Is Core 2 Duo a true 64 bit Processor?

I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 and I am thinking of trying out 64 bit Vista. But I would like to know if this processor is really a native 64 bit processor, or if it is really just a 32 bit processor that can work with 64 bit software.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
42 answers Last reply
More about core true processor
  1. Quote:
    core is a native 64bit architecture.
    Uhhh . . . no. It's EM64T technology.

    Conroe and EM64T
  2. Quote:
    core is a native 64bit architecture.
    Uhhh . . . no. It's EM64T technology.

    Conroe and EM64T

    Thanks to both of you for posting. But WiseCracker, what do you mean?
  3. Quote:
    core is a native 64bit architecture.
    Uhhh . . . no. It's EM64T technology.

    Conroe and EM64T

    Thanks to both of you for posting. But WiseCracker, what do you mean?
    32/64 bit is not a architecture or anything, it is a instruction set that a processor can run. So there is no "native". It either has support for it, or it doesn't.
  4. The only mainstream processor that I know of that is a true 64-bit is Intel's Itanium. Current AMD and Intel processor's are both x86-64, meaning that they are based off of the regular x86 instruction code that has been running for years, but is also capable of running 64-bit code as well. When the time comes around for 128-bit computing, there is a fair chance (don't quote me on this, talking out my rear), that the chips to run it will be x86-128, as by even that time there will still be a lot of x86/32-bit code running around.

    Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about, just throwing out my layman knowledge.
  5. Anyone know where one can find an Itanium? I really want to play with one.
  6. Quote:
    Anyone know where one can find an Itanium? I really want to play with one.

    You'd get bored very soon :roll:
  7. Quote:
    I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 and I am thinking of trying out 64 bit Vista. But I would like to know if this processor is really a native 64 bit processor, or if it is really just a 32 bit processor that can work with 64 bit software.

    Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    NO, because it does not include '64' in it's name.... :lol:
    If you have read seen it, this chip supports the AMD64/EMT64 instruction set and that's all about 64bits that a CPU should have; there's even PEntium4s, PentiumDs and CeleronDs with these instructions that are not 'less' 64bit than Core2 CPUs.
  8. Quote:
    Anyone know where one can find an Itanium? I really want to play with one.

    You'd get bored very soon :roll:
    So says you. I have the mind of a steel trap and the attention span that borders on... ooh look... a cookie...
  9. Quote:
    Anyone know where one can find an Itanium? I really want to play with one.


    http://www.intel.com/buy/server/itanium-2/manufacturers.htm
  10. Kuma, Agena, Penryn, Nehalem doesn't include "64" in their name, so they won't support 64-bit instructions also..... :lol: :lol: :lol:. Ninja, why don't you try Cell or PowerPC cpus?
  11. Quote:
    Anyone know where one can find an Itanium? I really want to play with one.

    You'd get bored very soon :roll:
    So says you. I have the mind of a steel trap and the attention span that borders on... ooh look... a cookie...
    That's much healthier than an Itanium. I mean... there's the whole SW industry not getting much to do with it since it was released (and it's a lot of time) but if you want to try...good luck :D
  12. Quote:
    Kuma, Agena, Penryn, Nehalem doesn't include "64" in their name, so they won't support 64-bit instructions also..... :lol: :lol: :lol:. Ninja, why don't you try Cell or PowerPC cpus?

    I'd find living in a monastery more entertaining than playing with an Itanium :wink:
  13. Quote:
    NO, because it does not include '64' in it's name.... :lol:
    If you have read seen it, this chip supports the AMD64/EMT64 instruction set and that's all about 64bits that a CPU should have; there's even PEntium4s, PentiumDs and CeleronDs with these instructions that are not 'less' 64bit than Core2 CPUs.


    So you are saying that being a true 64 bit processor is really irrelevant when it can run the instructions for 64 bit programming?
  14. Current x86-64 processors have, I believe, been known to outperform true 64-bit processors.

    This isn't like monolithic multi-core processors, native support doesn't mean much right now. Would you rather have true 64-bit, or 64-bit support, and twice the power for half the electrical usage?
  15. The only NATIVE 64bit CPU is the Itanium but that won't run ANY 32bit app and not even run MOST 64bit apps a x86 CPU can.
    This said, a Core2, is a 64bit CPU the same way of an Athlon64 or a CeleronD with 64bit extensions or a Sempron etc and will run fine ALL 64bit and 32bit desktop apps (including Vista of course) because the 64bit instructions on all these CPUs are the same.
  16. Quote:
    I'd find living in a monastery more entertaining than playing with an Itanium :wink:


    A monastery you say? I'd rather live in a well
  17. Yep. All it has to do is support 64bit code and instructions. Which almost all modern CPU's do.

    @m25
    Play with doesn't mean buy. Thats for damn sure. I want to see what the big fuss was about.

    @aBg_rOnGak
    Hnn, time to go bother the guys at IBM again...

    @darious00777
    From what I found, those things cost around the price of a car....
  18. Quote:

    @darious00777
    From what I found, those things cost around the price of a car....

    And in real world perform like you got only the steering wheel :lol:
  19. Was it M$ fault for not creating a good 64-bit platform/OS or was it software s developers fault? Hardware drivers are also a problem for certain device
  20. Not a big fan of cars.

    But at least you know where to look. :lol:
  21. Perhaps by bothering them, you could prevent them from being the company with most granted patents in the world :?:
  22. More like pester then into either giving me a Cell BE chip with the hardware to go with it, or a restraining order. Cause I'm not supporting Sony in buying a PS3
  23. Quote:
    I have a Core 2 Duo E6600 and I am thinking of trying out 64 bit Vista. But I would like to know if this processor is really a native 64 bit processor, or if it is really just a 32 bit processor that can work with 64 bit software.

    Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!


    Why would it matter to you if it was a 64 bit processor that could run 32 bit aplications or a 32 bit processor that could run a 64 bit software (just curios)

    It is a great CPU and it will run Vista 64 and 64 bit apps (assuming you can find any)
    :roll:
  24. Quote:
    core is a native 64bit architecture.
    Uhhh . . . no. It's EM64T technology.

    Conroe and EM64T

    Thanks to both of you for posting. But WiseCracker, what do you mean?The x86-64 architecture (which AMD created) provided for the use of 32-bit and 64-bit extensions to the x86 32-bit nee 16-bit nee 8-bit architecture.. EM64T is the Intel adaptation of AMD64.

    "True" 64-bit processors include the Alpha (RIP), PA-RISC and the *I-Tanic* (heh heh) listed above. When the I-Tanic1 first set sail there were great hopes that it would bridge the 32-bit/64-bit divide but, of course, it sunk . . .

    What all this poo-poo is about is that processors have *registers*. The x86-64 architecture doubled the number of general registers and SIMD registers.

    The 8 general registers in x86 could only handle 32 bit values. x86-64 provides for 16 general registers and 64 bit values.

    32 bit hit the memory ceiling at 4gb and Windoze effectively splits this at 2gb for the OS and 2gb for apps. Prior to WinV the only MS operating systems with >4gb RAM were Win Server03 and WinXP Pro64.

    In your lifetime you will not hit the memory ceiling with the x86-64 ISA and a 64-bit OS.

    With the Core2 Intel took x86-64 and kicked AMD's ass with it. Intel loaded up the cache and beefed up SSE utilization. How well AMD will return the favor to Intel is the subject of great debate on this forum.

    AMD's K10 will greatly expand SSE utilization. To the extent it allows them to catch up or surpass Intel is the $64 million question.

    To add fuel to this fire (LOL) I think the *Mean Green* is sandbagging (like they did with the Opteron in 2003). Intel will soon lose all of it's business to AMD and have to close their doors by mid-2008 . . . :roll:

    And I think you could set up a *dual-boot* if you really wanted to check out a 64-bit OS. Be prepared and do your homework . . . .
  25. Quote:
    core is a native 64bit architecture.
    Uhhh . . . no. It's EM64T technology.

    Conroe and EM64T

    The reason for the 6% difference is not because of poor 64 bit support in C2D. Either macro-op fusion or micro-op fusion does not work on 64 bit code on a C2D. (I cannot remember for sure, but I am fairly certain it is macro-op fusion that does not work, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

    x86-64=EM64T

    Intel licensed x86-64 from AMD because Microsoft didn't want to have to write 2 different 64 bit versions of Windows. I'm glad they did because it means more resources can be devoted to optimizing code for a unified standard.

    Ryan
  26. Quote:
    core is a native 64bit architecture.
    Uhhh . . . no. It's EM64T technology.

    Conroe and EM64T

    Thanks to both of you for posting. But WiseCracker, what do you mean?The x86-64 architecture (which AMD created) provided for the use of 32-bit and 64-bit extensions to the x86 32-bit nee 16-bit nee 8-bit architecture.. EM64T is the Intel adaptation of AMD64.

    "True" 64-bit processors include the Alpha (RIP), PA-RISC and the *I-Tanic* (heh heh) listed above. When the I-Tanic1 first set sail there were great hopes that it would bridge the 32-bit/64-bit divide but, of course, it sunk . . .

    MMX is a 64-bit extension. EM64T is a true 64-bit architecture.
  27. bit of a red herring there.

    Most software is still written for 32 bit architecture so 64 processor wont make much difference these days unless you are running some very specialized number crunching software.
  28. Quote:
    MMX is a 64-bit extension. EM64T is a true 64-bit architecture.


    Huh? MMX are the multimedia extensions found as early as the original Pentium processors.

    Anyway, we just got a new HP-UX server with 1/2 the processors of our older PA-RISC systems, and it walks all over them.
  29. Here you go Ninja:Itanium 2

    I win! (only for buying though)
  30. Quote:
    MMX is a 64-bit extension. EM64T is a true 64-bit architecture.


    Huh? MMX are the multimedia extensions found as early as the original Pentium processors....
    Yes, specifically a set of logically-separate 64-bit registers in addition to the "normal" registers, and instructions to operate on those registers. This can certainly be considered a "64-bit extension" to the architecture. as it allows direct native manipulation of 64-bit numbers.
    However, it didn't alter the sizes of the address registers or extend the general-purpose registers or their instructions, so it's not a full 64-bit architecture.

    By contrast, the x86 family has typically been re-engineered to longer-native-word architectures by increasing the sizes of the pre-existing general purpose registers and address registers, by increasing the numbers of such registers, and by modifying/adding instructions to manipulate the registers in their new larger sizes.
  31. Quote:
    So says you. I have the mind of a steel trap and the attention span that borders on... ooh look... a cookie...


    Still laughing at that one :lol:
  32. Quote:
    So says you. I have the mind of a steel trap and the attention span that borders on... ooh look... a cookie...


    Still laughing at that one :lol:

    Me to

    :?: What is the good and the bad of running an 64 bit OS V.S 32 bit OS other than more Ram

    thanks
  33. ahh, so a Commodore 64 should perform nicely. :wink:
  34. Quote:
    Anyone know where one can find an Itanium? I really want to play with one.
    Ive seen a few on ebay for good prices... I almost bought one once.
  35. @lostandwandering & cwj717
    Thanks for pointing those places out. If it wasn't for splurging on the 2900, I'd be going after those Itaniums, just for the sake of having one. :)

    @aoe & deadhead_matt
    *Bows to two members with impeccable taste in humor*
  36. Quote:
    What is the good and the bad of running an 64 bit OS V.S 32 bit OS other than more Ram


    My personal experince, is there is not much difference at all. Currently I triple boot between XP, V32 and V64. So far, there is nothing I can't do on V64 that I can do on V32 or XP. Though some of the software (anti-virus) I have says it's 64, but when I look under taskmanger, the exe has *32 by it, which indicates it's 32bit code.

    I did have to buy a new SATA controller, because Promise wasn't releasing a 64bit driver soon enough for me (don't know if they ever did).

    All the games I have, worked (even Quake 2 and Warcraft 3), and perform the same as Vista32. Both of which are slower (though in some cases only by a few fps) then XP. I should note, that I currently only have 2GB of ram. I'm just playing with V64, because I wanted to see what all the hype about 64bit computing was about.

    Microsoft said that the 64bit version was suppose to be a little more secure, because they moved some code around from the normal spot on a 32bit OS. Outside of that, whether I'm running V32 or V64, I can't tell the difference (at least not yet).

    The only bad, is that the 64bit Vista is suppose to mandate signed drivers, though there are options to turn that off. But namely, if you can get the needed 64bit drivers, for video, sound, motherboard, keyboard, mice etc. Then you should be all set. I haven't found an app or game that works under V32, but not V64. Valve even has an update for the Steam, HL2 to 64bit.

    I've read some that says full 64bit apps will acutally run slow, because the code is bigger and it will consume more of the processor's cache, thus slowing it down. FarCry 64 plays pretty much the same, But HL2:Lost Coast, drops from 141fps to 91fps when it upgrade to 64bit. So I dunno
  37. Thank you

    you answered a lot of my ?

    anyone have some more to share :D

    Thanks
  38. Did you do a recompile of Quake2 to 64Bit. I have the source code but Ive been too lazy to do it yet, hehe.
  39. Quote:
    What is the good and the bad of running an 64 bit OS V.S 32 bit OS other than more Ram


    My personal experince, is there is not much difference at all. Currently I triple boot between XP, V32 and V64. So far, there is nothing I can't do on V64 that I can do on V32 or XP. Though some of the software (anti-virus) I have says it's 64, but when I look under taskmanger, the exe has *32 by it, which indicates it's 32bit code.
    For anti-virus and firewall applications, a lot of what they do is in kernel mode drivers. These parts must be 64-bit in 64-bit Vista, so that is probably why they said they are 64-bit. The management applications can be 32-bit and still work just fine. Of course, with all 32-bit on 64-bit the compatibility layer will lower performance, although it may be imperceptible.

    Quote:
    I did have to buy a new SATA controller, because Promise wasn't releasing a 64bit driver soon enough for me (don't know if they ever did).

    This is the biggest headache for people moving older systems to 64-bit. Before Vista the 64-bit driver support was pretty meager and a lot of hardware is no longer supported.

    Quote:
    All the games I have worked (even Quake 2 and Warcraft 3), and perform the same as Vista32. Both of which are slower (though in some cases only by a few fps) then XP. I should note, that I currently only have 2GB of ram. I'm just playing with V64, because I wanted to see what all the hype about 64bit computing was about.

    edit: nevermind.

    Quote:
    Microsoft said that the 64bit version was suppose to be a little more secure, because they moved some code around from the normal spot on a 32bit OS. Outside of that, whether I'm running V32 or V64, I can't tell the difference (at least not yet).

    I forget the acronym, but the random address module loading is present in Vista32 as well. It helps defend against some code execution attacks that rely on some system functions being at certain addresses.

    Quote:
    The only bad, is that the 64bit Vista is suppose to mandate signed drivers, though there are options to turn that off. But namely, if you can get the needed 64bit drivers, for video, sound, motherboard, keyboard, mice etc. Then you should be all set. I haven't found an app or game that works under V32, but not V64. Valve even has an update for the Steam, HL2 to 64bit.

    This is the reason Vista64 is marketed as being more secure -- PatchGuard. In XP it's trivial for an app to install a driver which can run amok (Sony rootkit for example). In Vista it's harder, and Vista64 especially.

    Quote:
    I've read some that says full 64bit apps will acutally run slow, because the code is bigger and it will consume more of the processor's cache, thus slowing it down. FarCry 64 plays pretty much the same, But HL2:Lost Coast, drops from 141fps to 91fps when it upgrade to 64bit. So I dunno

    There is a give and take. Along with 8 byte memory addresses come longer jump and call instructions, so the code may get bigger. However, there are also additional registers which can be used instead of stack space so some memory usage is reduced. In any event, you can compare a E6300 vs. a E6320 if you want to see the impact of L2 cache on gaming. It will certainly not be a 50fps difference so it seems the HL2:Lost Coast 64-bit build is just not be as optimized.
  40. Quote:

    For anti-virus and firewall applications, a lot of what they do is in kernel mode drivers. These parts must be 64-bit in 64-bit Vista, so that is probably why they said they are 64-bit. The management applications can be 32-bit and still work just fine. Of course, with all 32-bit on 64-bit the compatibility layer will lower performance, although it may be imperceptible.


    x86-64 doesn't have a 32-bit compatibility layer, it has a compatibility mode. The 32-bit code runs unmodified, and is decoded just like regular 64-bit mode instructions. The main difference between compatibility mode and extended mode is that compat mode can only access the first 2^32 bytes of linear address space. Also, as you point out, kernel-mode code must be in extended mode.

    Quote:

    There is a give and take. Along with 8 byte memory addresses come longer jump and call instructions, so the code may get bigger. However, there are also additional registers which can be used instead of stack space so some memory usage is reduced. In any event, you can compare a E6300 vs. a E6320 if you want to see the impact of L2 cache on gaming. It will certainly not be a 50fps difference so it seems the HL2:Lost Coast 64-bit build is just not be as optimized.


    JMP, Jcc, and CALL instructions are not necessarily longer. x86-64 includes something called RIP-relative JMPs and CALLs, which means that the target address is the effective address if your instruction pointer and an offset, which can be a byte, word, dword, or qword. Additionally, the 1 byte opcode + rel32 or 1 byte opcode + mem32 still works in extended mode, and simply sign-extends the operand.

    So in conclusion, the I$ will be largely similar in 64-bit and 32-bit mode for games, and I suspect that the D$ will be similar as well, as games tend to be FP intensive, working with packed doubles, or double scalar values, which have the same size in extended mode as they do in protected mode.
  41. I'm not smart enough to do any re-compiling. I just popped the disk in and installed it. I was mainly pointing out that fairly old games (from 1998) worked fine under Vista and even Vista64 without anything special done to it.

    On a side note, it is fun to the run the timedemo in Quake 2, has it completes in 1.3 secs at 560fps average.
  42. Quote:
    x86-64 doesn't have a 32-bit compatibility layer, it has a compatibility mode. The 32-bit code runs unmodified, and is decoded just like regular 64-bit mode instructions. The main difference between compatibility mode and extended mode is that compat mode can only access the first 2^32 bytes of linear address space. Also, as you point out, kernel-mode code must be in extended mode.

    I was referring more to the WoW64 which is Windows's implementation of running 32-bit apps in the 64-bit OS. In that case the main differences mostly revolve around the interception of system calls (see http://blogs.msdn.com/craigmcmurtry/archive/2004/12/14/301155.aspx) and file/registry virtualization. Not every 32-bit app is virtualized in this manner, but 64-bit apps never are.

    Maybe linux handles it better, I'm not sure.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Core Processors Windows Vista