Why 64bits is important TODAY.

honestly i can't truely believe that any human person is this passionate about computer processors.

and you forgot that AMD also loses in sales, they get slaughtered in the world of notebooks.

and what you really forgot is that only about 10% or less really give a toss if there processor is amd or intel, the majority just wants it to be up to speed and work well.

i am not really biased for intel or amd because i truly couldn't care less. i don't care about how much money intel or amd make or who makes a better processor, i just want to use my computer for the reason i got it, i didn't buy it to analyze the holy hell out of it and be depressed because there is something better on the market now. and i know just as much about all the technical aspects as anyone, i learn them just so i know everything i can, but i REALLY don't care when it comes down to it, my Intel computer works extremely well, i'm sure it would work just as well if not better if it had an AMD processor,. . . . . . . .but i just can' be bothered to worry about such a thing, and unless you really do work for AMD or you are project 2501 which AMD has released on the world please do not hack into my ghost in the future.

i think from now on i will just right full fledged novels for all of my posts as this is how it seems to be going, maybe graphic novels, i think i will start getting more philisophical also.

 

Yeah... instantly, as far as anyone who went straight from a 6502-based system (C64/Apple][/Atari 800) to a 68000-based system (Amiga, Mac, Atari ST). But it's not really accurate to compare 16 bits to 32.

16 bits were never really enough to make anyone happy. Even when the majority of CPUs were 8-bit, 16 was only a half step better. Literally ANYTHING you did on an 8-bit CPU required juggling multiple registers to at least get 16 bits to work with. 32 wasn't enough to solve every problem in one gulp, but comes close enough that most people who went from 6502 to 68000 never had to work with anything bigger than a single register could hold again (on the 68000, at least).

Plus, here's something that's going to come as a huge shock to lots of people: 32-bit x86 CPUs have had 64 bit data registers for years. It's called "MMX" (further refined and made increasingly useful by SSE, SSE-2, SIMD, 3D-NOW, and SSD-3). Actually, 128-bit registers made their appearance sometime around the Katami P-III and Palomino Athlon XP...

 

Let's not forget that AMD started by copying Intel's early processors.

Why is this thread not closed yet? Stupid anti-Intel propaganda.

 

why is it anti intel propaganda?

 

Alright. . .not addressing anyone in particular in here, but this is starting to get out of hand, so I'm going to ask that we keep on-topic, thanks.

 

There is no on-topic here. Not anymore.

 

I do not see 64 BIT as a problem until maybe 2.5+ years from now.

90% of consumers have 32 bit computers, they wont dissappear in 1 year.

 

My opinion: I agree with Roberto - 64-bit is not something that is going to affect me soon. Everything I do on my 32-bit machine is plenty fast.

Dual-core is much more important to me than 64-bit is.

 

My Averatec 6130hs is a P4 3.0 Ghz/HT and it does an excellent job with encoding video and playing games. Right now as I'm typing this message I'm surfing the web and encoding video files. I'm sure by the end of Summer or Winter of this year AMD will probably release a Duel core 64 Bit Turion when Intel releases their 64 bit Dual Laptop CPU's. Now if Intel include Hyperthreading with their Duel Core 64 bit CPU's then they'll be pretty efficient at doing multi-media tasks. Also I think people should lighten up it's just a computer.

 

sorry chazman, i can't help passing up a ghost in the shell quote possibility,

but this is just funny,

it sounds like a political campaign where people are arguing over issues that only one person cares about.

i don't really believe what i said about 64bit being project 2501 i'm just trying to lighten the mood. but i don't think people should be allowed to be this evil sounding and shouldn't be allowed to make arguements that just sound like propoganda with no real premises. if you are going to argue a point make sure you atleast have a conclusion and purpose for your arguement.

the implied conclusion of 64bits arguement is that everyone should buy AMD because he believes so. all he had to do was list some facts which i'm sure are out there instead of sound like a crappy commercial for AMD.

and if you think Intel is an evil corporation just don't forget that Walmart is the absolute most evil corporation in the history of the world. they still use sweatshops.

 

64 bit is nice and all, and hey, if it works well, why not? But 64 bit applications are at least 2-3 years from now from becoming mainstream. I'm not doubting that patches will be released for 64 bit, but most people arn't going to buy new computers just for the 64 bit processors the moment or even fro at least a year until they come out. Software makers won't change their apps to 64 bit until they feel confident that more than 50% of everyday home pcs can run it or they'll be losing quite a bit of customers. In 2-3 years, which is the average notebook lifespan, we can just simply buy a new one. By then, 64 bit will be mainstream and we get the benefit. I'm guessing 99% of the world's pc population only care about performance and power consumption, not brand names...

 

There is a reason why MS will be releasing 32-bit/64-bit versions of Vista. While I agree that 32-bit is still gonna be with as for a long while, we cant just simply say 64-bt applications are not with us right now. They do exist today and some people are taking advantage of it. Not the common user yes, just depends where you are coming from. I will not say what works for me might work for others and vice-versa.

 

Lets also not forget that Intel was caught reverse engineering the athlon 64. Lets also not forget who has an anti-trust suit up against them. If any of these two companies is more on the consumer's side, Id say it is AMD.

I think M$ is waiting to release Vista because they want to make sure intel has a competitive notebook and desktop 64 bit processor. They are jsut making a ton of money off of 32 bit ones now. Just think if Vista was released last year in 64 bit mode how many more AMD64 chips would be sold....

 

Wal-Mart is evil.... but i cant help pass up noting that AMD doesnt run tv commercials like intel does... maybe why their stuff is cheaper? Not spending millions branding.

 

but i think you would agree that the way it was said did make it sound like a crappy commercial,

i agree that AMD doesn't spend as much as Intel with marketing,

I wonder why Intel would do better than AMD? hmmm........

hmmmm....
hmmmm....

 

just take the original poster' comments in a different way, It is true he did mention AMDsand Intels in his argument but he could have easily changed the AMD with Intel-64bit if intel had one. Now we dont know what his/her real preference is, but that is the only example in mobile processors one can mention at this time.

Intel doing better than AMD? , AMD doing better than Intel? I don't know, depend who you ask I guess.

There was a discussion a while ago about dual core VS single core usesfullness for the average user. same answers can be said to this debate about 32bit vs 64-bit

It comes down to what works for each individual on their usage and budget. . .

 

AMD and Intel need to both be around to keep prices now and technology on the rise. Its like the government, checks and balances, etc. (except the govnmnt is designed to get nothing accomplished). I think we ge the best technology by having both companies in close competition.

 

fully agree. The more the better.

Hopefully this round AMD will outperform Intel for the mobile sector. In preformance they were on par last time, but they still were ever so slightly behind on the power issue. Now with intel's new CPU consuming that much power and the USB power leak problem (and maybe the 64bits more?) AMD can seriously fight the battle ... I just hope that they can meet the demand, AND manufacturers disregard Intel's incentives/threats and go with the better product.

AMD have been having marvelous results with their power consumption recently in both the desktop and notebook market. Their X2 line impressed me a lot when I had the chance to test one and stress test it

 

That's just asinine. Come on...stop with the conspiracy theories everyone. Vista is NOT done yet. That's why they haven't released it. It's NOT done. Couldn't be released last year if it's not done. So it's not cause they're waiting for Intel to have chips out.

This is supposed to be an informative forum. Please avoid posting inuendo that's based on fantasy with no factual basis to back it up.

MS doesn't release new OS's every two years cause then lots of consumers would skip some of them. It's a business decision to space them out over time. You also do it when you can display new technologies that benefit the customer and would require OS revisions to support. So while technology does drive the release of new software, Vista's not dependant on new processors from Intel. Beta versions are already running fine on current equipment...so that argument is moot.

 

64bit, at the start of all this you seemed to be promoting 64bit processors and their performance advantages. But after reading through this thread it turns out your just promoting AMD. I do not prefer intel or anything, I will always choose the best processor i can afford, regardless of brand, but it seems that you are calling this forum and its members intel biased when you are clearly biased towards AMD.

Anyway i am curious to the benefits talked about by 64bit processing. How will 64bit improve games dramatically when i thought the bottleneck was always the video card? Thanks

 

Its asinine and naive to think that stuff like that doesnt happen. I'v read some stuff like that on technology web-sites by market analysts, etc., that agree. You dont think that these companies have tons of technology that they just slowly release? Look at dates on "new" processors. I know a lot of work goes in before stuff is released but still, these guys are out to make money more than just provide good products.

Qwester- AMD's X2 and athlon 64 desktops do indeed do an excellent job of power consumption. I think AMD this year will all depend on the release of socket M2, the dual core turion, etc. Intel's gotta recover from the flop that was the pentium D 800 series. If Dell and AMD go together that will also be HUGE. Intel's Conroe line will be their saving grace if they do that right....

 

Yeah, the Pentium D is a very inefficent CPU, let's hope they dont reiterate that mistake.

Competition is a good thing for a company, spurs them into making better products. And, in the end, it's the consumer who benefits!

I think we will see a far larger increase in gaming from dual-core than 64-bit.

 

intel is always harped on for not making efficient processors and i agree that their desktop processors suck but there notebook processors are pretty much unrivaled right know by AMD i think alot of people would agree with that.

Uscooper, i see your benchmark and that is great and all, but what do you think a 2.6ghz Pentium M Centrino could manage?

 

yes... providing game makers enable multi-threading... lol.

 

I have spent the time to real ALL posts.

Now here's my 2 cents.

I have been searching for a nice 15.4" gaming/school laptop for over 6 months, i passed up on the ASUS Z70va because i wanted more power and more features.

Now the release of Yonah has definately sparked my interest, I do alot of multi-tasking. I am acutaly always multi-tasking and running several programs at once 24/7!

The question is how long can I wait before I crack and get a laptop? LOL

With several great comment about Yonah and how certain programs and games are now using the Dual Core technology, I think it is definately the way of the future.

Yes I would like a 64 bit Dual Core laptop [NOW] but there is none available. Intel has a Yonah [Dual Core] 32 bit, and AMD has a Turion [Single Core] 64bit.

I personaly don't care AMD or Intel, it's all about what the individual wants.

Yes, Intel is basicaly pwning the Mobile market, there are far too little choices of AMD laptops with dedicated gpus.

I personaly agree that 64 bit programs and games are the way of the future, but definately 32 bit processing will still be in for about 4-5 years after the release of Vista 64. [my opinion]

Most of us can agree Dual Core is definately better than Single Core. [I agree based on reading]

Most of us are not too sure of what 64 bit will be like, our guess is that it will be really efficient and more beneficial. [which is prolly true]

Also to 64bit, people will always buy a laptop when they need it. The rule is "Buy a laptop if you need it now, but if you can wait then wait untill you really need one."

As I said earlier I am close to the breaking point to where I want to get a laptop real soon.

Furthermore on 64 bit cpus for futureproofing- as many mentioned here, if someone buys a laptop now, it will still be usefull, especially if its Dual Core, but the average consumer will not buy or need a 64 bit cpu if they can't get one now or wait to buy one in the future.
Also, the average user will upgrade their computer once they can no longer get programs and other stuff for their old outdated computers.

To 64bit, since your so inclined about 64bit cpus, tell me why everyone is jumping on the Centrino + Dedicated GPU trend compared to the AMD + Dedicated GPU...well to make things easier there are NOT MANY AMD solutions in the mobile market.
Hence Centrino is dominating.

[Imagine] If there were equal amounts of AMD and Intel notebooks with dedicated GPUS, the difference of people buying AMD vs Intel will be a lot closer, but not close enough beacuse the average person buying a notebook knows Intel and wants that little sticker [Intel Inside - Branding]

[Future] If Turion 2x is released within a 2 months of Merom, I think you would know who would win in Sales??? Intel Merom, the trend in the market is Intel based notebooks.

But if Turion 2x is released in the Summer and Merom is released in Oct, Nov, Dec. it would be interesting to see how many Brands will jump on the Turion 2x line and start to make laptops on it. [If there's alot of movement to the Turion 2x, then the people will buy it, just like right now people and companies are marketing Dual Core and people are buying it.]

All in all we will havta wait and see, but don't forget the rule to buying a laptop, "if you need one now, buy one that the best one you can afford and be happy, or if you can wait then wait till you absolutely need it.

By looking at this thread you do see how so many people here do care about being future proofed but also know it's gonna take some time for those Dual core 64 bit CPU [either AMD or Merom] to come, so people are having to make a choice between the cast varieties of Intel notebooks vs few AMD ones.

Note: At this time I do not like any Dual core laptop released, The Acer 8204 is the best bang for the buck, but its 6.6lbs and 1.5" thick at the back.
Many of the ASUS notebooks are not that great, except the AMAZING and anticipating W3J!! [14" W, Yonah + X1600]
Staying away from Dell [I live in Canada]
Samsung has their X60, gotta wait till they release higher versions of it.
The New Acer Ferrari - the one after 4006, what ever it's gonna be, it will be great.
Waiting on a 15.4" Lambo - BOO ASUS for a 15" Lambo

64bit if you look at my note, none of the Notebooks are AMD, why? cos none of them appeal to what I need/want. If they did like many of us here, we would consider them.

That's All, [i know its long]

Thanks,

MysticGolem

 

They already have. Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2 have patches that enable the use of a multi-threaded processor or dual-core. On my Pentium 4 3.2GHz HT desktop, I d/loaded and installed the patch.

It does wonders for performance. I now have almost twice the settings and a higher resolution that I could before.

Definitely looking forward to the future of that.

 

Man imagine if AMD managed to bring out a dule core processor that runs on Socket 754, those laptops would be evan cheaper. if u see what i mean.

 

Sure it happens...but what inside information do you have to make statements like that? What do you know that the rest of us don't?

Oh...you don't have any secret info? Then stop saying that's what's happening. Lots of tech websites are making "guesses" and assumptions. Unfortunately, that's the way most of them work these days. Doesn't mean it's right and you're a fool if you believe everything they say. Besides...they can say whatever they want and they'll never be refuted...cause the internal workings of most companies are never revealed to hte public and they'd never bother giving credence to those hacks by acknowledging their comments.

If you know something and have proof, fine...otherwise, those kinds of comments are simply lies.

 

oh i know lol, im just saying all of them should. You have to set the affinity on a dual core

 

They could do it... but 754 is on the way out. Socket M2 turion dual cores wont be terribly expensive, but the extra pins will give dual channel ddr2 support

 

to tell you the truth i dont realy mind not havin ddr2 id much rather have the dule core ;~)

 

Well right now amd is fine with ddr and the memory controller... but i mean think... dual core turion, 64-bit, memory controller, ddr2 low latency 667mhz ram... sounds good to me! (socket M2)

 

that has always been a mystery to me. . . is it not cost effective? or is it something else i dont know about AMD and dedicated gpus?

 

Evil? No. Sleazy........yes.
It takes alot of hard work to fool the world.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/12/1320202&from=rss

http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html
"It is a shame that the Intel compiler, which used to be almost the no-brainer choice if your primary concern was fast code, is now being coerced into being a marketing tool. Crippling the output for non-Intel chips may mean that some published benchmarks may end up bogusly favouring Intel over AMD,"

 

so you are trying to say this news is important to the average computer user today? i guarantee over 95% of laptop users would have no idea what this means.

and obviously your goal was not to prove that 64 bit is important but to prove that AMD is a better company than Intel.

congratulations and not proving anything what so ever. keep up the good work.

 

O.K. - let's get back on topic. Don't attack Intel or AMD or other members please.

 

i agree that AMD's technology is beyond what intel has done, but this is a billion dollar industry and the people with the money have control of what each company does. this applies to both companies.

it is kind of a shame that AMD decided to abandon there own architecture and use X86 they were not forced to do that. that was their decision along time ago.

but again none of this has anything to do with 64bit being important it is all AMD vs Intel. if that was the original purpose it should have been stated in the original post.

i honestly don't care what company makes more money, i couldn't care less, i just want a good CPU for my notebook, and according to the majority opinion in this forum, most believe 64bit is really not that important at this time but it will be in the future.

you are saying 64bit is important today because AMD is the only company to offer it at this time are you not?

 

From what I've gathered, P-Ms and Turions benchmark almost exactly the same, with minor differences in battery life. Yet the P-Ms cost upwards of $100-$400 more than a Turion. For me, that's the bottom line. Why do people buy P-Ms?

 

i agree with you sandman, i recently read a review on toms hardware guide of the turion
(mt) and actualy when the laptop is under continuous heavy stress eg playing a game, it got better battery life than the pentium m, its only under lite workloads that the pentium m has a better battery.

 

Well, people buy them because you have much more choices when it comes to a Pentium M notebook. Also, there are more Intel notebooks being advertised and in the stores on display vs. AMD notebooks.

There were no other notebooks that offered the same features as my notebook in a 15.4" design. My only choice was Intel, so that's what I bought.

 

yeah its just a matter of getting manufacturers to build with the turion, and put more than the X200 in them. Also, look at how many of the retail ones are ML. Why use ML when you can get MT of same specs for not much more? MSI uses some MT and maybe a few others ...but few and far between. Perhaps when the anti-trust suit is up we will see some nicers turion setups.

 

Pentiums are Mercedeses and AMDs are toyotas, with so much advertisemsnts ( I recall the MMX labsuits commercial still ) no mater how crapy PM is itll find more than a handful of buyers on name alone, "you cant be as good when it comes to this, you need to be ten times better" i got a p4 by default since amd was not in the high end laptop range

 

So, basically you are saying that Pentiums are expensive pieces of crap while AMDs are reliable high performing chips that give the best bang for the buck!

 

Sounds pretty accurate to me, jabba. LOL, AWVeteran, that was out of line, man. And a P4 by default? Sounds like you could take that thing with you in the cold to keep you warm. "and with so much advertisement"- yur paying a chunk of that, buddy. P4's have taken a lot of flak and arent really regarded as a good notebook processor. They use like over 90W TDP on the processor alone dont they? Its obvious that there are die-hard intel and die-hard AMD people here, and nothing is being posted anymore about 64 bit, and when it does it leads directly to AMD or Intel bashing. Lets close this thread. I know im prob at fault too but its one of those htings where you see a comment and are like ahh that is so wrong, etc and have to remark.

 

Reliable and High performing is not something I equate with Toyota but to each their own, I know my girlfriend thinks any asian car is gods gift to the american road. What a horrible year to be in the market for a notebook. AMD 64bit but still single core Intel Dual Core but not 64bit... Now 802.11N for early next year I hear.

 

I dont think theres any point in closing the thead let people say wht they want to say, its not like any one is insulting any one else we are just discussing the finer points of the issue.

 

I got an AW 766 (piece of c**p) there were no 64 systems nor even AMD for that matter in the DR market... honesty I could careless who makes the processor as long as it adheres to highest of standards and no matter what you say pentium will be the mercedes (Im rich b***h -chappele) while amds the runner up BMW ("I got a career")... just the sad truth that no matter what AMD makes, as long as intel is in the game it will get the cookie even when they dont provide the goods

as for 32 vs 64... i had the first widespread 16bit computer (Amiga) and it was a positive thing... no you dont really need 64 bit but if youre doing this to "upgrade" stop with the stupid 1 upsmanship and just make a 128 bit to seal the deal (I am pretty confident that in my lifetime there will never be a need for a processor with larger amount)

computer world is dictated my marketing and people got to realize that if there going to jump on every trend just because its new than they waste their own money since each product is worth a minute fraction of selling price while its intentionally outdated (just look at windows) so that youll get a smack on the head next year when everyone goes "hey lookie what i got"

 

As long as no one is insulting anyone or making inapp. comments, this can say open. There looks to be a good conversation going on.

Cheers

 

I'm busy studying and this thread is long as hell, so I will just give my 2 cents that probably has been written before.

This site is NOT biased in ANY respect as you can see by peoples suggestions for laptops other than the brands they own and people offering help in other laptop manufacturers other than their own.

Intel biased? No way, it's just that a lot of people on here have them and like them.

So far I haven't come across immature comments/statements like "Intel freakin' rules and you AMD guys suck~!!!!" like you would find in Ati and Nvidia forums about their videocards.

You'll only come across comments like "I prefer the Intel Pentium-M over the AMD, because it runs cooler, etc... and this is why I think it's better than the AMD."

You will however find comments like "Asus rules, period~!!". I find these comments to be perfectly fine because it doesn't really have to do with individual technologies or products. It's just a manufacturer war, so a bout between those who assemble these various technologies.

Okay now onto the subject at hand. I don't think there will be many 64-bit based applications for the mainstream public, which is the focus of many software companies. The only 64-bit apps will probably be for task specific applications for businesses and the sciences.

I doubt they will have 64-bit word processors. There's no point or significant benefit in doing so. Yes having a 64-bit OS is probably beneficial to anyone and everyone, but I don't see many software companies pushing out 64-bit applications very soon.

Of course the jump will come in the near future, but it won't be too soon.

Cheers,
Mike

 

The biggest problem IMHO is the manufacturers themselves. They perceive AMD as a "value" brand, and shove them out the door in stripped-down configurations. For the most part, they're *so* neurotic about shaving off every fraction of a Yuan from the manufacturing costs, they end up doing things that NOBODY would ever do if allowed to make an informed choice about their own future laptop.

Case in point: ML vs MT. According to pricewatch, the cost difference between a ML-40 and MT-40 is an Earth-shaking five bucks. Even if it were marked up 200%, I suspect that most people, if given the choice, would say, "Screw it... gimme the MT" and pay the extra $20 without a second thought.

Or, for ATI RS40x chipsets, the cost difference between HyperMemory and its omission. Once again, we're talking about a cost difference at the wholesale level of less than 5 bucks. Probably, more like $1 or $2 (we're talking about 32 whopping megs). I *really* doubt anyone spending more than a thousand bucks on a new laptop would say, "yeah, give me $20 off and omit the HyperMemory" -- if only as a cheap insurance policy in case someday they want to run dual-head (HyperMemory makes little difference to 3D scores, but makes a BIG difference when you're running dual-head at 32-bit 1440x1050).

Or pointer sticks. For god's sake, the wholesale cost difference between a keyboard + touchpad and keyboard + touchpad with pointer stick is about $2. If mfrs had any sense, they'd at least make replacement keyboards w/stick (and maybe less-flexible support) available for a hundred bucks so suffering users who loathe touchpads could at least buy their way back into civilized society.

Personally, I think Intel is terrified of what will happen if someone like Dell breaks the taboo and dares to roll out a high-end fully-loaded laptop with dual-core Turion a few months from now. If notebook manufacturers began to view dual-core Turions and Core Duos as equal peers (or, god forbid, viewed dual-core Turions as THE ultimate high-end laptop CPU until Merom arrived), Intel might actually have to start competing with AMD on price.

Well, there's at least one thing to smile about. At least the Core Duos and single-core Turions are worthy peers, sufficiently comparable for the choice to basically come down to a matter of whether you're more interested in getting the best possible framerate in games or the smoothest possible experience while juggling a half-dozen programs under Windows.

I'd venture a guess that ANYONE buying a top-of-the-line laptop today will have replaced it by the end of next year *anyway*, at which point 64-vs-32 and single-vs-dual will both be moot points because ALL the new laptops will be 64-bit AND multicore... with the main differences being how well AMD and Intel's respective CPUs juggle performance against power conservation to maximize battery life as painlessly as possible. Fortunately, the dark ages of Intel backwardness (Rambus, the entire blighted 800-series of mobo chipsets, and Netburst) seem to finally be over.

We can all be thankful that we had AMD to provide a quality alternative to the dreadful P4 that also happened to be 64-bit... but let's face it: one look at their Opteron pricing at the peak of their dominance showed just how much they REALLY care about their most faithful supporters. Given half a chance, they're every bit as willing to milk their customers and hold back CPUs as Intel is (yeah, I'm still a little bitter about the fact that they dropped the Athlon MP with no remotely affordable replacement 3 years before the x2s came out... then made 1xx Opterons non-hackable into duallies, and priced the 2xx Opterons at levels that actually made Intel's Xeon prices look reasonable by comparison. My 2400MP desktop was really starting to feel ragged by the time the x2 finally appeared...) With both companies nipping at each other's heels, we'll all benefit.

Dear god... I can't believe I've actually said anything that could be interpreted as praise for an Intel CPU. I guess I really am feeling betrayed by the ongoing lack of dual-core Turions. But then again, I've been SMP at home for years, and felt shackled and deprived by EVERY laptop I've had to use up to now... so I'm enthusiastically celebrating the arrival of mobile SMP regardless of whose name is on the CPU. If Maxvision's lunchboxen had been available with dual Opterons, I probably would have bought one a year ago and pimped it out with a nice, fast 15kRPM Fujitsu MAU and 256k gfx. card