64bit vs 32bit Benchmarks

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1959&page=25

I have been flamed by many on this board. Many of those who said that 64bits was not an important consideration for a computer and did not have a benefit unless you are running 4+gb's of memory.

For those of you who want to learn about the real potential benefits of running a 64bit computer, read the benchmarking link above. Any slight differences in processor performance that some argue about on this board are completely overshadowed by some of the huge differences in performance obtainable by simply upgrading your OS to a 64bit one.

As always I expect this post to be as controversial as Galileo's teachings hundreds of years ago. Galileo was almost murdered by the church because he was teaching that the earth revolved around the sun at a time when everyone was told that the earth was the center of the universe. The world finally came around to Galileo's teachings and over time the general public will also realize the benefits of using a 64bit OS and the paramount importance of ensuring that your next computer be 64bit ready.

 

Well, I haven't read much of your previous posts before but the one on the off-topic section, but I have to agree with everybody else, you are making too much of a fuss about it. Most of the people here that are tech-savvy understand or have a bit of knowledge about 64-bit and we know that it's better than 32-bit, BUT at this time, it isn't necessary, mostly because all the rest of the world is still under the 32-bit arena.

The Galileo analogy is really out of place. You are trying too much to be a martyr here. No one (as far as I can tell) is discussing you the benefits of 64 over 32 bit, but the world isn't ready for 64 yet as is not mainstream (but it will be) and not fully supported (driver-wise). It will take about 1-2 years after the release of Vista for it to become mainstream.

When you post, by all means, fully support 64bit but DO state that this technology will take some time to be fully implemented in the consumer market. That's all you have to do to get a favorable opinion. Really!

 

If this turns into a war, it will be closed promptly. About those benches - there is virtually nothing in terms of everyday use available in true 64-bit code - most of it is just edited 32-bit code with a bit of 64-bit .exe's added in. That does nothing in terms of performance. 64-bit software needs to be written as so to make a difference.

People will see far more of a benefit from a dual-core CPU.

 

I think it will be something like Playstation one and 2.
When PS2 first came out, there wasn't too much difference between it and PS1(I've seen and heard many pirated PS2 games that ran on PS1), but now the difference is more than obvious.
The potential of 64bit is way higher than 32bit but just like ps1 and ps2, it will take time for softwares to catch up.

 

64Bit is deffinatley the way of the future, buy we are currently stuck in a 32Bit world, where 64Bit does not make too much of a difference.

This is the only reason there are huge differences in the times:

Until the software can match the hardware, 64Bit is overkill.

 

So AMD is like Copernicus then I suppose hey? Holy cow, we're off swimming in the deep end now.

In 100 years we'll all understand you I'm sure. 'Til then, martyr on.

 

why only Pentium D840 and D940. The benchmark should have used Pentium D960 and D965.

 

Let "AGE" have its say here...and I go back to the days of 4-bit processors...

I have been playing the next wordsize game since the late 70's (before most of you on this board were born -- I bet that exactly 3 people on this board know what an 8080 or a Z80 are, and I won't even get into even more obscure chips) -- every next step in computing technology (most especially in the increase in wordsize category), when first introduced, leads to a volumous cacaphony of noise that the "heavens are falling" (chicken-little argument) on the current generation vs. the "there is nothing that can use this technology NOW" crew....both sides are both right and wrong...

They are right from the POV that there is in fact very little out there that can "commercially" take advantage of a wordsize leap when the new generation of CPU's hits the market -- to that I can only say (as modernly as possible) "Doh!!!" -- chicken / egg issue and it DOES take a while for SW houses to A) just get current apps to run in the new environment, B) optimize for the new environment, and C) really begin to take advantage of the new features / performance of the new platform...just because the "platform" is there for next-gen apps can in no way minimize the amount of effort required to get those apps into user hands -- believe me it is a LOT of work....

They are wrong from the POV that this is the most adaptive industry that has ever existed -- I am consistently amazed by the speed with which "targeted at the new platform" applications (or upgrades) hit the market (and this extends across the spectrum from Games [which seems to interest a lot of you] to serious engineering SW [which makes the world run]) -- sometimes you just have to wait a few minutes for mommy to give you the next juice-box....

I am, on the software design / engineering side of my life, loving living in the land of 64-bit processors -- I can do things that I only dreamed about earlier in my career...and that work, maybe, if the "Great Gods of VC" are in a favorable mood may trickle down to something some of you will see at some future point...on the scientific front the things being done w/ each new bleeding-edge CPU design are staggering (where do you think the "physics chips" for your gaming experience come from?)...

As a consumer of personal tech, however, I have not seen any great advantages in day-to-day "I live with it" software that can say that the move to the next wordsize will change my life...I do, however, have great expectations that that will happen "real soon now" (a bonus kudoo to whomever can post who invented that phrase)

It all really comes down to perspective...and whining about "it does nothing for me now" really is besides the point....

Just my $0.02 added to the discussion....

 

Well, i did just place an order for a notebook with a TurionX2 processor. Only because it was deemed to have a better Nvidia integrated graphics solution! Lol.. First thing that came to my mind was, "Get off the cross, we need the wood". Day to day over the next year or two (about all i expect to get out of a notebook) 64 bit computing means next to nothing. Eventually.. sure, but down the road.

 

I was born on the late 70's and my first computer was one of the 8080s generation (an 8086+!), LOL... but I don't think you were counting me as one of three people.

 

My only beef with the OP's previous posts is his insistance that all 32bit processors are obsolete and buying one now is a poor choice.

It's simply not true. Considering how many people read these threads who are not that knowledgeable and often take people's posts as gospel, it's just plain irresponsible to tell them that.

I've yet to see anyone dismiss 64bit as not only a boon to the computer industry but also imminent. However, it's not immediately necessary. Sure you can see benefits from it today...but not that incredibly large number of them. Also, there's no planned immediate abandonment of the large, large number of 32bit processors out there in the world today. It will be years(yes...4 or more years at least) before software manufacturers stop supporting 32bit en masse. So purchasing a 32bit machine now means you should expect most vendors to continue to support that platform for a number of years. And even after "support" is discontinued, it doesn't mean the machine won't still operate just as it did before.

I dislike people who preach doom and gloom on the technology front just as I dislike religious zealots who preach how I should live my life.

 

Zicky, if you have a problem with the way you are treated in forums, you have the option to walk away from the screen, or simply click the nice arrow in the upper left corner. Quit acting like some sort of hero sticking up for 64 bit. You come off as self chose victim, ignorant of other facts, and simply pathetic. There are much more important things to fight for, outside of your room. It is one thing to constructivly list FACTS about 64 bit computing, it is another to degrade the conversation to playground bickering. Clearly, you are showing your age and maturity.

 

Erm . . what exactly did zicky say that was offensive? All I see is a harmless comment:

At any rate, please avoid comments that are going to offend other people, thanks.

 

Wow, that post was a little ridiculous don't you think? I mean, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but seriously, comparing yourself to Galileo? That makes no sense. And if you consider what these people do flaming, then you should see some of the message boards I am on. People on the Internet are not normally this diplomatic...

In response to your post, however, I do realize that 64-bit is the next generation of computing, and that is why I'm waiting for a good notebook with a Merom. I want my computer to last me a little longer than 2 years. However, I must also agree that neither you nor I will see the benefits of 64-bit processors for at least another year or more. It's just not out there right now. Dual core is much more beneficial to the modern PC user than 64-bit single core. It's plain and simple. Sure, 64-bit is nice, but in a world where more than 80% (maybe even 90%) of the software is 32-bit, a 64-bit processor is not going to make sense to most of the PC consumers right now.

 

this is all ridiculous because everybody knows that computing is actually going backwards and heading toward 8 bit once again. this is because with only 8 bits, the electrons have less distance to travel. as well, microsoft has announced that they will abondon plans for Vista and are instead going to re-release a Windows 3.1 lookalike OS that runs on 8 bit hardware. Also, since microsoft and intel hold patents for the actual words "64 bit", they are controlling the market and will now allow 64 bit to actually make it to the public. the processors you see now are actually 6 and 4 bit, meaning 10 bits total because you have to add the "bits" together. additionally, the new 8 bit hardware will no longer use a keyboard and/or mouse for user input, but instead will be fitted with a modified XBOX360 controller.

 

haha, my bad zicky, for some reason i wrote that name, it was clearly aimed at 64 bit, not zicky. Zicky clearly is a classy member, who makes constructive comments. I just looked at the wrong post for a name. Again, my appolgies.

 

Ahh yes, the 8080, and the 8086, I remember them with fond memories, those where the days when I could wipe my father 10MB hard drive... those where the days.

As to 64bit, well, unfortunately once again the data seems to have little to do with actual life, okay, so it's faster at a zip program (never heard of it) and DivX, and when comparing desktop processors, if we could have some comparisons of laptop processors I might be more interested, also in programs that a lot of people use day to day would be nice.

Overall, yes I agree, 64Bit WILL be useful eventually, it's the eventually part that is really in question, when will 64Bit move from "the new technology that no-one really uses" to "everyone uses this, you are a 32Bit Dinosaur".

We'll see...

 

As a Turion owner, there are times I wonder, "Why the hell did I buy 64 bit for?" I mean I realize that my MS Office experience will not be better with a 64 bit computer, really.

But then I remember, once Vista comes along and there is a 64-bit video/audio encoder, mwahahaha!

 

Thank you Lazlo for being the voice of reason... your arguments are pretty much identical to the stance I've held every time I've seen one of those "64bit is da future, 32bit is lame" style threads around here. Yes, there are industrial and scientific applications that really do (did) benefit from the move to 64bit... I remember playing around with a DEC Alpha back in '96, a seriously sweet (and expensive) piece of kit.

No, it's not going to change the world for the average home/office PC user just yet.

Regarding your comments about the speed of applications and OSs for new architectures reaching the market... exactly how long was it between the launch of the 80386 and the first full 32bit mainstream OS? Sorry, Microsoft bashing is a personal weakness of mine...

I too remember the 8080 and Z80, although my first PC ran a 6502 clocked at an astounding 1MHz...

 

Ah, LOL! Got your PM and I was clueless as to what it was for, now I see. Don't worry, no biggie there.

 

http://amd64downloads.filecloud.com/farcry.asp

Check out the screenshots at the bottom of the page

 

While this is great, my main concern would be that this requires you to use Windows XP 64Bit, which by all accounts that I've seen is buggy as hell and while great for 64Bit software (which there isn't much of right now) is bad for everything else.

Net result, yeah if you just want to play FarCry, woot!!! Otherwise... um, yeah...

 

LOL. Thank you 64bit, you made my night. Thank you for the history lesson, and thank you for being strong enough to stand up for your beliefs, despite the fact that the church is trying to hold 64bit processors down. Stay the course! I have faith that one day, in the distant future, people will look back and see you as a man ahead of the times. Don't be discouraged by these people with their so-called "rationality".

 

hahaha, i love the responses to that post... never get old. I just wish we would get either a) someone who actually feels bad for him or b) some hardcore catholic that will tweak when they read that (im catholic, im not making some generalization).. as far as far cry goes, that is the tip of the ice berg in term of performance boosts. Too bad it has to be run on a 64-bit OS and it is one of the few things that takes advantage of 64 bit. Thanks for posting that so i can visually see some advantage!!

Samuel