64 vrs 32 bit?

[nuliana]

Hi i was wondering what is the big advantage of having a 64 bit system over a 32 bit system is and what the future of these systems are. Like if u have to exact processors but ones 32 bit and the other is 64 how much of a performance gain are you going to get and what are really the pros and cons. Thankyou

 

[mpjesse]

You can no longer avoid buying a 64 bit CPU, so don't bother trying to. However, at this point in time, I cannot faithfully recommend Vista 64 bit. And this is coming from someone who's using Vista 64 bit. I've had a lot of problems... as mplich said, the driver support is still atrocious, especially for enthusiast level systems.

My recommendation is to get Vista 32 bit and then send in the $10 and voucher to M$ for a 64 bit copy as well. This voucher is only available on the full retail version of Vista (I think).

 

[jkflipflop98]

2 to the 64th = 18446744073709551616

 

[michaelahess]

I've had two systems running vista x64 since enterprise rtm was released in November.

Since Nvidia and ATI have now released functional drivers I've had no problems with most games, you have to be carefull wilth certain apps, nero and powerdvd for example, but I have the same functunality I did with XP with only minor fixes and tweaks.

Some old games won't install thanks to the installers, however the compatibility modes have worked great so far for most issues.

x64 is snapper than x32 for some things, but it's not particularly "faster" even with x64 apps.

If you don't mind tweaking, go x64, it's cheaper in the longrun as the "free" upgrades are generally a waste of money compared to just getting home premium oem.

 

[croc]

x86 processors are not 64 bit. They are 32 bit processors with 64 bit extended instruction sets, to allow larger memory usage, and to add some 64 bit data instructions.

True 64 bit processors, like the IBM power pc, the Sun sparc's, are generally RISC (reduced instruction set CPU's) processors that will natively handle memory out to 64 bits (2 to the 64th), and will handle computational processing faster overall. Large databases need these processors, as does high end graphics procesing.

As to what your really asking, (since I doubt you are talking about a power pc WS) MPJesse has it right at least for now. Vista 64 is not for the faint of heart. If XP is anything to judge by, it will never be.

Kinda makes one wonder why Apple dropped the power pc chip for the mac.

I have a Sun WS at work that will run say Solaris 10 at twice the speed of this pc despite having one fourth the RAM and one third the processor speed...

 

[michaelahess]

True, my SGI O2 runs maya 5 (yeah I know it's old) almost as quick as my A64 3700 with 2 gig of ram, and it's not even 200Mhz with only 192MB RAM.

But at the same time, I've got a couple 32bit power pc's that are slooooooow.

 

[croc]

32 bit power pc's? Never seen one and don't think I want to.

OTOH, I just recovered a couple of old Digital Alpha servers that have outlived their usefulness. I'll be pleased to add them to my 'lab' and see what they can do. The way that the Dec Alpha approached computations should make these boxes nice number crunchers.

 

[heartview]

2 to the 64th = 18446744073709551616

That is the theoretical limit of the address registers used in the CPU. That is not, however, anywhere near the reality that you will likely ever see in a system built during the "64-bit era" of desktop computing. We will eventually see systems supporting 128 GB of memory and possibly even 1 TB, but we will have to have a major shift away from DIMM's before we will ever see either amount happen on the average desktop.

 

[Sp0cK]

The first x86 CPU to deploy RISC techniques was the NextGen Nx586, released in 1994, and it did this by expanding the majority of the CISC instructions into multiple simpler RISC operations. Internally the Nx586, Intel P6, AMD K5 and Cyrix 6x86 are RISC machines that emulate a CISC architecture.

So I am not following you when you said "True 64 bit processors, like the IBM power pc, the Sun sparc's, are generally RISC."

Intel and AMD are RISC CPUs, emulating x86 chips.

Now, if they would stop emulating the x86 instructions, we might see huge increase in performance... (If they let their RISC chips run as RISCs)

This link holds a wealth of information and should explain the history of modern processors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC

 

[belvdr]

Intel and AMD are RISC CPUs, emulating x86 chips.

I cannot find any information from AMD or Intel to back that up.

 

[yakyb]

the only real reason for running 64bit is in server situations.

however i have played the 64bit version of far cry and it did run quicker despite haveing more detail than the 32bit version.

i forsee a lot more usage on 64bit in the near future hopefully games like alan wake and crysis will come with native 64 bit support so that the extra benefits will be immediate

 

[heartview]

Intel and AMD are RISC CPUs, emulating x86 chips.

I cannot find any information from AMD or Intel to back that up.

And you likely won't. Back in the day RISC versus CISC was a legitimate argument about performance (and architecture), but it is no longer today. The existence of micocode pretty much turns a CISC into a RISC from a design standpoint. People used to think there were limitations to how fast a CISC processor could go compared to a RISC processor. Today there is little doubt that those limitations are non-existent.

But, honestly, what does it matter so long as the things run fast and are compatible with the software you use?

 

[belvdr]

And you likely won't. Back in the day RISC versus CISC was a legitimate argument about performance (and architecture), but it is no longer today. The existence of micocode pretty much turns a CISC into a RISC from a design standpoint. People used to think there were limitations to how fast a CISC processor could go compared to a RISC processor. Today there is little doubt that those limitations are non-existent.

But, honestly, what does it matter so long as the things run fast and are compatible with the software you use?

Yeah, I found the terms but no indication of how they classify their chips. Either way, I agree with your last point.

 

[Sp0cK]

I read an article from Intel a long time ago and it said that all their chips were RISC based and emulated the x86. So I shared that cloudy memory with the masses.

To be honest, I really don't care.... As long as I can surf the net, frag some 12 year old at least 1 out 50 times . And have an overall great time on my PC doing 5 - 20 things at the same time...


PS

If I remember correctly, that link near the end touches on the INTEL\AMD RISC architecture.


PSS

R600 is taking it's sweet time!!!!!!! :roll:

 

[rethdog]

Internally, the Athlon was a fully seventh generation x86 processor, the first of its kind. The CPU was designed by a combination of AMD engineers and newly-hired ex-DEC engineers, and the result was a merging of technologies from AMD's earlier CPUs and the DEC Alpha 21264. Like the AMD K5 and K6, the Athlon is a RISC microprocessor which decodes x86 instructions into its own internal instructions at runtime.

 

[rethdog]

But back to you orginal question, the step to 64bit will be much like the step to 32bit (remember Win 95 launch?). Slow and applications over time make use of it.

 

[4Ryan6]

Like if u have to exact processors but ones 32 bit and the other is 64 how much of a performance gain are you going to get and what are really the pros and cons. Thankyou

32bit cpu communicates with the memory modules through the Northbridge chipset creating a performance bottleneck, the 64bit cpu directly communicates with the memory modules, eliminating the bottleneck.



So the performance increases with a 64bit cpu even with a 32bit operating system.

 

[enewmen]

x86 processors are not 64 bit. They are 32 bit processors with 64 bit extended instruction sets, to allow larger memory usage, and to add some 64 bit data instructions.

True 64 bit processors, like the IBM power pc, the Sun sparc's, are generally RISC (reduced instruction set CPU's) processors that will natively handle memory out to 64 bits (2 to the 64th), and will handle computational processing faster overall. Large databases need these processors, as does high end graphics procesing.

As to what your really asking, (since I doubt you are talking about a power pc WS) MPJesse has it right at least for now. Vista 64 is not for the faint of heart. If XP is anything to judge by, it will never be.

Kinda makes one wonder why Apple dropped the power pc chip for the mac.

I have a Sun WS at work that will run say Solaris 10 at twice the speed of this pc despite having one fourth the RAM and one third the processor speed...

I'm still looking for a "True 64bit CPU definition" Maybe it's just address space and instruction bits wide.

 

[heartview]

x86 processors are not 64 bit. They are 32 bit processors with 64 bit extended instruction sets, to allow larger memory usage, and to add some 64 bit data instructions.

True 64 bit processors, like the IBM power pc, the Sun sparc's, are generally RISC (reduced instruction set CPU's) processors that will natively handle memory out to 64 bits (2 to the 64th), and will handle computational processing faster overall. Large databases need these processors, as does high end graphics procesing.

As to what your really asking, (since I doubt you are talking about a power pc WS) MPJesse has it right at least for now. Vista 64 is not for the faint of heart. If XP is anything to judge by, it will never be.

Kinda makes one wonder why Apple dropped the power pc chip for the mac.

I have a Sun WS at work that will run say Solaris 10 at twice the speed of this pc despite having one fourth the RAM and one third the processor speed...

I'm still looking for a "True 64bit CPU definition" Maybe it's just address space and instruction bits wide.

I 100% agree. Pure versus "impure" 64-bit is more than just a moot point, it is like flinging mud at your enemies during a nuclear war.

 

[belvdr]

So the performance increases with a 64bit cpu even with a 32bit operating system.

You can't make a blanket statement like that. It all depends on the application, and it could definitely be slower.

 

[4Ryan6]

You can't make a blanket statement like that. It all depends on the application, and it could definitely be slower.

Well if I'm wrong prove it, and I'll retract the statement.

 

[m25]

Like if u have to exact processors but ones 32 bit and the other is 64 how much of a performance gain are you going to get and what are really the pros and cons. Thankyou

32bit cpu communicates with the memory modules through the Northbridge chipset creating a performance bottleneck, the 64bit cpu directly communicates with the memory modules, eliminating the bottleneck.



So the performance increases with a 64bit cpu even with a 32bit operating system.
Isn't it only for K8 CPUs; I know Intel CPUs still use the northbridge and FSB, ALL of them.

 

[4Ryan6]

Isn't it only for K8 CPUs;

OOPs Yes

 

[rethdog]

Kinda makes one wonder why Apple dropped the power pc chip for the mac.

the economies of scale, and the intense battle between AMD & Intel meant that freescale could not offer Jobs the same performance for the $. the power pc platform lives on in multi processor areas - but that's where the dynamic duo are looking at now.

 

[chunkymonster]

Like if u have to exact processors but ones 32 bit and the other is 64 how much of a performance gain are you going to get and what are really the pros and cons. Thankyou

32bit cpu communicates with the memory modules through the Northbridge chipset creating a performance bottleneck, the 64bit cpu directly communicates with the memory modules, eliminating the bottleneck.

So the performance increases with a 64bit cpu even with a 32bit operating system.

What?! What brand or type of 64bit processor are you referring to?

Intel still uses a fsb and that it a 64bit capable processor. A 32bit application runs no faster or slower on a 64bit capable proc than it does on a 32bit proc.