Is a 64 bit processor a fad or the future ?

[leegold]

Could somebody explain the advantages or why I
would want to get a 64 bit cpu and motherboard.
I see AMD has them. My interest is that I want to build
a PC that will not be obsolete for as long as possible.
I understand that moving bigger chunks of data is faster.
But beyound that is this a fad or, in a few yrs. will 64 bit
be the norm.? What are the pros and cons of building a 64 bit
box today?

Thanks,
Lee G.

 

[S.SubZero]

64bit computing is hardly something to call a "fad".. We aren't talking
about bell bottom jeans or leisure suits here. 64bit computing is
evolutionary, and inevitable. Early adopters will pay a premium for little
benefit, but they help drive the market. And last I heard those processors
weren't too bad even doing 32bit stuff.

 

[Ancra]

Could somebody explain the advantages or why I
would want to get a 64 bit cpu and motherboard.
I see AMD has them. My interest is that I want to build
a PC that will not be obsolete for as long as possible.
I understand that moving bigger chunks of data is faster.
But beyound that is this a fad or, in a few yrs. will 64 bit
be the norm.? What are the pros and cons of building a 64 bit
box today?

First of all, 64-bit computing requires 64-bit apps and a 64-bit OS.

Shortterm pros are that they are damn fast as 32-bit cpus as well, and
doesn't come at higher cost than Intel 32-bit topline.
And when WindowsXP86-64 and 64drivers become mature, you can possibly
play some 64games, like unreal3, in a not too far off future.

Cons are, that about that time, others will start to buy 64-bit
systems that are like 6 months more mature. My first 64-bit box will
be as cheap as I can get it. And it will be cheaper in 6 months.

If you choose to run a 64-bit OS, you can run 32-bit and 64-bit
applications. But not old 16-bit.
To run 16-bit applications on the Athlon64, you need to run a 32-bit
OS, which can't run 64-bit apps of course.

Why 64bit: Contrary to the natural assumptions of "bigger chunks of
data is faster", that is not it. That issue is already being dealt
with, from the original Pentium onwards. Our '32-bit' cpus already
have 64-bit data bus, and perform operations on up to 128 bit long
data in 128 bit wide registers (SSE2). And the Athlon64 still defaults
to 32-bit integers (since 32-bit is so useful). So understanding
64-bit in general terms of width, is misleading.

The 32-bit problem is the apps linear address space, which is limited
to (in Windows) 2GB. Removing this limitation, requires an entirely
new instruction set architecture, featuring longer (64) addressfield
for the instructions. Meaning a new cpu.

The longer address is the main thing. But since you're introducing a
new instruction set anyway, why don't do it differently, smarter, as
well? That's where a large part of the 64-bit performance increase
will come from. In 64-bit mode, the x86-64 has twice as many, twice as
wide registers as in 32-bit mode. Also, the cpus memory management,
converting virtual addresses to effective, is supposed to be faster.


ancra

 

[Howard]

I am no expert by far....but I just finished building a PC and did not
go 64 bit, nor would I in at least the next year or so. I suspect the
main advantages will be seen in uses like games, video editing and
Photoshop where advantages would be had in the ability to use way more
RAM and process data faster.

Why not build one now. No OS yet...OK, well, it is apparently in beta
testing but who knows when it will actually be released, who knows
when the version with most of the bugs worked out will be released,
where are you going to get 64 bit OS drivers from...I remember when I
changed to XP initially many devices had no available drivers, and
when are the 64 bit applications going to be available. That is not
to say that you can't utilize the 32 bit abilities of a 64 bit
chip...but you still need to pony up the money for the chip now.

Just my opinion and, believe me, I am no expert.

Howard

 

[Al Dykes]

64bit computing is hardly something to call a "fad".. We aren't talking
about bell bottom jeans or leisure suits here. 64bit computing is
evolutionary, and inevitable. Early adopters will pay a premium for little
benefit, but they help drive the market. And last I heard those processors
weren't too bad even doing 32bit stuff.

The early adapters are near retirement by now. These were guys in
suits with big budgets in the late 80's. It's a fad that's been in
heavy duty use for at least 15 years. In the big computer world it's
common to have more than 32 bits (4GB) of physical memory on the
machine and addressing when phy mem >> address space is ugly and
inefficient. Very large database servers are probably the most obvious
general purpose application that needs big address spaces.

Many business apps and most scientific apps have been ported to 64
bits ages ago (Microsoft aside.) As soon as a new 64 bit system hits
the street some users can run their apps right out of the box.

The discussion here is about homebuilt desktop computers. I'm told
that there are voice recognition algorithms using 64 bit address space
that work much better than anything we've seen so far. I can't name
one but I'm told that we will see some new games that need 64 bits.

 

[\(\) |V| 3 G A]

i totally agree howard. if i was buying now, i`d go 32bit.
64bit *AT THE MOMENT* is somewhat a con. it's just not worth it. winXP is
32bit, and theres no real 64bit app's out yet.

however, 64bit chips are faster than equiv. 32bit cpu.

wait untill 64bit becomes the norm. then buy, because ibet by the time 64bit
programs come in force (i`m guessing mid-late 2005 - Win longhorn is due
late2004/early 2005) your cpu will be way out of date.

tim