Why 64bits is important TODAY.

thanks miami that was a pretty good read, just one point id like to argue... intel would probably roll over in their grave before droping their precious prices ;-)

 

maybe im alone but my desktop athlon 64 isnt that great, ive had it for a year, how many 64 bit apps have i used on it..0 but w/e to everyone its there own, vista will be released 32 bit, than LATER 64 bit. ur going to have a small gap, it wont be untill the next os that 64 bit will be mainstream and u know microsoft, thats in a long time

 

I have a 64 bit computer and I love it. Put my anthlon 3000+ against my brothers intel 3.0 w/ht and I stomp him (not in muli-tasking but in single). I like the choice. I also use linux so I have run 64 bit software on it. You say you have run 0 apps in 64 bit, but you CAN and thats what makes it great. You could run 64 bit XP on it if you choose, 32 bit CPU, you don't have that choice.

 

lol at this point the 64 seems to be volcano insurance... you know theres going to be one erupting sometime somwhere but will you be around? i presume by the time 64 tech will make it mainstream todays amds are going to be sitting in the bargain discount bin

i dont want to start a war or anything just my 2 cents

 

Thats the great thing about AMD though. An AMD cpu compared to Intel costs alot less money. So even if you never one time with that cpu opened a 64 bit app, you still got the best bang for your buck. Also, 64 bit is alive and well in the linux world, if you want to check it out as a live cd, check out kanotix 64 bit, then you can say you used a 64 bit program.

 

:/ never quite liked the livecds... any stable distro(hard) you could recommend for P4? i always get massive issues n give up alltogether

 

Not always true. If you're talking about the desktop world then some AMD processors are much more expensive than their Intel counterparts. Also, you can't say you got the best bang for your buck if you paid for something that you never once used. Also, someone mentioned in a previous post that their AMD desktop processor outperformed some Intel processor. Well this has nothing to do with the argument of 64 bit over 32 bit because you benchmarked in 32 bit. All you are saying is that a certain AMD processor can beat a certain Intel processor at a certain single threaded 32bit benchmark.

But all costs aside, I think it is clear that 64 bit processing is currently of no importance. The only question is when 64 bit is going to be widespread enough to make going out of the way to get a 64bit processor actually worth the effort. I have no idea when this will be and all anyone can really do at this point is guess.

 

actually there are plenty of 32 and 64 bit benchmarks that have been ran on intel vs amd machines. Go to toms hardware or google it. the lack of good 64 bit benchmark tools other that for servers is pretty limited tho. Not enough software yet

 

ray5000, I think you hit the nail on the head there, the question is certainly WHEN is 64bit going to be important (for the microsoft world, I realise that Linux/Unix world it's already important) and I guess that's the 60,000 dollar question.

Personally I don't see it as that important (to me) so have just put down for a dual core (much more important to me) and will see what happens, but I figure good life for a laptop is 3 years, because after that time I normally need a new laptop anyway.

 

lol now are we going to go into why dual-core isn't that meaningful for laptops unless you're using it for some cpu-heavy tasks?

I think I'd rather have a 64-bit cpu than a dual core right now. Hey, I do already!

 

We are using 64Bit Fedora Core 4 on a Athlon64 3200+ without any issue for development.

One desktop is running with Suse 9.2 Professional with Intel.

 

i wouldnt, i mean i realy like my processor and 64bit and having windows 64 on my laptop and everything but i like to play games and having a dule core processor would realy help in new titles such as The Eldar Scrolls: OBLIVION, which im praying ill be able to play well at medium settings.

 

how would having a 64-bit cpu and xp64 NOT allow you to play elder scrolls?

and how does dual-core help in a game that isn't designed to take advantage of dual-core capabilities?

http://www.elderscrolls.com/games/oblivion_faq.htm

 

Sorry to go off topic, but CoffeeShark that little bunny? or hamster is too adorable. Send me a link to the actual full sized picture please

Hope I don't get flamed for this, haha.

Yes, having a 64bit processor has its advantages, but just like dual core it's not a deal breaker. It will just make things smoother, just like upgrading to 1gig from 512mb of ram or 2gigs of ram from 1gig.

AMD and Intel processors have their own strong points and both perform great. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

Please?

Cheers,
Mike

 

The same can be said for a 64 bit processor. In fact, how does having a 64 bit processor help at all when you are running 32bit Windows? I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that you need to have a 64 bit OS in order to use any sort of 64 bit application. If this is true it would mean that in order to use 64 bit at all you would have to cross over into the 64 bit world entirely and there is no doubt that 64 bit software as it is today is underdeveloped.

On the other hand, there may be few applications designed to take advantage of dual-cores but it's not like you have to run multi-threaded applications to actually use both cores in your processor. Simply running two different applications at the same time would be using both cores whereas you could run a hundred 32 bit applications and not utilize one smidgen of your 64 bit capabilities.

 

Doing a search on 64-bit applications might give you answers if you'll want to take advantage of. Like I mentioned before they do exist, but perhaps most of the people here just are not in that market/business that needs it.

There are 64-bit games out there for the gamers but there are 32-bit equivalents of these. I'm not a hardcore gamer so I would not know the differences.

In the Animation department, there are 64-bit versions of XSI and Lightwave, and a 64-bit version of Maya on the way.

 

Yep. Hit the nail on the head. Under WinXP, at least, you'll start to see benefits from SMP the moment you launch just about ANY two apps, even if it's just Firefox + Thunderbird. Experience what it's like to run just about *anything* that's part of Microsoft Office (Word/Excel/Powerpoint/etc) with a browser window or two open, and you'll never be happy with a non-SMP system again. See what it's like to clean, build, and launch a webapp using Netbeans and its embedded Tomcat on a dual-core/dual-cpu system with MySQL running in the background, and you'll come to view SMP as a basic human right

Give Windows two cpu cores to juggle, and most of the little things that annoy you and make your computer feel slow just go away -- PARTICULARLY things that cause Explorer's brain-damaged single-threaded name resolver to hang anything that touches it for 30+ seconds until it times out after something causes it to do a bad DNS lookup when there's only a single core. I think you can replicate this by launching your favorite browser, then attempting to navigate to a web page whose hostname has been delegated to a server that exists and can be pinged, but isn't responding to DNS queries. Windows XP sends the dns query, but doesn't bother to spawn a new thread to do the waiting because it stupidly takes for granted that the request will be serviced immediately. So it waits... and waits... and queues any new requests that come in while it's waiting. Of course, since Explorer can't help but keep touching everything over and over to reassure itself that things still exist, it quickly gets caught in the tarpit and hangs almost immediately. With multiple CPUs, WinXP spawns a second instance of the resolver, so the endless flood of requests to resolve local things like "c:\" can be serviced immediately, even though the other thread is going to be hung for what seems like forever.

 

oh god, this discussion has made buying a new laptop very confusing.

I think that i might wanna hold off on that asus z81sp

 

If you get a Pentium 4 6xx processor with the Z-81SP, that's 64-bit.

 

Not really. Basically, you just need to ask yourself, "What irritates and annoys me more?"

a) "Windows getting hung and feeling unresponsive" -- go with dual-core. At the moment, that means Intel Core Duo. A 7200rpm hard drive wouldn't hurt, either.... and a 5400RPM would be the bare minimum. If the notebook with a ~4200rpm drive is too good to pass up, buy an external usb enclosure, replace the internal drive with a new 5400 or 7200rpm one, and put the drive the laptop came with in the external enclosure and use it to store your pr0n and warez. 1-gig of ram's the minimum, 2 gigs wouldn't hurt.

b) "My favorite game's FPS is too low, or it's dropping frames" -- go with AMD64. 1-gig minimum ram. Make sure the system supports dual-channel (if it's not socket 939, it's not dual-channel. And be careful... more than a few socket 939-based notebooks proudly proclaim that the *CPU* supports dual-channel memory, but don't bother to mention that the notebook itself is hardwired to single-channel mode.)

c) "My battery doesn't last long enough, and cost is no object" -- Pentium M, with removable media bay and battery to put in it. Dell is a good choice.

d) "My battery doesn't last long enough, but I don't want to spend a fortune" -- Turion. Ideally, with removable media bay & battery to put in it.

e) "My bank account is empty and I can't afford to spend much" -- Sempron. Avoid anything with the word "Celeron" unless you know for a fact, beyond any shadow of doubt, that it's a Pentium-M-core celeron and not a Pentium-4-core celeron.

 

Looks like everything I wanted to say have already been pointed out already. Anyway, that's exactly why I've decided to buy a laptop late next year. Once the 64-bit version of Vista arrives, in one way or another, new software/applications would give "exclusive" features to the 64-bit OS that would otherwise not run on a 32-bit CPU. Yes, at first it's going to be useless Office extensions (or something like that), but sooner later as technology progresses, I'd say one and a half to two years from now, we'd start seeing programs that'll show substantial performance increases with 64-bit. Give it another year, and we'd see 64-bit exclusive programs. Seeing how laptops is such a big investment (for me anyway... since I always tend to go high-end), I'd like to keep it for at least three years. Now, we all now that the Core Duo would be a piece of junk once Merom makes use of the new Santa Rosa architecture in March 2007. It wouldn't be the smartest if I bought a laptop right now would it? That's exactly why I bought a desktop for the time being. If I get a laptop, I want everything to be just about perfect.

 

I notice the original poster is gone now...hmmm...who would have thought after stirring up this?

As for your comment about 64bit exclusive programs...not gonna happen for a long, long time.

Again...I'll state it one more time...the software market is driven by the consumer...not technology. Most consumers of mainstay programs will NOT have a 64bit computer for 3-4 years, so the software programmers will continue to support that segment on the common applications.

Sure...MS might release a 64bit version of Office in 2009 and not a 32bit version...but frankly...who cares? I can continue to use the 32bit version I have...very few end users actually upgrade to the newest edition of MS Office every time it comes out. That's why MS makes sure that the new versions continue compatibililty with older versions.

Anything else major, I don't expect to see sold in only 64bit format until late 2008 at the earliest. The absolute earliest. By then...many consumers will be preparing to upgrade to a new machine or will be able to continue using software they already have for another year or two until they are ready to purchase a new computer.

I expect the full conversion to occur somewhere around 2010.

 

Personally, I could care less about 64 bit until I see mainstream applications start to integrate it into their software. But who knows, I'm a gulible consumer.

 

Doesn't everyone, and come on, you know that in a year, when you say your ready to buy a NB, people here will be talking about new systems coming out in 2008 that have 4 gigs of ram, 4 cores, and can perform ******. Whereas we've been on 32 bit systems for almost a decade, 64 bit will be standard for years to come just like 32 bit was. Getting a 64 bit system now, yes it will too be obsolete in 5 years (if it still runs) but will not be AS obsolete as 32 bit systems. Dual core is important, but if I get one now, I'd feel like a chump compared to quad/3 core in under two years. My 64 bit system might make me feel like chump cuz its single core, but i can still lean back on the fact that AT LEAST its 64 bit.

 

What if the shift from single thread to multi thread software happens quicker and to a fuller extent than the shift from 32 bit to 64 bit? There is nothing to say that this can't happen and if it does then a 64 bit processor will be more obsolete than 32 bit. But regardless, the concern isn't whether or not a laptop bought today will be outdated in 4 years, ANY laptop ( 32 bit, dual core, or 64 bit) bought today will be outdated in 4 years.

You are only considering the last 1/4th of the expected lifespan of your laptop. Perhaps during the last year that you own your laptop you will be able to enjoy the advantage of some 64 bit programs, but during the first 3 years you did absolutely nothing 64 bit. On the other hand, you could have enjoyed improved performance for all 4 years with a dual core.

What matters is what you can get out of your laptop before it becomes outdated and currently a dual core processor offers a better performance boost over a single core 64 bit processor. However, this fact isn't really being argued, what is is when will having 64 bit be worth more than having 2 cores. Like mentioned before, who knows when this will be but we can expect it to take at least 2 years, more probably 3 or 4, before 64 bit becomes dominant.

 

Hello, I'm right here.
Even if you were correct in your fantastical assumptions that 64 bit conversion will not fully convert until 2010, the guys who bought the 64bit laptops today in February of 2006 will have longer living and higher performing laptops than the guys who bought 32bit core duos today.

Plus, the Turion 64 wins in the most important benchmarks (without even using it's 64bit engine) and doesn't suck battery life if you plug in a usb mouse as the Core Duos and Pentium M's do. It also uses less energy than a Pentium M when web browsing and doing office tasks which is the majority of time spent when a laptop is on. Lastly, Turion64 laptops are hundreds of dollars cheaper than comparably equipped 32bit only laptops. Seems like common sense to me.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/pentiumm-vs-turion64/index.x?pg=11

"The power consumption tests are actually very interesting. While it's true that the Pentium M beats the Turion 64 by a substantial margin under load, the fact is that typical laptop usage leaves the system at idle the vast majority of the time. At idle, the Turion 64 system actually comes in with slightly lower power consumption than the Pentium M rig. This result indicates that, depending on usage patterns, the Turion could prove a worthy alternative to the Pentium M in terms of battery life."

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=2693

"First of all, it's important to characterize the impact of the USB 2.0 asynchronous scheduler bug on both Core Duo and Pentium M based systems. Using the Lenovo T60 and T43 as comparison points, we found that without the fix adding a bus-powered USB device such as a memory stick reduced battery life anywhere from 18 - 28%. In the case of the T43, a 28% reduction in battery life for simply plugging in a USB 2.0 device is beyond ridiculous. In the case of both notebooks, applying Microsoft's fix gives you almost all of your battery life back, the only decrease is due to actual power used by the device and any polling that may be happening as a result of the device being installed.

It is also extremely important that we point out the existence of this bug on all of the platforms we tested; in other words, this is not exclusively a Core Duo problem. In fact, in the case of the T60/T43, the Sonoma based T43 actually lost a larger percentage of its battery life due to the asynchronous scheduler bug than the Napa based T60. We saw the same results with the ASUS notebooks; with only the integrated USB 2.0 camera connected, the ASUS Napa notebook lost 17% of its battery life due to the bug, while the Sonoma based W5A lost 25.5%. Once again, implying that this is a Core Duo issue alone is simply incorrect; the problem affects Sonoma platforms just as much, if not more, than Core Duo platforms. Based on the results we've seen in our perfmon analysis we tend to believe Microsoft's assessment that the problem would exist on any system that spent any time in C3 or lower power states. "

 

What makes you believe that in 4 years ANY laptop that was bought today will be considered 'high performance'. If you are basing your argument on your statement that in 4 years an AMD Turion is going to outperform an Intel Core Duo then not only is your topic 'Why 64bits is important TODAY' wrong but you are also basing everything on an assumption with no facts to back it up, in addition to arguing a moot point.

I just looked at the Lenovo T60 review (equiped with a 2.0ghz core duo processor) that was posted today. The Super Pi time was 1 min 18 secs!!! Not even an Athlon can get that kind of a super pi time, not to mention its underclocked brother the Turion. Plus, super pi does not take advantage of multithreaded processing.

According to your source, the Turion has lower power consumption by just 6% when idle, is that even outside of the margin of error? It does not attribute any gains in battery life to this lower power consumption. In addition to that, under load the Pentium M consumes a wopping 32% less power. Do you really want to argue that the Turion has lower power consumption that the Pentium M? Also, the Core Duo is suppose to have lower overall power consumption than the Pentium M.


You like to mention this usb bug found in Core Duo's and apparently Pentium M's. If all you can say for a Turion is that it has better battery life due to a bug with Core Duo's, when this bug gets fixed are you done arguing?

 

More promise than reality?
http://www.mobilityguru.com/2006/02/09/is_64_bit_mobile_computing_more_promise_than_reality/

 

This test backs up the idea of how dumb some of the Toms test/reviews are.

First thing you test 64Bit a laptop with 512MB DDR333. Toms themselves recommmend atleast 1GB memory for anything(even with 32Bit computer), but he tests a 64BITwith 512MB DDR333. Can't he find(buy 1GB DDR400 stick to test).

And what I did not understand is why a P-M platform came into picture with all together different spec when the aim to test advantages or disadvantages of 64Bit OS.

If clearly show it has some advantages( no one claims double the performance accross the board, rather only for specific number crunching applications).

I pretty much now believe these are guys are on Intel Payroll( Ofcourse most people knows). Ofcourse I do read all kinds of reviews/article to see other perspectives too.

 

Any proof of that? Last I saw that no-one had checked to see if the Turion was effected by the MICROSOFT bug (note not intel problem, microsoft problem) and the Pentium M is effected minimally (so minimally that most people didn't even notice with the pentium M)

Um, that depends on the user, I've also seen no proof of that, the only recent article (posted by you yourself) showed it used slightly less power when idle.

So um, yeah if you have anything actually factual to post that proves any of the statements you've made they would be interesting to see, but currently you've posted two things that prove neither of your statements.