school

  • Thread starter Thread starter anubis
  • Start date Start date
A

anubis

Do ypu know any site that has comparison of 32-bit and 64-bit processors or
anything on 64-bit processors ?

Thanks
 
Do ypu know any site that has comparison of 32-bit and 64-bit processors or
anything on 64-bit processors ?
Click to expand...

Those comparisons compare 32-bit and 64-bit cpus as "32-bit
processors" for 32-bit worktasks, 32-bit software and 32-bit OSes.

Those sites with own agendas on the matter, will also produce and
spoon feed you a lot of 'opinions', 'views', "conclusions" and other
manure.

I haven't seen too much outrageous disinformation on hardware sites
about 64-bitness, but it's more common than not in PC-rags.

The things you need to know:

Q: Why would we need a 64-bit processor?
A: In order to be able to run 64-bit software.

Q: Do you need a 64-bit OS to run 64-bit applications?
A: Yes. Due to the way hardware is handled in our modern days, there
won't be the option of launching a 64-bit app in DOS mode, as were the
case with 32-bit DOS games. It has to run under an OS.
Neither is it possible to even imagine some kind of 'emulator' running
64-bit apps under a 32-bit OS, because of much the same reasons you
can't ever fit a Chevrolet Caprice in your pocket.

Q: Are there many 64-bit apps around?
A: No, but there can't really be, until there's 64-bit PCs out there
on the market, ready to run them. Intel introduced 32-bit mode with
the '386 long time ago. But it really wasn't used as 32-bit much,
until Win95 and Linux came along much later. But there wouldn't have
been any Win95 or Linux, without 32-bit cpus out there, ready to run
them.

Q: Is there any 64-bit OS available?
A: Yes, there's a beta version of WindowsXP64, that works pretty ok.
And there's Linux of course.

Q: Why should anyone buy a 64-bit processor now then?
A: For right now, primarily as a fast 32-bit cpu, with a 32-bit OS.
Same as '386 and '486, in the old days, which were mostly used as fast
16-bit cpus.
But this time, migration could be much faster. Reason is need. The
number of developers for the iAMD'86-64 ISA passed 1000, on the 11 of
February '04. Games, Tech/Engineering, 3D modeling and various
Cinematic applications will lead the way.

Q: Is 64-bit about processing larger/wider chunks of data at time,
thus increasing performance?
A: - Oh NO! - Not at all! No matter how many times this bullshit is
repeated by PC-rags, journalists, analysts or whatever authorities
people tend to trust. - This is just bullshit and just something the
clueless assume. - WRONGLY!
Data widths and paths are exactly the same as in 32-bit cpus today.
Character is 8bit or 16bit (unicode).
Integer still defaults to 32 bit, even if integer registers are now
64bit wide.
Fp is still 32bit and 64bit (double precision).
Vectors also remain, for now, 64 and 128bit.
Now, on the other hand: The Instructions' address fields, used to
refer to location of data, is 64bit instead of 32bit. This is the
bloody difference!

Q: But 64-bit will be faster, right?
A: Yes, somewhat faster.

Q: But why then?
A: Because new addressing needs a new ISA. Since we have to define a
new instruction set anyway, might as well make it a little bit more
modern, clever and rational than Intel's old '86 ISA. So we've got
more flexible registers, more of them, and instructions making use of
them. In 64-bit mode that is. That's why it will be faster.

Q: Is that why 64-bit cpus run 32-bit code faster?
A: No, not at all. 32-bit applications run on 64-bit processors just
like on 32-bit processors, with all the same limitations. The reason
AMD's 64-bit cpus are so fast, even on 32-bit mode, is that they're a
new generation of processor technology, K8 core, that is more
efficient and higher performing. Again it's analogous to the old '386
and '486 that were faster than '286 in 16-bit mode, for exactly the
same reason.

Q: Will we need 64-bit applications then, if it's only "somewhat"
faster?
A: - Oh, hell YES!
There's a 2GB memory limit imposed on 32-bit apps! This is not just a
limit on ram, it's the absolute limit of the virtual memory model
available to an app. So it's quite serious. Remember, that virtual
memory map is highly fragmented, so a 32-bit Windows app crashes
already at 1.5 - 1.7GB.
For all the bullshit from Intel and the likes of tomshardware,
pretending 32-64 bits is no issue, the harsh truth is that PC
computing will go nowhere AT ALL, from where it is today, on 32 bits.
We absolutely NEED 64-bit to move on!
Consider the old 640KB limit of 8086. This is where we are again
today.

Q: But the PC managed to get by with Windows16 for many years, while
Mac and others were 32-bit. Won't it be the same this time?
A: No. The 16-32 bit migration and 32-64 bit migration are two
completely different aspects of addressing technology. 16-32 bits were
about moving from a paged addressing model to a flat linear 32-bit
memory model. While 16-bit computing was contorted, slow and buggy, it
could well perform the type of tasks that were feasible on the amounts
of RAM that were affordable in those days. We're talking about 2 -
32MB.
This is not the case now. Both 32 and 64 bit are linear addressing.
This time it's about the size of the memory model. And while you could
have a 16-bit Photoshop on Windows, even while a 32-bit version
performed much better on a Mac, that won't be the case with 32/64 bit.
There is no chance of a 32-bit app being able to perform the new kinds
of tasks that 64-bit computing will bring.

Q: When are we ready to migrate to 64-bits?
A: - Look, we still need the apps to make use of it, ok? But in
general terms, like yesterday. We're late. For all their market
bullshit again, protecting their P4s, Intel originally intended the
desktop to migrate in like 2002. But they didn't get their cpu stuff
together (Itanium) and got caught up in a cpu war with AMD. Now we
will migrate while banging our heads into the 2GB barrier, rather than
before, in good time and comfort.

Q: But why would we need all that memory. Isn't it just for bloatware?
A: No. Explained in detail it goes like this:
The software and forms of use of the PC, that are available at any
given time, are defined by memory needed for models/objects being
handled.
Thus, simple writing, editing, calculating could be done on a 16-64KB
CP/M text only display 8-bit PC.
There were lots of people around at the time who figured 128KB and 8
bits were enough for all PC use forever. But that is just because they
couldn't fit into their mind to use computers as WYSIWYG publishing
tools. Or editing pictures. (-"Photographs in a computer?! - Ho, ho it
would need like a MEGABYTE ram for graphics! - Ha! Impossible!")
Creating/editing music and sound. Rendering realistic images. Editing
video. Solid modeling. Physics simulations. Voxel handling/displaying
(Adam & Eve, CAT-scan etc).
All these new uses for the computer came about as the necessary
amounts of memory became available.
So it's ultimately the price of RAM and harddrives that dictates what
we will use a computer for!
So, take a look at that limit of about 1.5GB and compare to prices on
RAM and capacity of harddrives. And compare it to how much memory
(Including swap! It's important to understand that it's about the size
of the virtual map! Not just ram!) you yourself tend to use today. And
by all means, how much recent games require. Then, looking backwards
for historical guidance, try figure where we will be in 6-12 months!
There is probably not any serious attempt at an ambitious FPS game,
after Halflife and Doom3, existing in planning at all, that will not
be 64-bit. 'Unreal Tournament 2004' is 64-bit, so is 'Americas Army'.
And the Unreal developers have said they will never do a strictly
32-bit game again, though they might release crippled 32-bit editions.

Q: If I bought an AthlonXP 2600+, will it be obsolete?
A: Of course it will, ...eventually. As will an Athlon64.
AMD 32-bit is soo cheap now, there's good opportunities to take
advantage of it. You can build very cheap cpu-mobo-ram upgrades. Mobo,
512MB and XP2200-2400 all under $200.
That's so cheap, there's no real need to worry about having to upgrade
again.
And they're ok. There's mostly no big subjective difference between
3000+ and 2200+. Running heavy technical working apps, that computes
for hours, there's a big difference. And since that would probably be
work too, it's also highly significant. But for normal use and games,
even a 2200 does pretty OK. With a good videoboard, there's nothing
contemporary they won't run in comfort.

Q: When should I get a 64-bit system?
A: Well, it's up to you.
One advantage of a 64-bit system is that it will eventually be useful
for running 64-bit apps.
Still, maybe one should consider this as a question of what level of
32-bit performance you'd like to pay for. Just like any other ordinary
PC purchase.
It's not like you're really paying anything extra or premium prices
for 64-bitness. An Athlon64 2800+ is only $173. An Asrock SIS755 mobo
to go with that, is only $88. So it's like $261 for mobo and cpu.
Maybe $320-$380 with ram. Compares nicely to high performance 32-bit
cpus. Probably mostly leaves them behind as well, even on 32-bit.
But if that's not in your budget, relax and stick to lesser 32 bits,
there will be plenty of opportunities to buy 64-bit computers in the
future.

ancra
 
Back
Top