The 64-bit Challenge!

Here is a challenge to anyone who believes that 64-bit is faster than 32-bit. Prove which of these two numbers is <b>faster</b><font color=green>*</font color=green>:
000,000,000,004,294,967,295
018,446,744,073,709,551,615


<font color=green>*</font color=green> = Not higher, not lower, not skinnier, not uglier, not louder, not sillier, just <b>faster</b>.

<pre><A HREF="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030905" target="_new"><font color=black>People don't understand how hard being a dark god can be. - Hastur</font color=black></A></pre><p>

Erm... What?...

<font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles

Shouldn't that be:

11111111111111111111111111111111

vs.

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

The first is clearly faster.

I'm pretty sure numbers by themselves are neither fast nor slow. However I think the question should be:
"True or False? 4,294,967,295 + 1 is faster on a 64-bit capable processor."


So, now that I have the question, does anyone know what the answer is?

"This space for rent"

What do you think MMX was invented for? 64-bit additions already exist for a long time.

Yes, a Pentium is a 32-bit processor, but it does have 64-bit and 128-bit registers! The only thing it can't do is use a 64-bit address. But as long as applications don't use 4 GB <b>each</b>, there is no need for it.

It’s ugly but

18,446,744,073,709,551,615=0xffffffffffffffff contains 64 true conditions that can be loaded in one operation, operated on by (and, or, xor, nor) in one operation and tested in one operation.

While

4,294,967,295=0xffffffff contains only 32 true conditions.

It may be a drop in the bucket but you can fill a bucket with a lot of drops.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...