64-Bit and Dual Core Mobile Processors Guide and Which to Buy

INTRODUCTION

This is the big debate right now. It's not about shader models. It's not about battery life. It's about 64-bit and dual core. These are the big buzz words being thrown around, but what do they mean? The salesman at the store tries to sell you a Turion 64 notebook because "this processor is 64-bit!" Well what the heck is that? "This is a Core Duo! It has two cores?" So that's like...having two processors, right? So that's twice as fast?

Notebook users right now are in the unique position of only being allowed to have one or the other, a problem which desktop users handily avoided with Intel and AMD rushing out the Pentium D and the Athlon 64 X2, neither of which has bothered to grace the notebook platform except in twelve pound land monsters. So the question of "how can I be future proof?" effectively has two answers, both simultaneously correct and incorrect.

I hope this article will shed some light on what each of these buzzwords means, and which capability you should care more about. It is without a doubt - and my editor even cautioned me about this - that this will spark fevered, possibly angry debate in the responses. I sincerely hope and expect that the debate will serve to further educate us. I'm certain it will also serve to prove how convoluted and swingy this debate is, too.

64-BIT

What does 64-bit mean? Processors in the consumer market prior to AMD's Athlon 64 and Intel's more recent Pentium 4 revisions were 32-bit processors. Well, double is better, right?

Let's just get that mentality out of our heads right now. More does not necessarily equate to better. In computers, twice doesn't mean twice as fast. Two graphics processors don't make your games run 100% faster, two processors don't make your programs run 100% faster, and 64-bit instead of 32-bit doesn't make your system run 100% faster.

The best analogy to make regarding 64-bit is effectively doubling the width of a road. If a 32-bit processor (existing Intel notebook processors, some AMD Sempron notebook processors) has a lane about as wide as a bike, that basically means you can't drive a car on it. The car just won't fit through the door. So you can move bike-sized data through it. 64-bit makes the lane wide enough to fit a car. So while your bike could bring one person through the gate, the car can bring two.

64-bit also allows for calculations with greater precision and improves the amount of memory your system can address, raising the limit from 4GB to well into the terabytes. You will never need that much RAM, for at least another year and a half. (That's a joke, folks, it'll be a little while before technology can even supply us with that much RAM. Relax, your 512MB is just fine.) What the greater precision means to you, though, is that instead of fitting two people through the gate, it can now also fit one big fat guy.

Keep in mind, though, that nothing ever scales linearly with computers. While it's theoretically possible for instructions to combine when they're sent through the processor, it's worth noting that there's time that needs to be spent combining then decombining those instructions to begin with.

Here's the catch: existing programs by and large only need the bike-sized gate (that's 32-bit for those getting slightly confused by the analogy). They only use it because it's all that's ever been. Windows XP and its predecessors through 95 were all 32-bit operating systems, and the applications written for them were only 32-bit. And though there's a 64-bit version of Windows XP that allows programs to use that wider gate, it's a kludge; the operating system is still largely 32-bit and has serious compatibility problems across the board. It sees minimal support from hardware and software vendors alike, and is borderline worthless to the average user.

64-bit processors have been on the market for a few years now, with AMD pioneering them on the desktop with the Athlon 64.

Here are the processors that are able to run in 64-bit mode:

• AMD Athlon 64
• AMD Mobile Athlon 64
• AMD Turion 64
• AMD Sempron (Only some; varies between systems and is generally rarely 64-bit capable.)
• Intel Pentium 4 6xx Series and Higher

Assume any desktop processor in one of those big hulking desktop replacement systems is 64-bit (unless it's a Pentium 4 5xx series).

DUAL CORE

Dual core sounds flashy. Sounds huge. What it basically amounts to is having two processors in one. The trick is that they both use the same gate and address the same memory. Processors like the Core Duo are also substantially more complex, incorporating interesting technologies that make it less two separate processors and more a multi-threaded processor.

Okay, so what the heck does multi-threaded mean?

Basically, programs are a series of instructions that run single file through your processor, in what's called a thread. But if a processor has multiple cores, that means it can process multiple threads simultaneously.

There's a catch to this, too, though. Most applications, at least on a consumer level, aren't written to run in multiple threads. So while a dual core processor can smooth your computing experience out by running two different programs simultaneously instead of bogging up a single core by having to make those programs take turns going through, it doesn't offer much to speed up existing programs.

That said, with the advent of dual core on the desktop and now the Core Duo in notebooks, more and more programs are being programmed/patched to take advantage of multi-threading. Quake IV, for example, sees a notable performance increase on dual core processors. And many professional grade programs, particularly multimedia programs, enjoy performance benefits from having multiple cores. Video rendering, for example, can be substantially sped up on a dual core processor.

Dual core processors and parallelism (running threads simultaneously instead of sequentially) are the big thing for chip manufacturers right now since they've basically hit a wall with clock speeds and heat envelopes, and they're virtually all that's on the map for mainstream processors from either vendor in the future.

Here are the dual core processors available:

• Intel Core Duo

What? That's it? Yeah, barring Athlon 64 X2s and Pentium D XEs making it into hulking desktop replacement systems, that's it for now.

As a sidenote, what's worth mentioning is that most Intel Pentium 4 processors produced these days have a feature called "Hyper-Threading" which basically emulates having two cores on one die. Note, however, that it EMULATES. It doesn't actually have two cores, and because of this, performance benefits are modest at best. Hyper-Threading tends to smooth out your computing experience more than authentically improve performance, and in some cases (often gaming) has been known to have a small impact on performance. Because of its questionable utility, Hyper-Threading can be disabled.

WINDOWS VISTA

Most people are concerned about compatibility with Windows Vista and I don't blame them. This is rumor control, here are the facts:

Microsoft is producing multiple versions of Windows Vista, and it's my understanding that the lower class ones will be 32-bit compatible. That's really the only way I can describe 32-bit versions, too: "lower class." While not entirely accurate - these will be fully-featured operating systems - word on the street is these versions will be missing some small features that the 64-bit versions will have. These are features I suspect most common users won't ever see or care about, similar to the difference between Windows XP Home and XP Professional.

That said, while Windows XP Professional 64-Bit Edition was a miserable kludge, Windows Vista will be the authentic 64-bit McCoy.

This has, in my estimation, a major impact on computing. Why? Because while the vast majority of notebook users are still running 32-bit processors (read: we all went out and bought Pentium Ms because they are the awesome), desktops have dominated the market until only recently, and a large majority of desktops sold in the past couple of years have had 64-bit processors. More than that, the steadily increasing encroachment of AMD Turion 64 on the notebook market creates a substantial number of 64-bit capable notebook users as well.

Because of the substantial number of users that will have 64-bit capable systems running 64-bit versions of Windows Vista (which you can be certain will be packed into capable computers upon release), it's safe to say that more software vendors will start taking advantage of a ready and available platform. And while this is likely to be a gradual change, I suspect that Windows Vista is going to be the gunshot that starts the race moving.

Keep in mind this is speculation, but I think the case is there.

But what do dual core processors mean to Windows Vista? Unfortunately, not a whole lot more than Windows XP. While it's safe to assume Windows Vista will be better optimized to take advantage of multiple cores, this isn't a huge change.

Between dual core and 64-bit, it is in my estimation that 64-bit will be more relevant to Windows Vista, but please note that your existing 32-bit processor will certainly run it just fine, just not the same version 64-bit users will be running. Indeed, the 64-bit users may not see real benefits for a while, still. Like I said before, this is largely speculation. The ultimate point, however, is that a substantial 64-bit capable user base will be there, and software vendors love having a guaranteed platform.

WHEN CAN I GET BOTH IN MY NOTEBOOK?

Soon. Very soon, in fact. AMD has announced the Turion 64 X2 will be available in the second quarter of 2006 - that's mighty close, isn't it?

Unfortunately, Intel has pushed the next Core Duo - utilizing the codenamed Merom core - until at least September of this year. Worse still, while before 64-bit capability was pretty much pronounced and guaranteed, Intel has become less consistent with announcing it in Merom. While I would expect it, I can't 100% guarantee it, so don't put all your eggs in that basket.

Either way, the Turion 64 X2 will be available in not too long, and hopefully it will offer decent battery life and won't suffer early production problems the same way the Turion 64 did.

How will the Turion 64 X2 compare to existing Core Duos? Unless AMD can optimize their power consumption the way Intel did with the Core Duo, it's pretty much going to look like this: you want dual core and 64-bit, you buy a Turion 64 X2. You want dual core and battery life, you buy a Core Duo.

BUT WHAT IF I NEED TO BUY A NOTEBOOK RIGHT NOW?

Then I don't envy you.

Honestly, and I'm sure I'm going to take some heat for saying this: it's not worth buying a Pentium M notebook anymore. For casual computing, of course, even going all the way down to Celeron M and Sempron has been alright, but this article isn't really for the family members that just want to get on Yahoo! or PopCap and check their e-mail. You're planning to actually push your system.

If you want battery life, you're buying a Centrino Duo notebook, and only in extenuating circumstances (i.e. the ultraportables) do you get a Pentium M. If you want dual core, you're buying a Centrino Duo.

But if you're concerned with 64-bit processing, you're buying a Turion 64 or Athlon 64 notebook.

Personally? I think you need one or the other. So the big question is: which one do you pick?

Dual core offers immediate benefits. Multi-threaded software exists in limited numbers, but dual core processing also smooths out existing software and can make your computer feel a bit snappier.

64-bit processing is still a bit of an unknown. The foundation exists for it, but the software isn't there. Yet. And the thing is, that while multi-threading can't really obsolete single-threading (you can always just sequence the instructions into a single thread), 64-bit CAN obsolete 32-bit processing.

If I had to make an ultimate suggestion, I would suggest a 64-bit capable notebook, but note that it's a tenuous suggestion, and your needs may differ.

CONCLUSION

As you can see, this turns out to be a fairly complicated subject. Desktop users have it on easy street, but those of us in the notebook forum have a hard choice ahead of us. I think the important question to ask yourself at this juncture is:

"How long am I planning to use this notebook?"

If it's more than two years, I'd suggest a 64-bit capable notebook. If not, you'll be refreshing your notebook before 64-bit computing becomes a "yes" instead of a "maybe" and you'll be able to have both.

What's also important to keep in mind is that being on a 32-bit system isn't necessarily going to leave you out of luck. The change isn't going to be an overnight one, it's going to be a fairly gradual one. You WILL get some longevity out of it, it's just that some newer programs won't run on it. It's going to depend on what you need to run.

Again, 64-bit computing is inevitable, but the change will be gradual, so don't let this article totally put the fear of God in you. Likewise, dual core offers immediate benefits, and it IS the future (look at either chip manufacturer's roadmaps), but in terms of actually running programs I don't foresee it obsoleting single core, and single core processors will continue to be produced for some time (see: Intel's Celeron plans, AMD's Sempron plans).

Either way, with these two big transitions in the computing industry, it's a very exciting time to be an enthusiast, and in a few months AMD is going to help clear this headache, with Intel following suit. If you can wait, do so. Otherwise, I hope this article has helped you make an informed decision on your next computing purchase.

Because how long does any one of us really keep a computer before we go out and buy something new and shiny anyhow?

 

And just to clarify, as of yesterday (prior to Pulp writing this article) we're pretty sure AMD will release a dual core 64-bit processor (Turion X2) around May 9th. Now, when that processor will show up in notebooks in any type of quantity is unknown so this guide still stands as a great way to understand the benefit of each platform type and what you lose/gain with each. Thanks for putting things in more layman like terms Pulp -- you're the king of that.

 

Wow!
Great article!

 

Nice article. Should be helpful to those who are having hard time deciding what to get or where to buy now or wait.

"Plan for the future but not at the expense of the present"-ChazMan421

 

Great article!

 

Awesome Article.
I was about to ask the questions that are answered here

 

Reallly good article, i specially liked the part that 64 bit CAN obsolete the 32 bit.

I think this will silence some people in this forum that were saying that dual core is more important than 64 bit, and that dual core is the future proof! (ridiculous).

Thanks for your article.

 

To: pulp, about vista:

beta 1 and ctp are 32bit. In fact i'm running beta 1 on virtual pc with specs - 300mb ram, iP4 2.4GHz, 16gb hdd, 4mb video... It runs, slow, but it runs! And with aero glass interface.

 

I'd put a longer horizon on that than 2 years. I think that it will be 5+ years before there is some software that will not be available in a 32-bit flavor. No one wants to kill their market too soon, so while in ~2 years (if not sooner) you will see a lot more home focused software optimized for 64-bit computing, starting with things that like to work in big chunks of data, e.g. video processing, gaming, I don't foresee them being 64-bit only, just optimized.

Where you may see some of the 32-bit software die off sooner than in five years would be in big-iron type tasks like databases, genome processing, weather simulation; but most users won't be running those on their laptops any time soon.

That being said, I agree that in the long run, if you needed a laptop today and you wanted to future-proof it as much as possible, 64-bit>dual core. But let's be honest, with the continuous dropping in notebook and computer prices, fewer and fewer users will keep a laptop long enough for it to matter.

P.S. Thanks for the great article Pulp!

 

excellent! you honestly and tactfully didn't leave anybody behind...and that takes mad editorial skills! it's a great article for those of us who are/were forced into buying a new rig now due to circumstances beyond our control. yes, an unenviable position... but like i say, New Every Two!

 

Terrific article! Very comprehensive and lucid.

 

Great article, pretty much as unbias as anyone can get on this topic, cheers.

 

Im confused, is Dell not already offering the Intel Core Duo in 2 of their laptops as we speak. Did I read in this article that its not avail till September?

sorry if Im just being blind or clueless. Im at work and reading this stuff fast.


dave

 

Dell is offering the Core Duo in their notebooks as just about every other manufacturer is. But it is not Dual Core 64-bit. Intel will not release a dual core 64-bit until probably October/November -- possibly later. So no manufacturer making Intel based notebooks will have a dual core 64-bit machine until end of 2006 or early 2007.

 

thanks. Im just getting back into all this as its been a couple years and Im starting to think of getting a new laptop. Trying to catch up on where all the technology is.

 

Great article. It cleared some things up and makes me feel better about ordering a turion 64 instead of a single core pentium m.

 

a great article. However i noticed two flaws (or mistakes)
you mention
"64-bit also allows for calculations with greater precision"
this is simply not true. Everything that is done in 64bit CAN be done in 32bit. it just might take longer (as it's a narrower road )
it's all up to the programmer.
Now if you're implying that you can get greater precision due to terabytes of ran, then i suppose that's true, for jumbo size calculations that NASA might do, but it shouldn't affect us.

you also mention
"a large majority of desktops sold in the past couple of years have had 64-bit processors"

this is also not true.
We all know that intel has most of the market share, and their Pentium D 6xx are failry recent. The last couple of years?...certainly not...the last year?.. maybe

other than that, great article, and insightful, as i agree that cual cores won't make single cores as obselete as 64bit will to 32bit

 

Great read, thanks for submitting that. There have been a lot of questions regarding dual-core vs. 64-bit. I'd say your article is on par with Extremetech. Nice!

Chaz

 

This IS true. Intel has been selling 64-bit Pentium 4 processors for at least two years, and has been selling 64-bit Celerons for at least the past year.

Pentium 4 6xx series processors are 64-bit enabled, as well as Pentium 4 5x1 series processors. Socket 775 Celeron Ds are also 64-bit enabled.

AMD's Athlon 64s go without saying, and modern Semprons are 64-bit enabled.

 

great article. but this all assumes you're using windows. if you're considering linux (and i think it's becoming more and more of an option not just for desktops), you have an operating system that has supported x86-64 for quite some time.
thus, most applications run natively on x64. and some run much faster on 64 bit (e.g., Matlab).

but i completely agree with the author on xp 64 bit edition--it's a huge pain to find drivers and to put things to work...

 

Excellent article but unfortunately, it looks to be an extremely confusing year technology wise for many people, especially those with not much knowledge about them such as 32 and 64 bit, dual and single core, all the versions of Vista, HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, all the different types of HDTV, etc.
It just really angers me, why can't these morons make technology easier for us instead of endlessly confusing us with all these new things coming out!?

 

That is not true. First a quote from MS's press release of vista back in the end of FEB:

"All new versions are available for either 32-bit or 64-bit systems, depending on the needs of the customer. Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate and Business will be available as a full-packaged product at retail and on new PCs. Windows Vista Enterprise will be offered only to business customers participating in Microsoft’s Software Assurance program."

So all versions will support 32 and 64 bit. No "lower class" OS only for 32 bit users. That is not to say that 64bit CPUs might not be able to run things faster in some cases.

As for a "now buyer" I still see a dual core as more beneficial. You can make use of it starting yesterday. There are quite a lot of applications especially stuff like encoding that can fully utilize multi cores and show amazing results at that. As for 64 bit, no one is sure how much faster it will be running Vista, if at all. And that is assuming Vista will come on time and be usable on day one!

One final remark about the mobile market. Unfortunately due to Intel's questionable marketing strategies Intel processors are more widely available, and thus limiting the choice to the X2 once it arrives in a couple of months (assuming AMD and manufacturers pump products fast enough), to a vary narrow margin of the market and the available options.

 

not that i want to flame, but you're wrong.
although maybe the p4D 6xx has been "available" i hardly know anyone that has one.
Intel and dell mostly shipped HT enabled in 2004. (not 64bit)
pretty much, unless you bought an AMD (in 2004 that is) (which although they have a large % of the market share amongst people who build computers, that's not how most people get a PC) it probably isn't 64bit
6xx are not a majority, and funnily enough, most people who buy them don't even realize they're 64-bit

 

This is one big year for technology: as rahul stated, the Blu-Ray HD-DVD wars are heating up along with the advent of dual-core and 64-bit technology. I also have to agree with Qwester about dual-core being more beneficial now to a user than 64-bit is - 64-bit CPUs, while not bad, don't offer the performance gains that can be seen now by the average user. In addition, I wouldn't touch Vista 32-bit or Vista 64-bit without the first service packs, which will probably won't come until well into next year.

 

are these turions on 65nm?

 

Pulp, that is a great article! Thanks for putting the time and effort into it.

 

Thanks for the great article. No new info, but clear and well presented.

I think people should also keep in mind that 64 bit Vistacapable laptops are going to be pretty pricey- you need more than just a zippy 64 bit capable processor to run Vista 64.

Using the 64 bit "highway" will use larger chunks of data, thus requiring a pricier "car". This requires larger amounts of RAM (2GB for Vista 64 vs 1MB for Vista 32) and I assume a faster hard drive and faster ram. All of these things can be upgraded later (and cheaper) once vista 64 comes around, but currently can really push up the cost of a laptop. Vista also is graphics intensive, so higher end dedicated graphics are required (think X700/go6600 and up) so again the price point is higher. Also, you will need to upgrade your optical drive once the HD DVD format war shakes itself out.

Since bargain Pentium M and Duos can be had for <$700 it may be a good idea to go now and then upgrade again for $700 in 2 years for a Vista 64 laptop once the market reaches that point. Otherwise you will be spending $1500 this summer for a system that may or may not be well suited for Vista 64.

Given the great price point and zippy performance of the current Duo systems (like the Dell 6400 once they add dedicated graphics in a few weeks from now) and with downward price pressure that will make these laptops really cheap this summer, I find it hard to hold off buying now....
TK

 

nice article - quite well written. i wouldn't say that 64bit cpus have become common in recent times - i also don't know anyone who has one, but they are readily available. I would like to clarify one point:

this is correct, from what i understand regarding digital audio. details can be found in the 'More Registers + Better Design = Better Performance' section here.

it seems like a good way to hedge your bets would be to wait briefly for the dual core Turions - you get the immediate benefits of dual core and the ability to dip your toe into the 64bit pool whenever you want.

 

Which manufacturers use AMD in their laptops? Is it possible these will show up on May 9th in the "Z" series Thinkpads?

 

Wow, that would be nice. Now I don't feel so bad about just having a dual 32bit processor if I need only 1MB RAM compared to 2GB for the 64 version

 

That is the way I see it. The overwhelming vast majority of PC users live in the 32-bit age. That is likely to continue for years yet.

I still remember when AMD released their desktop Athlon64 in 2003 and it was supposed to herald a new and different age for ordinary computer users. I am still yet to see it.

As the article pointed out the debate is fairly academic for your typical everyday PC user.

 

Great article but for common PC/Notebook users not an important issue. Intel will out sell the AMD machine and has been. Just like how many people has a copy of Photoshop SE and Photoshop CS2. Most notebook user are not gamer. They use the notebook for internet, email.

 

Great article. TY

This is what I don't get. 2nd time i read this statement. Does this mean I will not be able to use vista64 with 1GB? or no current buget notebooks(under US$1000) will able to run the 64bit OS?. I think it will be usefull to know for those in a tight buget looking for a notebook. Well hopefully the prices will go down.

 

The larger RAM recommendation for Vista 64 as compared to Vista 32 is directly from Microsoft's Vista OS system requirement page (sorry, no linky on hand.)

If I remember corrrectly, this is a reccomended amount of RAM for the OS to run well- but it will run on less. It does make sense, if you are sending down larger chunks of data (64 vs 32 bits) down the larger 64 bit 'road', then you need twice as much memory to take advantage of the wider road. Faster (unrealeased) 800mghz RAM is also in the recommended specs.

This brings me back to my conclusion- current laptops generally don't have all the available parts to work well for Vista- some parts, like the faster memory and 64 bit dual core processors, aren't even available yet...

Trying to buy now with Vista in mind is a good idea, but it will be much more cost effecient and easier after Vista is released- sort of like trying to set up a wireless network on Windows 98, or getting a good wireless laptop before Centrinos were released. I am not saying hold off on purchasing for 12 months, but don't think you can easily or cheaply buy a fully 'Vista optimized' laptop right now. Laptops are hard to upgrade, and new operating systems are part of the Planned Obselescence game that keeps tech companies oin the black.

 

FYI: Windows Vista will be shipped in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. This applies to ALL release versions of Vista. Having 64-bit will not get you any more features than having 32-bit, except the possibility for more memory.

You also forgot to mention that with 64-bit, the width does infact increase... This also results in applications/etc taking more memory. For example, the same application in 32-bit WILL use less memory than the 64-bit version of the same application. This applies to the operating system and games also.

The only real advantage to having 64-bit (on normal usage) is the possibility to address more than 4GB of memory, which is rarely needed in a notebook or by any normal persons.

The real advantage of 64-bit is only "visible" in server environments, especially on memory intensive tasks (4GB+ memory).

Also: a 64-bit operating system without 64-bit applications is not worth it at all. To benefit anything from 64-bit you also need 64-bit compiled applications. This exists for Linux and such, but is totally non-existant on the Windows platform. And i really doubt that developers will start pushing 64-bit apps when Vista is released. Why? Because atleast 80% of the computers in the world is 32-bit based.

I bet that 64-bit won't be taken advantage of before the next Microsoft operating system is released (codenamed Blackcomb, scheduled release about 3-4 years after Vista). This operating system will also incorporate a true 3D working environment, not just 3D effects like Vista has.

 

Great article Pulp! Enjoyed it very much.

 

First off, great article, it puts things in perspective, especially since I'm considering buying a laptop right now and I'm not the type to want to have to buy one every 2 years - uh oh!

A few curious questions/ points:

What do you think 64-bit dual core computing will mean to the weight of a laptop, heat production, or the battery life? I'm thinking of the ultraportable market, which currently doesn't seem all that phased with having all powerful processors on board.

I've read somewhere that Vista beta versions have worked high end pcs "like dogs". It makes me think that vista won't be something practical for the ultraportable laptop user.

For me, right now, 32-bit processing is synonymous with windows XP. If windows vista is going to be slow on a 32-bit processor, are there any reasons why we should want to upgrade to it?

 

For the VMWare users out there 2 gigs just is not cutting it anymore. A 4+ gig notebook is a dream come true for us. VMware images can get quite power/memory hungry and the ability to run more than one, give it a gig plus of memory and have virtualization tech running... well... thats the current day laptop holy grail in a manner of speaking!

 

Hello, I ve had my AMD64 based Acer for a couple of years now and the truth is I am thoroughly disappointed. The processor is slow, unstable, incompatible and overheating!! And WinXP64 is a joke! There are no drivers for anything, so only thing I can do is check my mails.
I think I will avoid 64bit technology in the future, at least until it is well established and supported. I am now thinking about buying a Dual Core Sony Vaio. I use really demanding digital audio software and I think dual processors can improve the performance significantly. Or again I might be wrong.
Any ideas?

Theodore

 

AWESOME ARTICLE!!!
Thank you - this clarifies things a lot more now. One think I don't understand when you mentioned is that Intel will not come out with their Core Duo until later this year?? Hmm, maybe I misunderstood because I just got a T60 Laptop which has the the dual core.

Another question - so does this mean that one does not require to have a dual core in order to have Vista because there is a basic misunderstanding between the two??

 

I think the reference was to the next version of Core Duo(Merom) which will be a 64-bit dual core chip.

 

Great article !

I just don't understand one thing. Does Dual Core processor has equal CPU speed on booth cores or it shares the speed between two cores ? For example processor T2300 (1.66GHz) : Will it run 2 threads simultaneously with speed 1.66GHz for each thread, or will it run each of the threads on 0.83 GHz (1.66GHz / 2) ?

Thanks in advance,
Mark.

 

Think of it this way... its two 1.6ghz processors... running at full speed and sharing the same bus to communicate with the outside world. Each core can also vary its speed up to its maximum depending upon need.

 

Ok, thanks, I see. So what is the point if they are sharing the same bus ? It should not get any performance increase. But as I understood from many reviews Dual Core performs better then normal processor of the same speed.

 

a simple way to understand dual core is instead of having one paths to process material with, you now have two paths, allowing 2 tasks to be completed (one by each core)

 

As far as what Vista will require (as far as anyone can tell at this point), there's a pretty decent collection of articles at cnet. Link: http://news.com.com/Piecing+together+Windows+Vista/2009-1016_3-6050105.html?tag=cd.top

 

Do you think I'll be screwed if I buy a laptop with a Core Duo (T2400) processor and plan on keeping it for 4 years?

 

No, not at all. 32bit is going to stick around for a while. Maybe not 4 years but software will stil be available in the next 2-3 yrs without any problems. Also according to most speculation, Merom(Intels upcoming 64bit dual core cpu) is supposed to be compatible with existing chipsets, so it is quite possible that in the future you might be able to upgrade to a 64bit processor just in case it becomes more popular quicker than what most people expect.

 

hey, im new, and your article really, really, really, really (you get the idea) good, helped me get what 32 bit and 64 bit is, along with the HT and Core Duo.

you migh know this but...
just the other day, i was reading a few articles (cant remember where) that some computers, although 64 bit, do not let you enable 64 bit processing because the maufactuer does not have drivers for it! i heard tis specifically for HP, but i am sure that other manufacturers are the same.

sooo, what is the point of having 64 bit if you cant use it?

 

Thanks PULP...I´ll wait for Turion X2.