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

Thanks Pulp...I´ll wait till Turion X2.

 

but you can replace yonah chips with merom when they come out, so you can still buy a 32bit laptop today and later upgrade it to 64bit?

 

YOu can if your laptop's manufacturer releases a BIOS update.

 

wait it over. Turion X2's are here. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31770

I've alreay seen releases planned from Hp and MSI. I know ASUS has some in the works too, but nothing I can put my finger on. Check out their respective forums for links to Turion X2 lappy's.

Plenty of people are buying Core Duo's with the plan of dropping in a Merom this August. While not every manufacturer is real quick with new BIOS updates, they should be pretty univerally available a while after Merom is released. Either way, you'll be ahead of Vista by at least a few months.

 

so the new merom should fit perfectly and be able to replace all core duo's and pentium M's?

Because of Turion X2's lack of performance, i think i will wait for Merom. But because i may need a laptop within the next month or two, I think that getting a cheap processor now and then later swapping in the Merom sounds like a very good option.

 

NO, Merom is supposed to fit into Core Duo sockets, but NOT pentium M's. Core Duo is already different from Pentium M. Core Duo and Merom are both on the Napa platform. Wether or not that works is yet to be seen, but most people agree that it should.

Where do you see a lack of performance? Ever review i've seen places the Turion X2's about equal with similar Core Duo's. AMD wins some benchmarks, Intel wins some. Core Duo had a pretty solid lead when it first came out. Now its almost a tie. Merom will probably take the lead again in August. Then early next year, AMD will finally switch to 65nm cores (Tyler) and it'll be a close race again.

I agree getting a Core Duo now, with plans to drop in a Merom this fall seems like a good idea. That's what I've been trying to do.

 

but will the core 2 duo be restricted to perform at 32-bit or will the bios update allow 64-bit operating?

 

The review of the Turion 64 X2 "fails to impress" and they blame their cache along with the design that hasn't progressed beyond K8. http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/299/amd-turion-64-x2-socket-s1-et-ddr2/page8.php

 

One other thing to think about: If your processor is soldered onto your mother board I doubt you would be able to swap to swap processors anyway, or at least not without a huge hassle. I'm not sure how many notebooks don't have the processor soldered on the mother board, if any.
I'd be interested to know what notebooks don't have the processor soldered on.

 

I agree. I was trying to decide between a Turion 64 and a Core Duo, since at this point we have to choose either 64-bit OR dual-core... we can't have both. And even though the Turion 64 X2 is coming out next month to provide 64-bit AND dual-core technology, I'm sure the pickings will be slim (and expensive) until the end of 2006 or later. So until then, budget-conscious buyers have to choose one or the other. For those reasons I was all set to buy a Turion 64, since like this article says, it's "future-proof" while the Core Duo is not. Well, kind of.

I changed my mind and I want a Core Duo now instead. Here's why.

Since this article enjoyed its highway analogy, here's my own. A Core Duo is like a regular hybrid car (gas/electric), while a Turion 64 is like a newfangled gasoline/hydrogen hybrid car.

A Core Duo does not require completely new programs in order to provide the benefits of better performance, in the same way a gas/electric hybrid doesn't require a new fuel to get better mileage. It provides its benefits immediately, by being able to run multiple EXISTING programs (or new multi-threaded programs) much faster than a single-core processor can. This is like the gas/electric hybrid car using a tank of regular gasoline twice as efficiently as a gas-only car.

On the other hand, the Turion 64 DOES require completely new programs in order to provide its benefits, like a gasoline/hydrogen car requires rare hydrogen fuel to get better mileage. It can only benefit you when programs EVENTUALLY are written in 64-bit versions to take advantage of the 64-bit processor. This is like the gas/hydrogen car requiring hydrogen fueling stations, which currently only exist in VERY limited numbers (so few that for all intents and purposes, they are not available to most people).


So just like you can purchase a gas/electric car that WILL immediately provide better performance than a regular car, you can buy a dual-core processor that will immediately improve your computer's performance. And just like you (maybe) can purchase a gas/hydrogen car even though it won't be any more efficient than a gas-only car until hydrogen fueling stations are available, you can buy a 64-bit processor even though no available programs take advantage of it yet.

Also, saying the dual-core processor is not future-proof is like saying a gas/electric hybrid isn't future proof. Even if hydrogen fuel catches on and more and more hydrogen stations are built, the likelihood of gasoline stations becoming non-existent within the lifetime of your car is virtually zero. In the same way, even if 64-bit programs become more popular, the likelihood of vendors not offering identical 32-bit versions within the lifetime of your notebook is also virtually zero.


Basically, 64-bit processors will only show their benefits when more 64-bit programs are made, and even then, 32-bit dual-core processors will still be useful because 32-bit versions of those programs won't just be totally abandoned. A dual-core processor will show benefits immediately, and won't be obsolete for MANY years (not just 2 or 3), while a 64-bit processor (though admittedly more future-prooof) won't show its full benefits until a few years from now.

That's why I'm buying the Core Duo instead of the Turion 64.


Oh, and to throw another wrench in the gears... apparently the Core Duo can later be removed and upgraded with the upcoming 64-bit AND Dual-Core processor, Intel's Merom. The Turion 64, on the other hand, you'll be stuck with. That's a shame, since I really like AMD.



As a side note... don't be angry with me, but in my OPINION, the article has a bit too much tangential information and it's a bit jumbled around. I found it a little distracting and confusing (even though I already knew what it was talking about). I'd love to make some suggested changes. Specifically I wanted to clear up the analogy a little - and also make it more clear that while multi-threaded programs WILL run on single-core processors, 64-bit programs will NOT run on 32-bit processors and some day certain programs may only be sold in 64-bit versions.

Even though I disagree with your conclusion a little, I did NOT modify it or change any of your arguments... I just tried to make them a little easier to grasp. See my next message for my suggested change.

 

Please don't be offended by this revision, I'm just trying to help because I was also originaly confused by this issue and I know it's important to a lot of people.

Now this is going to look very similar to the original article, but TRUST ME, I made a LOT of subtle changes that add up to improved understandability. At a quick glance it looks the same because I maintained the spirit and intent of the original. I didn't add my own opinions because they already have their own place in my preceding reply. I hope you'll consider using it.


This is the big debate right now: 64-bit vs dual core. These are the big buzzwords 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? Or he tries to sell you a Core Duo notebook because "this processor 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 that desktop users do not face. For desktops Intel and AMD rushed 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 my notebook 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 processors don't make your programs run 100% faster, and 64-bit instead of 32-bit doesn't make your system run 100% faster either.

The best analogy to make regarding 64-bit processing is effectively doubling the width of a road. If a 32-bit processor (existing Intel notebook processors, some AMD Sempron notebook processors) has a “road” for data and instructions about as wide as a bike, that basically means nothing larger than a bike can drive on it. A car just won't fit on the road. A 64-bit processor makes the road wide enough to fit a car. So while your bike could bring one person through the gate, the car can bring two.

Here's the catch: existing programs by and large only need the bike-sized road (that's 32-bit for those getting slightly confused by the analogy). These programs only use a 32-bit “road” because that's all there's ever been. On a 64-bit processor, 32-bit programs can NOT make use of the extra road width, and therefore most programs available today see little to no improvement with a 64-bit processor. Windows XP and its predecessors (back through Win95) were all 32-bit operating systems, and the applications written for them were also 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 also allows for calculations with greater precision and increases the amount of memory your system can address, raising the limit from 4GB to well into the terabytes. The vast majority of users will never need that much RAM, and most people will be fine with the 4GB limit for many years to come.

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

You can assume any desktop processor in one of those big hulking desktop-replacement notebooks 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 “road on-ramps” and address the same memory. Processors like the Core Duo are also substantially more complex, incorporating interesting technologies that make it less like two separate processors and more like one multi-threaded processor.

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

Basically, programs are a series of instructions that run single-file “down the road” in your processor, in what's called a thread (like a convoy of vehicles). But if a processor has multiple cores, that means it can process multiple threads simultaneously. Whereas a 64-bit processor has a larger “road” that can allow a car through, a dual core processor has two bike-sized roads side-by-side that can allow two bikes through at the same time (but not a car).

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 the programs take turns going through), it doesn't offer much to speed up a computer when running a single existing program alone.

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, it's worth mentioning that most Intel Pentium 4 processors produced these days have a feature called "Hyper-Threading" which basically emulates having two cores on one die by more efficiently sharing a single-core processor between multiple programs. 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 slightly smooth out your computing experience more than authentically improve performance, and in some cases (often gaming) has been known to have a small negative 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 64-bit 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 it now means to 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. Although multi-threaded software currently exists only in limited numbers, dual core processing also smooths out multiple programs running simultaneously 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 multi-threaded instructions into a single thread), 64-bit programs CAN obsolete 32-bit processors eventually.

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 it’s less than two years, you'll be refreshing your notebook anyway before 64-bit computing becomes a necessary "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 future programs may not 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 processors since they CAN run multi-threaded programs, and single core processors will continue to be produced for some time (see: Intel's Celeron plans, AMD's Sempron plans). In other words, dual-core processors will never be a necessity, since even new programs will still run on single-core processors, but someday in the future a 64-bit processor may be required for programs that are only released in a 64-bit version.

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?

 

Just wondering, can a 64 bit computer run windows XP 32 bit since 64 bit is pretty junk?

 

Yes.

It told me there's a ten character post minimum, so...

 

great article Pulp. I can't wait until Merom comes out...

 

Very good article. I was planning on purchasing a notebook this summer, but then had decided to wait. I'm glad I made that decision. This article does a good job of explaining the difference between 64-bit and Dual Core. and to think, I was going to buy a Core Duo notebook. I think I'm gonna try and wait for Merom. Thanks again.

 

OK, it took me a while to get around to reading it, but thanks for the excellent article Pulp.

I can't say I agree with your conclusion, but each to their own I guess... Dual core works now, 64 bit doesn't come into it's own until you have a 64 bit mainstream OS and a good range of 64 bit applications.

Anyone want to guess how long the 16->32 bit transition took, overall? Close to 15 years, from the release of the x386 to Windows XP, the first mainstream OS that didn't contain 16 bit legacy code. Now while I very much doubt the 32->64 bit transition will take anywhere near as long, it's still a fair way off yet.

Now for those people suggesting linux, I've considered that too... after all, I've been running linux for quite a while now. While 64 bit is definitely ready for primetime on this OS, just how many people really need the extra RAM and 64 bit integer support? Not very many, outside of the scientific workstation and server markets. IMHO, it's certainly not worth the hassle of setting up a mixed 32/64 bit environment...

To cite an example, have you wondered why Apple effectively took a step backwards going from the G5 PPC to Core Duo? Because the average home/corporate user doesn't need it. By the same token, I feel pretty confident predicting that Apple will announce the launch of their Powermac and Xserve replacements within days of Merom's launch. These markets would have considered G5 -> Yonah a step backwards.

Since Intel has recently confirmed that current Napa chipset notebooks can be upgraded to Merom with a BIOS change, if you need 64 bit support down the track it is a fairly simple changeover.

Just my $0.02 on the matter.

 

Hoping to get conflicting info sorted out quickly - I'm looking at buying a new laptop in the next month (it's a must-do) that I'll keep for at least 5 to 6 years. I plan on running XP until the security support lapses, and then shifting to whatever the lastest version of Vista is at that time (don't feel like being a guinea-pig with the first release). Use is not particularly memory or power intensive (i.e., mostly text-editing, pdf, etc, some graphics work).

From my (relatively uninformed) perspective, it appears that 64-bit computing is inevitable, and within my 5-6 year time-frame. It therefore seems prudent to purchase a system that will be able to handle 64-bit applications, even though for the time being I will be running 32-bit applications. I suspect that the 32-bit version of Vista will end up becoming the ugly step-child that ends up getting the silent treatment from MS, so I anticipate shifting to the 64-bit version when I ultimately upgrade.

My conundrum: I have been told (by someone whose knowledge-level is suspect) that the current Intel Core Duo systems (i.e., the 32-bit systems, not the to-be-released-later 64-bit systems) can run 64-bit applications and that therefore a laptop with an Intel Core Duo processor will be able to run the 64-bit version of Vista. On the other hand, I have found a number of articles online that seem to intimate, but do not outright state, that the Intel Core Duo processors cannot run 64-bit applications, thereby implying that such a system could not run the 64-bit version of Vista.

My question is, who's right? Can an Intel Core Duo processor run the 64-bit version of Vista, or not?

 

64-bit software can only run on 64-bit processors. At present, unless a processor's name includes the number "64", it is not a 64-bit processor.

In other words, no.

However, a laptop with an Intel Core Duo processor will support the new 64-bit dual core Intel processor, meaning you can someday take out your existing Core Duo and replace it with a 64-bit dual core Intel processor.

 

Ripper is correct, the Core Duo cannot run a 64 bit OS/applications since it is a 32 bit only processor. Currently no Intel 'mobile' processor offers 64bit compatibility. However Intel is releasing the Core 2 Duo (or Merom) sometime in August which is going to be a mobile 64 bit processor. Until then the only mobile 64 bit processors are going to be from AMD - the Turion64(single core) and the Turion64 X2(dual core).

So, basically there are 3 choices if you want a dual/single core 64bit mobile processor in a laptop:

1. Buy the Turion64 processor based laptop now.

2. Wait for Intel to release Core 2 Duo in August and then buy a laptop.

3. Buy 32bit Core Duo based laptop now and then when Intel releases 64bit Core 2 Duo and just upgrade the cpu. There is only one spoiler for this though, the laptop will require a BIOS update from the manufacturer for the new cpu to be recognised and work properly. If the manufacturer fails to update the BIOS to support the 64bit Core 2 Duo then your only option would be to use the 32bit Core Duo. Otherwise you should be good to go with this option as well.

 

It didn't make any sense to me that the Core Duo would run the 64-bit version; thanks for confirming that for me - it seems that I was more than justified in discounting the "knowledge" of the person who told me otherwise.

Unfortunately, I let myself get a bit behind in tech developments, and now find that the learning curve is a little too steep for me to readily climb - when I started, I was peeking and poking with the best of the the other teenage geeks on the ole Atari (showing my age, I suppose - anyone got a good deal on a walker?), but I've basically been blackboxing it for the last 15 years. As you can no doubt guess, I don't have the hardware chops anymore to trust myself to swap a core duo for a core duo 2, so I'll either go with the AMD 64 now, or see if I can beg or borrow enough time to wait until the duo 2 is introduced.

 

So bus size has nothing to do with it? I was under the impression that in order to work in a 64 bit environment you had to upgrade your system bus.

I really hope that's wrong, because I have already bought a high end (Dell) laptop with a Yonah chip.... I really would like to continue using it for as long as possible, so I'm looking forward to dropping a Merom in there as soon as they come out.

 

Er...I dont exactly understand your question about Bus speeds. But I will try to answer your other question about upgrading to Merom.

As long as you have i945 chipset and the BIOS is capable of supporting Merom, then you should have no problems with the upgrade. Some Dells like the e1707 with the A01 BIOS are already capable of supporting Merom. So are many BIOSes from other manufacturers as well.

 

sweet! i just rebooted and it turns out i have the A01 bios!!

thanks for the info buddy... that really makes my day.

cheers.

 

If you can wait for Merom-based laptop, you'd better wait for Santa Rosa notebooks that would be available in early 2007.

 

Wowzer Great article -_-

 

Thanks for the guide! It really made all the terms you see sprinkled about these forums so much easier to understand.

Now the hardest thing to do after coming on this site....CHOOSE! Picking after knowing pros and cons of each scenario just makes it easier to waffle

And on to getting a new laptop since my 5 month Sony Vaio SZ died on me. Lucky me.

 

this really needs to be updated for core 2...any idea when that'll happen?

no offense anyone, just wanted to point that out

 

Does the 32-bit Vista have AeroGlass?

 

Yes, both 32bit/64bit versions are most likely going to be fully featured. But Aero Glass will only work if your graphics card meets the minimum requirements...
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

 

can someone please update this to reflect turion x2 current models vs. core 2 duo current models for mobile processors..