Why 64bits is important TODAY.

Ok. I may be passionate and i'll work on that, but my posts were still censored and removed from this board because I offered up the possibility that 64bits is a very important consideration for a laptop. This post could very well be removed too. If they left it, It might prove to me that this site isn't rigged to favor Intel products.

Now let's consider the following scenario.

John and Betsy both go to Best Buy in Feb. 06 and buy an HP laptop each. They get identical HP laptops except for one thing. Betsy's laptop uses a Turion64 processor and John's laptop uses a 32bit Centrino processor. For comparisons sake, let's assume that running windows XP, they have identical benchmarks and identical prices and specs.
Both laptops treat John and Betsy very well and they are happy with their purchases.

[Fast forward to Nov. 2006.]
Microsoft has already released Windows Vista 64 and Intel has announced all their newest 64bit processors will run on Vista64.

Scenario1
[Fast forward to July 2007]
-John is still cruising in his 32bit laptop but some of his software providers are only making 64bit versions of their software. It's a little bit of a hassle but nothing major.

-Betsy has long since bought Vista64 and installed it on her Turion laptop, now when compared to John's identical laptop, her laptop wins every benchmark by a wide margin. She claims she has a "New" laptop because it's "so fast".

[Fast forward to July 2008]
All new startup companies are already standardized on 64bit OS's. Older, larger companies have completed or are in the middle of upgrading their entire corporations to 64bit.
All the latest games run on 64bits, and most software providers have quit writing new software for 32bit OS's. No 32bit only computers have been sold ever since Jan 2007 when Intel quit making them. AMD quit making 32bit only procs back in 2005.

-John can't find any new software for his 32bit laptop. His favorite imaging program failed to support 32bits in it's 2008 release. His Laptop is officially a dinosaur in a quickly changing modern world and it's days are now numbered.
In 2009 he tries to give it to his son as a college laptop, but it is now incompatible with all of the software programs the son needs for school and so he trashes it.

-Betsy is amazed at how well her laptop performs. She has no problems finding the software she needs and her laptop beats John's by an even wider performance margin than before due to Microsofts refinement of the 64bit code in Vista64. Her kid uses her laptop to play 64bit games and in 2009 she gives it to her son to take to college. He uses happily.

Scenario 2
[Fast forward to Nov. 2006.]
Microsoft has already released Windows Vista 64 and Intel has announced all their newest 64bit processors will run on Vista64.
-John doesn't want to feel left out and buys a new Intel64bit laptop so he can use Vista64.
-Betsy buys Vista64 and reinstalls it on her Turion64 HP laptop and sees an immediate and significant performance boost. "Wow", it's like I got a new laptop! It so fast." she exclaims.

-John is now out an extra 2 grand to buy the Intel64 laptop and he lists to sell his still recently new HP 32bit laptop. But the benchmarks comparing 64bit Vista laptops and 32bit XP laptops are all over the web and even CNN and Yahoo and the like. He can find no buyers for his laptop. He ends up dumping the laptop for a fraction of what he paid for it.
-Betsy didn't have to pay an extra 2 grand, she just bought the Vista64 OS and installed it.

 

Hey thanks, we appreciate it if you were a little more conservative, don't want to stir up heated arguements on here, that's all. I didn't delete them because you suggested 64-bit.

I'll leave other users to comment on your post.

Don't worry, we're not Intel biased. Everybody around here has their own opinion.

 

I agree with Chaz.

Great article, but like I said. I would think that software manufacturers will keep making 32-bit software for a long time. Granted it will be "slower" and "downgraded" compared to the 64-bit.

In my opinion it will be a few years before everything is 64-bit or released 64-bit only, but if you want to run alot of the newer software 3-4 years from now...64-bit is a good idea.

Also...with technology as it advances now...3 years is about the technological lifespan is about 2-3 years. So if people want a good comp for now cheaper. I would go with 32-bit.

I myself replace my computer every 2-3 years if I can't upgrade and suffice with that performance.

Like I said, great article for your case and point.

Welcome to NBR!

 

In addition to what the previous moderators said, we will edit/delete posts that we feel are against our rules.

We have very few rules here, but we do enforce the ones we have.
*no inappropriate language or images (keep it PG-13)
*keep posts revelant to topic (no hijacking of threads)
*respect all members.

We enjoy everyone's opinions, but sometimes people think they are right no matter what and will try to enforce their opinion on others. All we ask is that you respect other's opinions as we do yours.

SG

 

There will not be any mainstream applications only being produced in 64bit formats for at least 3 years. At least. And even then, you'll still have choices.

I kept my last computer for over 5 years and it was still running most applications fine. Many users keep computers for around 3-5 years tops. So if people keep their computers longer...why would a software manufacture produce software that a large portion of the user base can't use? That means they can't sell it to them.

64 bit is all fine and good...but it's NOT necessary. How many mainstream 64bit applications are there now? Those processors have been on the market for quite some time. There's even a 64 bit version of Windows available for users. Only a handful of apps have been "patched" for 64bit. Even with 64bit, you won't usually get a 50% increase in performance. Most will probably see a 15-20% increase right now...and some possibly less because of limits of other subsystems of the computer.

64bit is going to have to occur...but AMD jumped on that market segment as a business strategy to get a publicity mark against Intel. You think if 64bit was necessary right now, that Intel wouldn't have pushed a chip out already? Even if they didn't have a valid competitor to the Athlon64, they'd have something out there(outside of what's offered for the server market and specialty chips).

It's just not a deal breaker right now. You can't logically convince us that it is. The 64bit capability of Athlons and Turions is a definite plus for those chips, but there are plenty of situations where a 32bit processor will perform just as well currently and for the next few years.

 

Can't believe that someones posts are censored or removed here. The forum has been offering an absolutely open discussion so far.

 

I replied on the "no more existing" post before, and I will say it again. I don't feel that NBR is biased towards Intel or 32 bit computing. I look forward to the 64-bit computing. It is a great step forward. Evolution. But not in any way a revolution.

It is like a fruit. You must wait until it is ripe. You can pick it while it is still green and then wait to be good for consumation and when you finally taste it, maybe it is just not all that you hoped for. Or you can have a fully grown fruit that is just full of its flavors - today. Again, there is no doubt that 32 bit will eventually die and 64, 128, 256 or some quantum computers with electrons trapped in the 7 stable states or whatever will come and change our way of using computers.

But I guess many people are there that would eagerly fight for the 64bit platform today and still think that 64 bit is twice as better than 32 bit. They probably also don't get the point from: "There are 10 sorts of people. Those who read and those who don't read binary!" - if my english was good enough.

Cheers, and yes - 64bit - your story now is the right way of getting people's attention and perhaps changing that red block into a green one. Keep on.

Cheers,

 

64bit

You are making very outlandish assumptions.80% users won't even be using 64 bit applications.

Keeping a laptop for 14 years as you suggest is hogwash and pure drivel ,unless you are a antique salesman.

You are definately misleading current buyers about the uses of 64-bit software and its availabity as opposed to operating systems

 

http://www.steampowered.com/index.php?area=news&id=496

IMO The last 5 years may not be a good representation of how long you will be able to run your applications in the future because that was during a slow period absent of any major pc architectural changes. A conversion of 32 to 64 bit is much much more than Microsoft converting to windows XP from windows 2000.

Correct, right now it's not utilized, but wouldn't you prefer a hybrid hydrogen engine under your hood over a non-hydrogen capable engine under your hood even if the hydrogen gas stations weren't expected to deployed in the US until next year? As long as you knew we would be switching to Hydrogen fuels, you would choose the Hydrogen Hybrid vehicle. Further, an extra 100mhz of clock speed is not necessary either, but that has never stopped end users from demanding higher clock speeds.

For businesses that do huge simulations and calculations, I would counter that 64bits is not only needed, but critical to the company's cost structure and competitive advantage. Many of these businesses have migrated to linux and other 64bit capable OS's simply because it cost them too much money to wait on Microsoft and Intel. Those companies that have already made the migration to 64bits on linux or Unix are reaping the rewards. So 64bits chips have always been needed. We can never have too much processing power. IMO Intel couldn't design a proper 64bit chip and that is why the new 64bit chips that Intel will release at the end of 2006/early 2007 will be copied from AMD's 64bit extensions. They tried to push a 64bit chip out and it failed miserably due to bad design. It is called Itanium64. That is why they will be copying AMD 64bit extensions for their new chips in 2007 and why Intel right now has no 64bit chips. All my opinion of course.

 

It is true that Intel may have gambled and lost on the EPIC Itanium design, but Itanium really was intended as a server CPU.

And just because Microsoft pretty much told Intel that they needed to use the AMD64 instruction set does NOT mean that Intel's new CPUs (Merom/Conroe) are copies of AMDs chips, anymore than the original Athlon was a copy of the Pentium Pro/II/III (which all use the Intel originated 32 bit instruction set).

 

Okay, I will put my 2 cents too.

I would say 64Bit is important, but not as important to many people. The reason is many people in laptop world (like my manager and probably your manager) does not need more than a email client, a browser and word editor. Infact they would be fine even with Window98( I know quite few people even running 98 stil date).

But, people in the technical/IT/image processing/scientific area and proabably gamers really could take advantage of it. Written from ground 64bit bit application could be potentially quite faster than 32bit version on same hardware. But just recompiling and 32 source to make 64 bit binaries does not help much.

For example, DivX 64Bit version claimed to be 4-5 times faster than 32bit version on same hardware, so are some of the image processing softwares. Infact we use 64Bit linux for our development servers in house.

But for many people 32bit would be fine for few year(3 years), but someone wants to keep laptop more than 3 years(quite few do) I would suggest go for 64bit.

I myself consider a advanced user, so I do want 64Bit compatibility as I try new softwares quite often. Ofcourse longest time I kept same laptop is 2 years though.

Last 4-5 years has been really been stale in processor and softwares(OS). I have a P4 2.4@3+ Ghz desktop I have built almost 4 years ago, still It is not outdated. That means there are hardly any advances other than recent Dual Cores esp AMD X2s. In previous generation we saw changes pretty quickly though.

I guess next couple of year atleast going to be DualCore and 64Bit development on the basis of Performance per watt paradigm. I think/hope software take advantage of multi-cores as well as 64Bit.

end of the rant..

 

Now I don't want to start a holy war between 32-bit and 64-bit, but as tullnd stated, 64-bit will not be necessary for the next 3-5 years. People aren't going to run out and buy a new 64-bit desktop/notebook and/or a new 64-bit OS the day it comes out - they won't see a need to switch over. You must understand that the average computer user does NOT care about having the latest and greatest componetns/OS and doesn't care how fast iTunes loads for instance. Whether it takes 10 seconds or 30 seconds, most people don't care about their speed of their computer as long as it performs tasks in an acceptable amount of time. Continuing on this note, once 64-bit hits the market next year, the vast majority of users will still be running 32-bit OSes for quite some time. And while 64-bit is comming out next year, it will be some time before software is made to go along with the new OSes. I predict it will take at least 8-10 years before 64-bit becomes mainstream. However, I am not trying to discredit the Intel P-M or the AMD Turion 64 - both are outstanding notebook CPUs. All I'm trying to say is that 64-bit should not be a major deciding factor in which notebook to buy.

 

Ok, that's one. There's a few more...that's why I asked you to list them. There aren't that many yet. And there won't be. It'll take years for the majority of the market to even upgrade to a 64-bit OS, much less purchase individual 64bit applications.

Do you remember the Win3.1/Dos to Win95 days? That was chaos. People resisted that for years. This is a similar situation. Microsoft tried to push everyone on Win95 then and it bit them hard...they backed off and ended up supporting DOS applications more than they originally intended by its release. They won't make that mistake again.

So I can't use it well until next year? I'm paying extra for a feature that won't work until then? Me? No, I wouldn't pay extra for it. But that's just me. It's fine if some want to...but not I.

Big businesses are still running intensive applications on dual PPro 200's. They may be the ones who'd buy the new hardware...but they won't run out to replace their servers with 64bit units "just because it's faster". They have budgets and also reliability concerns. If you've ever worked for a large corporation's IT department, you'd realize that most of them will be cautious about this. They have a variety of specialized applications to run and they'd all have to be recompiled to be compatible with the 64bit OS and support 64bit. This wouldn't be a motivator on the marketplace. The corporations buying any 64bit Opterons and such now are probably not even considering the capability of 64 bit in the future. That'd involve re-loading all those machines. You know how much time is involved in that? And the chance of a system going down? Too risky. You don't upgrade or replace until you HAVE to. Never before. Unnecessary risks are irresponsible. So when 64bit is out and mainstream and all their apps are available, stable 64bit OS's are available, and 64bit hardware is available, with proven performance benefit, I'm sure they'd choose that equipment over 32bit, if they need that performance for the price. But only when it's all there. They won't be buying to "future proof" with the idea of re-imaging those machines in mind. That just isn't done on any large scale solutions. It's just not practical.

 

I'll put in my opinion from a gamer's perspective.

I am not excited about 64-bit - what I look forward to is dual core and multithreaded games. That will give a big performance boost. I have already seen it with Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4. My desktop has an Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz w/HT Technology. There is a patch for both of those games that allows it to run as a multi-threaded app.

I had not known about the patch up until about two weeks ago. I installed it and WOW - huge performance increase, beyond anything I had expected. The game runs far faster than it did as a single threaded.

I am definitely looking forward to getting new games that will also take advantage of dual-core/multithread.

 

As a practical matter, there's exactly one commercial app I can think of that could genuinely benefit from 64-bits today -- Photoshop. Specifically, Photoshop running on a PC with more than 4 gigabytes of RAM, used by people who edit tabloid-sized 2400dpi images.

AMD64 processors rock. But really, it's not because they're 64 bit. It's because AMD made lots and lots of intelligent design decisions overall, most of which were quite firmly in the 32-bit realm. Arguing that AMD64 processors are faster because they're 64-bit is like arguing that a 15kRPM Fujitsu MAU hard drive is faster than a Raptor because it's Ultra160 SCSI. The fact is, a MAU would still toast a Raptor, even if you used an old 2940u2w controller (if it were the controller's only drive) or custom-built a lowly ATA/100 circuit board for it and connected it THAT way, because it spins 50% faster and has average seek times so low it's scary. 64-bitness is mainly a benefit for AMD's marketing department. Having lots of pipelines, aggressive speculative execution, and a historical tendency of generally just Doing Things Right™ is the real reason why AMD's processors are so good.

Personally, I'm glad to see Intel hot on AMD's heels for the first time in years. AMD's gotten WAY too comfortable and lazy over the past year (hello, AMD, can we have the X2 Turions already?!?). The embarrassment of being beaten by Intel for rolling out the first dual-core laptop CPU will be a good dose of reality for them. The X2 Turions will spank the Core Duos, of course... but hopefully it'll put the fear of God back into AMD and serve as a potent reminder that they're in for some real competition later this year and next year, and can't get away with dragging their feet and relaxing the way they could back when Intel was still wasting their time chasing Netburst windmills.

 

I'm not too sure I agree with you either... Look at my perspective, for instance:

I'm looking at getting a dual core notebook, *or* a 64-bit notebook. I don't want to wait the better part of a year before buying. Now, I know dual core has massive benefits to applications equipped to deal with them, or even just for multitasking. It's the current big news and there seems to be a lot of interest, especially for games (which I happen to have an interest in myself ^_^). 64-bit processing though, has been out a long time, without software really migrating to support it. Even Vista will be 32-bit compatible. And with the large number of 32-bit processors out there right now, there's just a massive market for software that runs on them, that I don't see going away soon. Microsoft has said that the version of Windows *after* Vista will be 64-bit only. That's when I see the shift coming. Even then though, I think it won't be a sudden shocking switch, but more of a change of focus and gradual move.

So, I'm pretty comfortable buying a laptop with Intel's current dual core offering. I think I'll get more value than a Turion 64 in the short term, more value in the medium term (we're still talking two cores), and plenty of compatibility for the life of the notebook. In four years or whatever, it will still be more powerful than a Turion single core from today. And, if power is an issue, I'll be buying a new laptop anyways. Hardware just doesn't stay strong for that long.

PS. Desky's got an Athlon 64. Wouldn't have it any other way. ^_~ (well, except an Athlon X2... will look into that)

 

If you end up getting the core duo (which is essentially 2 modified PIII cores rushed into production http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/29/opinion_core_duo_microsoft_power_drain/ ) Then you wouldn't mind benching your core duo notebook against my 64bit Turion running XPx64 then right? Both have to wait until applications are developed to take full advantage of the dual-cores or 64bit processing to see their full potential.

Like someone who posted before. I am eagerly awaiting for the dual-core Turion64s to show up in many laptop designs because I see that as the holy grail for laptops for this year. Then in 2008 I will be looking to add an AMD 64bit quad-core to my laptop collection. I will consider an Intel Quad core at that time if they have one, but they would need to redesign the processor from the ground up to fix their current roadmap of processors that have a 2core to 4core to 8core scalability deficiency due to the lack of an integrated memory controller in the cpu design.

Here's a good site I found that tells the history of 64bit computing if you are so inclined.
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/02/amd64-is-five-generations-ahead-of.html

 

You consider a two year old computer "new"? Hahaha, you're joking right?

Two years old = time for a replacement.

 

People buy 32-bit laptops now? Software makers will have to adjust to people. Not people to the software makers.

 

Why do I get a feeling you're trying to advertise AMD products?

 

IMHO, if the decision is between dual-core and 64-bit... dual-core wins hands down, no contest. All you need to do to take advantage of having two cores is run Windows XP. It might not be "faster", but it'll certainly be "smoother". And the moment you run two or more major programs at once... well, you'll never look back at anything with a single core again. Intel's current dual-core offerings aren't nearly as good as AMD's... but I'd still rather have a dual-core Pentium-M over a single-core Turion.

As much as I love to rag on Intel for the abomination that was their Pentium 4 experiment, the Pentium M has a solid family history of goodness. Marketing aside, it's a direct descendant of the Pentium III Xeon -- one of the best desktop processors ever designed. A single Turion is more powerful than a single Pentium M... but a pair of Pentium M's (or at least a pair of P-M cores) does offer real benefits over a single-core Turion.

Ultimately, AMD's hurting itself by delaying the dual-core Turions. In case they haven't realized it yet, dual core Turions are their ticket to Dell-land.

 

Unless AMD fix there major power issues (can you say HEAT) then the pentium M is going to rule laptops for now. Given that the dual core pentium M appears to be as good at running as the single core pentium M's, which beat the Turion's hands down.

Yes, for a desktop I'd almost certainly be thinking 64bit, but then again a desktop is a totally different animal to a laptop.

For Laptop currently Turion isn't much of a choice (at least as far as I'm concerned), yes you may run faster, but when 2 hours into a 5 hour flight your laptop stops because the battery is dead, and mine keeps cruising along for the entire 5 hours, I think I will be laughing.

 

Depends entirely on your laptop model. There are plenty of Pentium M systems that get less than 3 hours on battery (most with dedicated graphics are under 3), and only a few that get more than 4 (again, most with integrated graphics only).

I'm not sure what you mean by "Turion isn't much of a choice", either. If you mean 'for battery life alone', then I get it.

As for heat issues, the 25w Turions don't produce much at all, so I'm not sure if you mean the older Mobile Athlon 64 cpus? The fan on my system is pretty much silent except for when i'm running something a little more intensive.

The pentium M is a great cpu, and although I run a Turion with XP64, I don't tell everyone to go out and get one, b/c xp64 isn't giving a ton of added benefit over 32bit.

If you do a lot of long-distance flying, definitely go for the battery winner. Other than for the power business flyer or users that spend a lot of time away from the outlet, the Turion is a great CPU, runs very cool, has great power, and is 64-bit capable for the future. It's a completely valid choice, and depending on what you need, may be the best choice for the future.

 

>>>> The value of a 32bit laptop will be worth nothing in 2 years (talk about fast depreciation). In contrast, a 64bit laptop will have value for a decade or more. Value that can be transferred to relatives or even sold for money.<<<<

This is nothing but a sales pitch by an AMD marketing employee

 

Well, personally I have to disagree, but I maybe do enough flying to fall into the "long-distance flying" category.

I hate it when my laptop dies after an hour and some (my current laptop in this regard really sucks though since it's a pentium 4, this has brought me round to maybe I don't need as much power, but I do need a decent battery life.

I'll have to look a bit more at the turions, but I'd always gathered that for battery life they aren't very good (when compared to Pentium M's).

 

no doubt, the pentium Ms are better for battery life still. I like a 12" portable too, for weight and battery life, but the 3 hours I get is plenty for my shorter hops and limited time away from an outlet.

 

But thats jsut it, as is AMD's track record, you can get a 64 bit turion or amd athlon 64 for much cheaper than a "comparable" intel. I also felt for some time that there are a lot of people that are intel biased on this website. If you keep you comments objective, it aleviates a lot of heated arguements that would come up. I suggest getting on the amd support forums if you want to learn a lot about amd from people who design it, 64 bit software, etc.

 

The reason that the 64-bit processor is cheaper is because it has been out longer. Intel is going to charge more for their new 32-bit processors. Granted...AMD has upgraded their processors, but will not revamp them until later this year or next year. Personally I love the Intel for now I think it is a little better for what I use it for. I have had two comps with the AMD 64 chip both of which were great. I am actually looking forward to the new procs from AMD. Most likely I will switch over...but 32-bit (newer) processors are better FOR ME...than the AMD for now.

Just my $.02....didn't meant to start an arguement.

Edit: Other reason I got Intel...Dell doesn't currently offer AMD procs.

 

Lots of benchmarks lead to the idea that 2 comparable notebooks one with turion and one with pentium M (centrino) are very close in battery life. The benchmarks i saw said that when running them flatout on battery using powerful cpu-hungy applications, the M won by jsut a few minutes, and the turion won in normal everyday stuff like web surfing, typing, etc. Both cpus would run at 800mhz using speedstep/powernow technology, but you would get more performance and more responsiveness out of the turion at 800mhz due to the increased system bus from the on-die memory controller. People also seem to think that the ML turion that uses 35W tdp is way more powerhungy than a pentium M and 27 (keep in mind there is a 25w MT turion, but comparing the ml and p-m for now). When that TDP is calculated, the turion's memory controller IS calculated into that number because its right there on the cpu-- the p-m doesnt have this technology so it is elsewhere on the motherboard, not calculated in this measurement. Turion notebooks with be undoubtably cheaper also. So if 10 or 15 more minutes of battery life is important, and worth getting a 32 bit processor, pay 300-500 more (average). There are lot of people out there happy with their pentium M's- and it isnt a bad processor at all, im not saying that. Im jsut making a few comparrisons.

These are my opinions above. I have the right to make such claims based on my knowledge. Leaving bad feedback to ANYONE who expresses an opinion simply because it is different from your own views/ideas is unacceptable.

 

just look at how the market share is shifting towards AMD, and how DELL is looking to put amd in their machines. That doesnt make a lot of sense that a 64 bit product would cost less than an intel product just because it came out before intel came out with something to compete. Check some prices from 2003 when athlon 64s came out, and compare them to a pentium 4 from that time. AMD IS cheaper. I work with computers, I sell them. AMD didnt come out with the 64 bit chip and leave it alone, lol. In desktops, its gone from socket 754-939 adding dual channel ddr support a little while back. On the mobile side, SSE3 support was added on turions and later model mobile athlon 64s. Intel advertises everywhere. If you dont think that some of that money you are spending on that higher priced intel machine is for advertising....

*tries hard not to make this another debate, but cant help but respond to some of these statements...*

Keep in mind guys speed is relative, and can be easily compensated for by a shorter pipeline, varying L2 amounts, and an increased IPC rate.

 

[/QUOTE]For Laptop currently Turion isn't much of a choice (at least as far as I'm concerned), yes you may run faster, but when 2 hours into a 5 hour flight your laptop stops because the battery is dead, and mine keeps cruising along for the entire 5 hours, I think I will be laughing.[/QUOTE]


Haha, I'v got a 62W Athlon 64 mobile 4000+ that gets over 2 hours of battery life with a dedicated graphics card. Lets calm down a bit with our claims.

 

Well I think I got a great deal on my P-M. If I would have had the same computer with the AMD...I probably would have went for the AMD. They are really comparable...execept with the 15 mins of battery life. If I had to decide between my P-M and a AMD when I was purchasing I would have went with AMD.

Like I said before...I can't wait for AMD's new procs to come out...most likely I will have to by another comp. But hey...that is what I get for wanting to keep up with technology.

 

Remember RD RAM? Just because it's better does not mean it will do better.

Personally, i prefer to wait out on new technology for at least a year and see what happens.

 

just checked newegg for prices.. just processors alone, the dothan p-m 760 runs 312$, and a MT-37 (power saving 25w chip) was only 224...88$ cheaper, 64 bit, full instruction set support. My $.02 for whoever was saying intel and amd were priced the same

 

I would agree not to be the guinea pigs on the dual-core systems when they first come out.

 

your idea has already been covered many many times over and you're reasoning is pretty irrelavent and not backed up by anything and is very misleading. you can't argue your point with no reference material what so ever.

and you are talking about this site being Intel biased, you sound like the ex-marketing director for AMD trying to get your job back.

64 bit is as important as you want it to be, the majority of people buying a computer could care less if there computer is 64bit because it is irrelavent to them, 64bit is important at this time and will be for a few years to mainly specialized programs, Softimage XSI 5.0 comes to mind. for most people it will be irrelavent for a few more years it seems.

it is important to state you're opinion but let people know that is what it is, your opinion and maybe yours alone.

this is mine ^

 

Keeping AMD and Intel aside,
I am seeing some people making claims as far 64Bit won't me mainstream until next 10 years. They must be kidding right!!

OK, Let us see what has happend in the past and let us try to project future( I know it is not very precise, but that is only the basis we have right now atleast).

When Windows2000 professional released, most mainstream users and many big corps upgraded to Windows2000 professional with in span of 2 years from windows 98( windows Me wasn't there for long at all, which I consider disastrous ). And then when Windows XP Professional released, many corps and many main stream users migrated to XP Professional. (Ofcourse there will be some groups who still run their good old! window98, that is case always).

In the case of 64Bit OS also it am guessing it is going to be 2-3 years max to become mainstream. Possibly/probably sooner than that, because most Intel 64EMT/AMD dekstop CPUs now-a-days supporting 64Bit OS. So, since hardware support is available from both major vendors, I do not think it takes that long. But how long it takes to get full 64Bit capable softwares is a all together different issue. Initially most likely we get just re-compiled 64 biaries without much advantage, but all new development is going to be towards 64bit.

BTW, remember Laptop is not only area all software is aimed at, rather aimed to desktops(atleast for now).

Based on this information, users should decide what is suitable for them. I guess if you going to own it less than 2-3 years I guess it does not matter much.

And choosing between Turion vs P-M is all together is different story. Though Turion is cheaper, 64Bit compatible, still not all major manufacturers has adopted to that. Like for examples someone wants a ThinkPad, he has no option but to buy a P-M. Many corporations buy Dell latittudes, which does not support Turion yet.

But what I observed is, when same manufacturer is offering both Turion and P-M, Turion comes to be substantially cheaper(Typical $200-300 for similar config).

Probably because three reasons,
1. Turion CPU itself cheap
2. Uses typically ATI, SIS MB chipsets, typically cheaper than Intel versions
3. There is Hardly any advertising dollars for Turion laptops( I receive/read several magazines, I have yet to see any Turion laptop ads, where is see ad for P-M laptop for every other page. HP does not even mention it's Turion laptops in its maketing brochure/magazine).

As per battery claims, I see some ridiculous claims, but most NBR readers know that difference in battery life is hardly around 10% with Battery being same capacity, where as price diff is as much as 30%.

I do not think as such NBR site is biased toward Intel, but we have lot more members with P-M( ofcourse that is the case with whole world), and many did not experience Turion laptops yet. So, since they are happy with their P-M, obviously they support that.

Actually, this is my first AMD based machine( either Laptop or desktops, other than a AMD desktop in 1998, which I did not like), all my laptops has been Intel (P233,P3-850,P3-1.2,P4-2.4,P4-2.66, P-M 1.5) except for one Mac G4. Some I own, some supplied by Employer at work for java based development. Some points of time, I had 4 laptops with me. I am lucky to be work in this area, where all development is done on laptops.

I felt this is much better than value than the laptops I used before. Very responsive, bettery life around 3 hours( actually same as my previous Dell P-M 1.5). So, I have no gripes as such as of today( ofcourse other than some gripes about design I mentioned in my review).

Anyways, that is my perspective.

BTW: I think everyone has right to express their opinion, but we do not have right to ridicule others opinion. Atleast that is the principle I guess at NBR forums.

 

I'm going to admit that I haven't read all of the posts in this thread but I have read most of them. I want to throw in my two cents though.

I happen to agree with the notion that 64bit environments won't be the norm for about 4 years. I say this on the fact that I'm guessing many people won't upgrade hardware until they need to. In the mean time many 32bit apps will still be being made and purchases (this is the key factor). I know that many of the people on this forum would jump on the 64bit band wagon in a heart beat, I already have in my desktop. I on the other hand feel that at this moment, a.k.a. TODAY, the best processor in laptops is the core duo because it will fly with the vast majority of today's applications.

I really just want to point out that when a new version of Windows has been released and the business and public markets have taken the plunge and upgraded to the new version that they haven't had to buy new hardware. Sure there are new minimum requirements but that's usually not too bad (I.E. a RAM upgrade). I tihnk that TODAY it's really not a big deal and that if you want bang for your buck today and you plan on using the laptop for less than four years than you have nothing to lose by going down the 32 bit road.

As for Vista? Well there have been 32 bit versions leaked a number of times and I really see there being a 32 bit version out when it actually launches. Now this might simply be wishful thinking on my part but I don't think that Microsoft is going to be willing to lose out on it's current share of the market with it's 32bit processors. Just my opinion but I've been giving this some thought for a few days.

Now lets all live happily ever after

[edit] I just want to say one last time that this is just my opinion, it could very easily be wrong but it's what I'm thinking at the moment. [/edit]

 

Intel wins by monopoly power.
Intel wins by kickbacks.
Intel wins by propaganda.
Intel wins by the power of the dollar.
Intel loses by attempting to copy AMD's dual cores and pass it off as theirs.
Intel loses by unsuccesfully designing their own 64bit chip so they have been forced to try to copy from AMD again.
Intel loses by trying to pass off old, previously abandoned technology to consumers as new and original. (core-duo, meron)

AMD wins in performance per watt.
AMD wins in performance per dollar spent.
AMD wins in lower heat dissipation.
AMD wins in superior, more efficient chip design.
AMD wins in lower electricity costs. (critical for server rooms, desktops, and datacenters)
AMD wins in founding dual-core technology and having true "dual core" designed chips. (not 2 old model PIII's rig-jobbed together, ie: fake dual core)
AMD wins as the only 64bit solution.
AMD wins as the superior choice hands down ..
.
..
...
AMD loses in respect.

But that last one will change forever this year.

 

i thought this was about 64-bit technology, not fan-based raving over AMD vs Intel? That's why your last posts were delete, 64bit.

 

If I don't see a soon-coming date for the Turion 64 dual cores before I buy my laptop in another month or twoish, I'd be glad to take you up on that. If nothing else, it'd be interesting to see.

 

I don't want to read all of this if it doesn't have any useful info. Is there actually info in this article, with little flaming? Because i read over posts, and some seem like that and some dont.

 

Not that I could see nick, but I stopped reading after page 2!

 

I am a fan of the truth and you can't say my post wasn't 100% factual.

The truth will set you free.

 

You have absolute truth on the statements you made about Intel, and that AMD did not involve itself in similar policies?

 

Ok you all can throw your 2 or 0.02 cents. Im going to throw in my 1 dollar =P.

Windows Vista 64 Bit is going to be released after the 32bit...Why? Well because the majority of the computer users now have 32 bit, barely comparable number of users have 64 bit (I think).
As 32bit will come out first, those who want to use the windows vista urgently for whatever reason would obviously buy the 32 bit version. Then later on whenver the 64 bit version of Vista comes out these people wouldnt want to buy the 64 bit for another 400$ (ok lets keep piracy out of this post).

Its pretty obvious that those people who cant afford a new computer every 2 years will keep 32 bit. Software companies arent just going to "stop" making software. The Intel core Duo's are pretty good, stacking up against the 64bit pretty da*n well. They are new in the market, so you think that people who get that now will want to change their laptop after a year? I think not and thats personally my case and I am getting the VAIO FE which has the Intel Core Duo.

Im sure 32bit wont be outdated for atleast another 3-4 years maybe 5. And even if it does go earlier I doubt consumers of the software would be happy with it. I know ill be f**king pissed off.

 

as i recall ... 16-bit to 32-bit went by fast.

but anyway if you are into 3D modelling business, 64-bit is a better choice but if you can wait for dual-64 is much better.

this has turned into an intel vs amd thing but if intel had a 64-bit mobile now. this would not last 5 pages

 

O.K. - I'm a fan of both CPU companies, but you're going a bit far in those claims. The P-M gets better performance per watt and heat dissipation and in its chipset efficiency than any Turion or Athlon. In addition, AMD isn't the "superior choice hands down" in the mobile world - the P-M/Yonah are both great choices alongside AMD's chips. Basically:

Desktops - AMD Wins
Mobile- Intel Wins

 

I think reality is more nouanced than either 64bit's post or the posts of the many who say that 32bit is good for the next 3-5 years.
I think the average consumer will not need a 64bit for many many years, but I think it will want it almost immediately. Software comapnies are way more market savvy now than the were in 1995: they will not (and they are not, even now) pushing 64bit because of its "under the hood", they are pushing 64bit because of the way it will look. The average consumer will be perfectly able to keep on using its Office or its IE, but he/she will want the new one.

I think that the vast majority of those who buy 32bit today will regret it in one year time. I don't think that the majority will have any basis for regretting it, but I am sure they will. They will feel excluded from all the new technology

 

64-bit wins on perceived future-proofness (hey, a new word!!), while 32-bit is entirely too large of a market to be ignored by software developers. Obviously, 64-bit is the way of the future, and, if you want to buy today with an eye towards keeping your lappy for more than 3 years, I'd recommend an AMD, or, at least, a Sempron you can upgrade to an Athlon/Turion at some future point. If you need a new computer now, but will probably be replacing it 2-3 years from now, then buy whatever processor/price point gives you the features you're looking for, and ignore the arguments.

That's my $0.02...... (how DO you make the cents sign, anyway????)