Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

64-bit or 32-bit?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 22, 2003 12:12:18 AM

In my oppinion most desktops will not need any more than 4GB of RAM for the next couple of years. As 4GB of Ram is the current limit for 32-bit processors, why would desktop users want a 64-bit system?

I´ve even heard that 64-bit OS, while being able to run 32-bit apps, won´t be able to run 16-bit apps, is that right?

---

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new"> My System </A>

More about : bit bit

July 22, 2003 12:14:09 AM

That only applies to AMD's 64-bit chips and itanium, all other 64-bit chips coming out dont have 32-bit support.

How the heck uses 16-bit programs anymore? I would assume if its compatable with 32 it should be compatable with 16
July 22, 2003 12:20:15 AM

Quote:
That only applies to AMD's 64-bit chips and itanium, all other 64-bit chips coming out dont have 32-bit support.

Are you imlying that the IA64 has 32bit support? Because it does not.



There is no smell better than fried silicon :evil: 
Related resources
July 22, 2003 12:56:27 AM

Indeed, Itanium can only emulate 32-bit execution. It does not have the hardware required to run 32-bit code like Opteron does; instead, it's something completely different.

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
July 22, 2003 2:46:27 AM

The PPC970 is a perfect ISA extension to the 32-bit PPC ISA that the Motorola 74xx series (the G4 series) uses. It can run both 32-bit PPC code and 64-bit PPC code as well as AltiVec code.
Itanium includes a hardware x86 (IA-32 compatible) decoder and uses the IA-64 ISA for 64-bit operation. The Opteron is an extension to IA-32 allowing 64-bit operation using x86-style instructions.

There's more to an ISA than just "32-bit" and "64-bit".

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
July 22, 2003 8:08:24 AM

Then you won´t even be able to run your current games, games that you paid good money to get. I know there will be new games, and hopefully better games with 64-bit support, but what about the classics?

I might be missing something, but as far as I see, a high-end 32-bit system will perform aswell as a 64-bit platform, aslong as you´re below that 4GB memory, and the 32-bit system will be alot cheaper. Why would desktop users get a 64-bit CPU, and not a high-end 32-bit, atleast for the next 2-3 years, when the requirements aren´t there at all?

---

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/modules.php?name=Forums&..." target="_new"> My System </A>
July 22, 2003 8:58:10 AM

this year may be a good time to start shifting from 32-bit to 64-bit and wait for a couple of years till this matures in the desktop world. I've heard that 64-bit computing improves the graphics performance a lot.

The Ultimate Video Processor:
GeForceFX + Radeon + Parhelia = "Radeohelia FX"
July 22, 2003 1:36:38 PM

You -can- install more than 4 GB of RAM on a 32-bit system! It's just that every application on its own can't use more than 4 GB of addressing space (limited to 2 GB by Windows). Internally the CPU uses 48-bit addresses which means you theoretically could install up to 65 Terabyte of RAM, if your motherboard and operating system supported it.
July 22, 2003 1:40:45 PM

BTW, I would wait for Intel's 64-bit processor,then make a choise. Chances are that it won't be 100% compatible with AA-64...
July 22, 2003 2:20:56 PM

From the article
Quote:

Complex engineering and scientific models and simulations.
* Digital content such as 3-D animation and graphics.
* E-government and other Web-based processes.
* Financial transactions that require high calculation speeds and analytical capabilities.
* Data warehouses and high-volume databases.
* Genomics research and other bio-simulations.
* Computer-aided design.

Which of the above really benefits the home user?
The only thing I can see there is the "Digital Content";
Much of the home market is driven by gaming and home electronics interfaces (like video editing). I doubt the home CAD user really needs the 64 bit power.
The rest of the apps are more in the perview of business.

Let's assume that this info is accurate and that no killer app will come along that really needs the 64 bit power. If this is true then you/we must ask ourselves is there enough benefit in the 64bit <font color=black> HOME </font color=black> processor to justify buying it?



The loving are the daring!
July 22, 2003 4:36:36 PM

IMO i wouldn't buy a 64 bit system for at least a couple years. At least not untill Intel's chips are out and all of thier bugs are fixed...as i am sure there will be many.

I am a second Generation buy usually, but with out the ppl who support the 1st generation products, 2nd generations eather come much later, or not at all.

In this case we all know that 64 bit will come, and stay.

As for the home user, not much realy is to be benifited there...right now. But of coarse thats because we are only talking about the Neer future.

It would be foolish to think that in 5-10 years that home users would still be buying 32bit machines because 64 bit would still not be compatable.

So question is when will all procossor companies finally have a fully compatible chip. That when the compition realy starts. Thats when prices drop. Thats when ppl will begin to switch over.

Thats when i buy.

mind you, I am still mighty intersted(not meaning i would buy) in the G5. It's too bad there is no way of getting a REAL benchmarking done on them here. there just seems to be Too many Bias opinions.



ASUS P4S8X - P4 2.4B - 2 x 512M DDR333 - ATI 9500 Pro(Sapphire) - WD 80G HD (8M Buffer) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW - Iomega Zip 250 int.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by cdpage on 07/22/03 12:43 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!