... we can almost be guaranteed the move to 64bit will take place, when we really do start needing more than 4GB of memory in a desktop system (for the average user)... till then, its more of a comparatively superfluous benefit, that only a few people really do take advantage of... such as the benefit of being able to process larger amounts of data at a time... which isnt to say its not helpful, but, the need for most people isnt quite there yet

Quote:
Also I am a musician and the fact that 64 bit could support up to 128gbs of RAM, obviously way more than anyone will need for a long while, I am quite excited about it. The problem is that once again, most MBs only support 4GBs and usually have 4 slots or less. When do you think this will change?


again, the consumer market wont really be seeing much change, until a need for it is necessitated... so, maybe inside of the next few years possibly... since were just now pushing 2GB of system memory [in vista] for smooth performance


Quote:
Finally, Multicore technology has so far been awesome, but we all know the sucky feeling you get when you realize that an app isn't coded for multicore, thus it reaps very little benefit. With all this awesome technology, when will it all gel, and become the standard.


well... as of this years weve already seen quite a few apps start to take real advantage of smp, so, maybe by next year well see a lot more... considering most new system are shipping with dual cores... so, by next year well start seeing more... and the year after that, and after that... but, it started this year... ...as far as being standard, well, id say its already on its way there

Quote:
I currently have a AMD 3400+ dual core 64 and 2 GBs of ram.
Maybe I am being unrealistic but it doesn't seem much faster than the 3000+ single core I had with 1GB or ram. Actually I cannot notice a difference at all, and at times it seems slower.


not sure if they make a 3400+ dual core (they might though)... but, youre right... in a situation where an application cant take direct advantage of an additional cpu core, you will see very little benefit... though, even with only being able to use one core, the burdon of background applications and processes is lessened, allowing for your primary application to be more responsive... intelligent load balancing between cores by the OS, so no one core is overburdoned... so, you may be expecting too much from it most likely... ...in the worst cases, youll see identical performance (assuming your single core was clocked at the same speed as your dual core is)

also, if you havent, youll want to go to amd.com to download their dual core optimizer, and dual core drivers... windows doesnt contain the necessary software by default to use the cpu to its fullest potential, so, downloading those can only help
December 10, 2006 8:40:14 PM

Quote:
Ok. I'm a tech and I know quite a bit about pcs. (so I think)

When is the actual step to 64 bit going to take place? XP64 bit was kind of a joke, and with vista coming in 32 bit and 64 bit, I would think that developers will be happy to update code rather than rewrite it.

Also I am a musician and the fact that 64 bit could support up to 128gbs of RAM, obviously way more than anyone will need for a long while, I am quite excited about it. The problem is that once again, most MBs only support 4GBs and usually have 4 slots or less. When do you think this will change?


Finally, Multicore technology has so far been awesome, but we all know the sucky feeling you get when you realize that an app isn't coded for multicore, thus it reaps very little benefit. With all this awesome technology, when will it all gel, and become the standard.


I am also looking foward to flash memory harddrives, although because of cost this is way off.

I currently have a AMD 3400+ dual core 64 and 2 GBs of ram.
Maybe I am being unrealistic but it doesn't seem much faster than the 3000+ single core I had with 1GB or ram. Actually I cannot notice a difference at all, and at times it seems slower.


No real problem here, just want to talk tech with other people.

I have been saving up cash and am about to build a dedicated machine for my music. I just suffer from hesitation, as I know the next new thing is always right over the horizon.




Stitches

64 bit happened back with windows xp for itanium.
64 can support a lot more than 'just' 128GBs of RAM. Ram sticks have gone up to 8GB 4x8= 32GB. Most motherboard won't support such a thing because no one needs it.
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/05/11/infineon_samples_8_gb...
a 3400$ isn't that much of a step up from a 3000+. Get yourself a kentsfield, stick a tuniq tower on it, overclock. Then you'll see a difference.
Related resources
December 10, 2006 8:40:15 PM

Quote:
Ok. I'm a tech and I know quite a bit about pcs. (so I think)

When is the actual step to 64 bit going to take place? XP64 bit was kind of a joke, and with vista coming in 32 bit and 64 bit, I would think that developers will be happy to update code rather than rewrite it.

Also I am a musician and the fact that 64 bit could support up to 128gbs of RAM, obviously way more than anyone will need for a long while, I am quite excited about it. The problem is that once again, most MBs only support 4GBs and usually have 4 slots or less. When do you think this will change?


Finally, Multicore technology has so far been awesome, but we all know the sucky feeling you get when you realize that an app isn't coded for multicore, thus it reaps very little benefit. With all this awesome technology, when will it all gel, and become the standard.


I am also looking foward to flash memory harddrives, although because of cost this is way off.

I currently have a AMD 3400+ dual core 64 and 2 GBs of ram.
Maybe I am being unrealistic but it doesn't seem much faster than the 3000+ single core I had with 1GB or ram. Actually I cannot notice a difference at all, and at times it seems slower.


No real problem here, just want to talk tech with other people.

I have been saving up cash and am about to build a dedicated machine for my music. I just suffer from hesitation, as I know the next new thing is always right over the horizon.




Stitches
There is no such thing as an AMD Athlon X2 3400+; I'm afraid you may have been ripped off. With Vista and time, more RAM and CPU cores will become the industry standard.
December 10, 2006 8:49:26 PM

BAH! My bad its a 3200+.


Thanks for the responses so far. Its just that as technology gets faster the apps are getting more demanding. For audio I am kind of thinking I will be running 2 or 3 PCs all linked so I can make sure I get all the performance I need.


Also, I have always custom built my PCs, but this new one is a dell. (I hated it but my wife got a killer discount through work. Too good of an offer to pass up). So far though I will be running like 3 or 4 synths in different apps and it starts acting like its folding. Slow and painful so far.



Stitches


p.s. ha ha ha...I know, I'm using a dell :) 
December 10, 2006 8:55:26 PM

yeah... if its a 3200+, its definetly not dual core, you still have a single core cpu... ...now, if you were to get an X2 3800+, that would be a dual core, and its essentially two 3200+'s on one cpu die (each core is clocked at 2.0GHz /w 512KB L2 cache each)

but, its really the difference of having the X2 in front of the model number that denotes whether its single core or dual core
December 10, 2006 9:24:19 PM

Dude... RAM has gotten to 16GB, and they're about $32k right now.
December 10, 2006 9:24:39 PM

I feel like a retard. This machine is pretty new, it actually is a 3800+ X2.
!