64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aether
  • Start date Start date
A

aether

Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
 
aether said:
Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
Click to expand...

Intel are releasing their 64-bit Processors into the market right now I
think..
If not visually then they are at least doing it on paper..
I'd bet your safe for 2 years using a non-64b system. I doubt you'll save
any real cost savings by building anything other than a a64 system.
 
Hey Aether, I'm getting ready to get a N4 and amd 3.2 winchester cpu...
plus just using the xp home sp2 for software....
I know MS 64bit OS will be out soon, but I see no real need to get it
even with a 64bit cpu until games start coming out running in 64bit..
that's just me.....
good luck
 
Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
Click to expand...

I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight plus
right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting 64-bit CPUs
drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support. It's quite possible
that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games, the CPU you buy today will
already be obsolete.

DS
 
David said:
I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.
Click to expand...

If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.

I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that.

Ben
 
Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
Click to expand...


When I build a new PC the old one gets used as our 2nd PC, the 2nd then
becomes the 3rd and so on... so when I built my last PC (6 months ago) I
went with AMD64 so when it becomes my 2nd PC I'll have two 64-bit
supported PCs. If you sale the box in 2 years it may be worth more if it
has a 64-bit CPU inside also.
Good luck and happy building,
Ed
 
Ed said:
On 1 Mar 2005 02:27:41 -0800, "aether" <[email protected]>
wrote:


When I build a new PC the old one gets used as our 2nd PC, the 2nd then
becomes the 3rd and so on... so when I built my last PC (6 months ago) I
went with AMD64 so when it becomes my 2nd PC I'll have two 64-bit
supported PCs. If you sale the box in 2 years it may be worth more if it
has a 64-bit CPU inside also.
Good luck and happy building,
Ed
Click to expand...


Another question: can the Abit AA8XE 'Fatal1ty' board support the new
Intel EM64T processor? It's an LGA775 based motherboard.
 
aether said:
I honestly overlooked that. Appreciate it, Ed.

I suppose that means the AA8XE is 'future proof' for a couple years.
Or, am I missing something?
Click to expand...
All boards which can use the 5xx series of intel prescott p4 cpus can
also use the emt64-capable 6xx series (with a bios update, if there's a
board which can't yell at the manufacturer until it can...).
As for future proof, this doesn't exist. With intel, it is already
certain you will need another board for the upcoming dual-core P4 cpus
(release sometime this year). With AMD, it wouldn't be that much better,
you could likely upgrade to some (expensive high-end) dual-core Athlon64
at the end of the year or so (with socket 939, nothing but new low-end
cpus are to be released for socket 754), but next year AMD will
introduce a new socket (M2, boards/cpus will support DDR2-667) too.

Roland
 
I honestly overlooked that. Appreciate it, Ed.

I suppose that means the AA8XE is 'future proof' for a couple years.
Or, am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Hopefully someone else can answer your Qs, I haven't done Intel in
years.
Good Luck,
Ed
 
Intel will be releasing their 64 bit P4's shortly. I would recommend
waiting if you want the computer to be current for several years.
 
aether said:
Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
Click to expand...

I actually don't think you will have to worry at all about whether your
processor will be obsolete by the time 64-bit software becomes more
prevalent. There used to be a time in the not-too-distant past when
processors were getting faster and faster all of the time -- those days
have now past. You won't get more than a few percentage points of
additional performance even after several years; and the processors are
way overpowered for the most part. These days they seem to compete on
"features", such as USB 2.0, or WiFi, or SATA; another feature that they
compete on is of course 64-bit.

Go ahead get the 64-bit "feature". The next feature after that might be
the dual-core feature.

Yousuf Khan
 
I read recently that MS expects the number of deployments of XP64 bit to be
in the millions in the first year.
Secondly, that MS will be aggressively moving apps it markets over to 64bit.
IE 64 bit is the future, it is here in h/w and the s/w is coming.

S/W vendors that do not move across quickly will get lost in the rush so
expect some new Big Names. H/W vendors that do not provide 64 bit drivers
promptly will be in the shyte. The good thing about the AMD 64 bit
implementation is the ability to run 32 bit systems. The bad thing about it
is the ability to run 32 bit systems.

If you need a system Now then buy what you can Now. The old formular of 1
step down from the best has always worked well for me IE a Winchester 3500
on an SLI motherboard would be a good bet. (There used to be 1 very sharp
price increment between fastest and 2nd fastet).

The "best" system now tends to last the longest into the future - so long as
the componentry is good.

- Tim
 
Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.

Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
available.

In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
EM64T' -- right?
 
Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.

Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
available.

In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
EM64T' -- right?
Click to expand...


I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64.
When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and
32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under a
32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit
applications and operating systems.

Ed
 
Ed said:
I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64.
When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and
32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under a
32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit
applications and operating systems.

Ed
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the Intel offerings, but the AMD 64bit chips do not
experience performance degradation when executing 32bit code. If the new
Xeon/P4 chips will be anything like the Itanum implimenations, you can
expect horrific 32bit performance. ( 32cpu cycles to execute 1 32bit
instruction, as opposed to the native 64bit RISC implimenation where its
nearly a 1:1 ration of clock cycle to instruction execution for native 64bit
code).

I have been working with the 64bit Itanium 2 systems from HP ( entry,
midlevel, and superdomes) ... i like the systems, but not a fan of the lack
of 32bit performance, since nearly every 64bit app has 32bit code in it
somewhere. I have been working with 2003 enterprise IA64 and Datacenter
IA64. Havent been able to play with the enterprise linux platforms yet.

- NuTs
 
NuTCrAcKeR said:
I am not sure about the Intel offerings, but the AMD 64bit chips do not
experience performance degradation when executing 32bit code. If the new
Xeon/P4 chips will be anything like the Itanum implimenations, you can
expect horrific 32bit performance. ( 32cpu cycles to execute 1 32bit
instruction, as opposed to the native 64bit RISC implimenation where its
nearly a 1:1 ration of clock cycle to instruction execution for native
64bit code).

I have been working with the 64bit Itanium 2 systems from HP ( entry,
midlevel, and superdomes) ... i like the systems, but not a fan of the
lack of 32bit performance, since nearly every 64bit app has 32bit code
in it somewhere. I have been working with 2003 enterprise IA64 and
Datacenter IA64. Havent been able to play with the enterprise linux
platforms yet.
Click to expand...
Dead right.
I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large
application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the
source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application,
but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64,
I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and
get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!.
Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some
things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real
'killer' for 90% of users.

Best Wishes
 
Dead right.
I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large
application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the
source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application,
but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64,
I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and
get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!.
Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some
things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real
'killer' for 90% of users.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the Itanium processors, which are 64-bit processors, with
the new 64-bit Pentium processors, which are 32-bit processors that also
perform 64-bit operations natively. Itanium processors do not perform 32-bit
operations as quickly as they perform 64-bit operations. 32-bit processors
with 64-bit extensions should be essentially equally fast at both (depending
upon how you measure).

DS
 
Back
Top