Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moving to a 64bit CPU

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Zachery View Post
    Please tell me you mean an X2 3800 and not a AMD 64 3800
    Please tell me he means an FX and not an X2 Athlon 64bit chip

    I've got an X2 3800 if he wants to buy it, in the box, I've been meaning to put that a few other things on ebay for sale for the past two weeks.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ---MAD--- View Post
      Ah so you it's only good to use 64 bit system/software/processor when you have 4gb or more ram?
      There are other issues besides just addressing memory. More space in the address registry also tends to translate to faster memory and storage lookups as well. Plus there are advances in the core not exactly related to the amount of bits processed.
      Translations provided by Google.

      Wayne Luke
      The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
      vBulletin 5 API

      Comment


      • #18
        Does Vista (not the 64bit version) take advantage of 64bit processors? Because most duel core processors installed in off-the-shelf computers, come with Vista 32bit version installed as standard. And I thought all these duel core processors were 64bit

        Comment


        • #19
          The 32-bit OS does not really take advantage of it. However I believe it can at the assembly level for registers and memory lookup. Which is why Vista supports more memory than XP. However for the applications, this is transparent and does not require emulation. Unless you purchase special versions or compile it yourself, you won't find much 64-bit software on vendor's shelves these days.

          It should be noted that all CPUs currently being pressed and sold today are 64-bit CPUs. Some have multiple cores, some don't.
          Translations provided by Google.

          Wayne Luke
          The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
          vBulletin 5 API

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Wayne Luke View Post
            There are other issues besides just addressing memory. More space in the address registry also tends to translate to faster memory and storage lookups as well. Plus there are advances in the core not exactly related to the amount of bits processed.
            Ah, ok thanks .

            Comment


            • #21
              Jesus Wayne, talk in plain english please. That was way over my head all that technical jargon.

              OK, this is what bothers me. I said in another thread that I built a computer for my dad using XP Pro and an Intel Pentium 4 Extreme 32bit CPU, And his computer seemed faster than my custom built PC that had XP Pro and an Athlon X2 3600 64bit CPU.

              Thats really bugged me, not only had I paid like twice the price for the CPU compared to the Intel CPU. But I had Corsair memory installed (which was the fastest type for my Asus motherboard also.

              It just seemed like you say, there is just no point what so ever in getting a 64bit processor for a 32 bit OS. But the problem is, if you install a 64 bit OS, the software support is bad.

              I run XP Home now here and use an Athlon FX chip (64bit). But I really wish now I'd gone with a Pentium 4 Extreme 32 bit chip for the OS instead now.
              Last edited by MRGTB; Mon 16 Jul '07, 3:07pm.

              Comment


              • #22
                I amended my post up there. All CPUs being made today are 64-bit. Even your Intel Extreme was a 64/32 bit hybrid. The number of bits doesn't necessarily mean speed. Just like Corsair doesn't necessarily mean fast memory (their cheap stuff downright sucks).

                You purchased an older 64-bit processor which had slower emulation routines. They have increased the speed of those lately. But any number of reasons could have slowed your machine down from the timing on your memory modules to the cache on your harddrive to relying on older PCI busses, etc... A lot goes into a machine to determine its overall speed. The number of bits it pushes is not the end of everything.

                I did read the original question slightly different and my first answer was misleading. 32-bit OS on a 64-bit processor is what you want today in the Windows world. Sorry for the confusion.. I fuddled it in my mind. The OS is more key for support and stability than the processor is.
                Translations provided by Google.

                Wayne Luke
                The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
                vBulletin 5 API

                Comment


                • #23
                  Well anyway, I did install XP Pro 64bit at one point. But it didn't stop on very long. I had trouble getting 64bit drivers for certain hardware, and software support back then was bad.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    i suppose the main point is this. If you do have a 64bit processor. To take full advantage of its speed, should you not really install Vista as a 64bit OS and not the 32bit version. Thats being shipped out with 64bit processors?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by MRGTB View Post
                      i suppose the main point is this. If you do have a 64bit processor. To take full advantage of its speed, should you not really install Vista as a 64bit OS and not the 32bit version. Thats being shipped out with 64bit processors?

                      In a perfect world but you need new drivers and/or new hardware as well new software to take full advantage of it. When you start combining 32-bit hardware drivers and old software then you get the stability issues that was present in the Windows 95 days.

                      If you're willing to make a clean start and make sure all of your hardware, its drivers and your software are 64-bit then go for it. The problem is most people have legacy hardware and don't feel like upgrading just for a new version of an OS. If you game, you can't get 64-bit versions of your software. It isn't economically feasible to compile, package and ship them. Same for many applications that people buy and use. The average person is buying software off the shelves at Circuit City, Best Buy, Gamestop, Wal-mart or their equivalents in other countries. Those places carry 32-bit software so your Operating System should match. Heck, Microsoft doesn't even sell 64-bit versions of their software in the retail chain yet, just the OS. Also some popular free applications like iTunes are not available in 64-bit versions. Its an economy of scale. How many packages due you need to sell to make it worthwhile for testing, production, packaging, marketing and distribution. For many your talking hundreds of thousands of copies. For large companies like Microsoft, you're talking millions.
                      Translations provided by Google.

                      Wayne Luke
                      The Rabid Badger - a vBulletin Cloud demonstration site.
                      vBulletin 5 API

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dan View Post
                        I'm going to be moving to a 64 bit CPU (Athlon 64 3800+) should I stick with the 32bit Windows or move to 64bit? Ideas? Suggestions?
                        Go with 64-bit. If Windows x64 edition works like OS X Leopard, then you'll still be able to run 32-bit applications alongside 64-bit. For the record, the Intel Core 2 Duo is 64-bit, in addition to the mentioned AMD processors.
                        Forums

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MRGTB View Post
                          Please tell me he means an FX and not an X2 Athlon 64bit chip

                          I've got an X2 3800 if he wants to buy it, in the box, I've been meaning to put that a few other things on ebay for sale for the past two weeks.
                          Because of the urgency of this issue and amount of money available to get up and running it is only an Athlon 64 3800+ (got it in a combo deal at newegg.com)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I have 2 Intel Xeon Woodcrest 51xx Dual Core CPU's that are 64bit and I can't wait for 10.5 from OSX to go native 64bit OS!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Isn't OSX already 64bit? I know the PPC version of Tiger is true 64bit and all 32bit software runs in emulation.
                              Did they have to change to x86/64 when they went with Intel?
                              Admins Zone - Resources for Forum Administrators

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Wayne Luke View Post
                                In a perfect world but you need new drivers and/or new hardware as well new software to take full advantage of it. When you start combining 32-bit hardware drivers and old software then you get the stability issues that was present in the Windows 95 days.

                                If you're willing to make a clean start and make sure all of your hardware, its drivers and your software are 64-bit then go for it. The problem is most people have legacy hardware and don't feel like upgrading just for a new version of an OS. If you game, you can't get 64-bit versions of your software. It isn't economically feasible to compile, package and ship them. Same for many applications that people buy and use. The average person is buying software off the shelves at Circuit City, Best Buy, Gamestop, Wal-mart or their equivalents in other countries. Those places carry 32-bit software so your Operating System should match. Heck, Microsoft doesn't even sell 64-bit versions of their software in the retail chain yet, just the OS. Also some popular free applications like iTunes are not available in 64-bit versions. Its an economy of scale. How many packages due you need to sell to make it worthwhile for testing, production, packaging, marketing and distribution. For many your talking hundreds of thousands of copies. For large companies like Microsoft, you're talking millions.
                                A lot of what you say was the reason why I removed XP Pro 64bit (what a load of garbage that was), and I've never even attempted to run Vista 64bit, 32bit was bad enough for problems. Even though I have that option to do so. I'm not that keen on Vista anyway to be honest, it looks really great on your computer. But I still think it has stability issues myself. I've yet to talk to one person who I personally know, who has not had issues with Vista and regretted buying a PC with Vista installed, and would sooner go back to XP. But that's another story, which no doubt some people will argue and say it runs fine and on their computers without any problems, which do doubt it probably does for them.

                                I even had a mate last week install Vista to replace his Media Centre Edition of XP. Guess what, today he re-formated to put XP back on. I told him I knew he wouldn't last the week with Vista.

                                So now we have 64bit chips, and nobody wants to install a Windows 64bit OS. That's quite ironic really seeing as everybody wants them because there the "in-thing", but then not making full use them and there capabilities, because there designed for a 64bit OS to get the most out of em.
                                Last edited by MRGTB; Tue 17 Jul '07, 2:37pm.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X