64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Ben Pope wrote:

>David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll
>>>use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction.
>>>Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not,
>>>when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I
>>>understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more
>>>interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By
>>>the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I
>>>purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for
>>>at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel),
>>>would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
>>>
>>>
>> I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
>>plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
>>64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
>>It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
>>the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.
>>
>>
>
>If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
>whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
>
>I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that.
>
>Ben
>
>
And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong
habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa
stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool
dude, smoked stogies).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

signmeuptoo wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>> If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able
>> to whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
>>
>> I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like
>> that.
>>
> And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
> chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
> yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong
> habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa
> stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool
> dude, smoked stogies).

Dual Processors are going into socket 939 in under 6 months, that hardly
sounds like a socket thats gonna die soon.

When did Socket A come into existance? 5 years ago? And it's still going.

OK, so you've had socket 754 and 939 introduced. How long was 754
around before 939 came out? Not very long... there weren't that many
people who bought a 754 and were unable to do the research and find out
that it was gonna die pretty quick. So AMD made a mistake. However,
socket 754 will be around in the cheap market for some time too.

There's talk of a DDR2 CPU (new socket, over 1000 pins), but thats not
gonna be for a year or so.

Thats hardly that many sockets, look at what Intel are doing...

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start being
coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released.. There arent many
out there right now, but until then, all programs run in 32 bit, regardless
of weather or not you have a 64 bit processor installed.
--
http://www.techfreakz.com - PC Enthusiasts


"signmeuptoo" <signmeuptoo@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xibXd.6177$603.1872@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Ben Pope wrote:
>
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>>"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1109672861.469546.55860@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll
>>>>use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction.
>>>>Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not,
>>>>when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I
>>>>understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more
>>>>interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By
>>>>the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I
>>>>purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for
>>>>at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel),
>>>>would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
>>>>
>>> I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
>>>plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
>>>64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
>>>It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
>>>the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.
>>>
>>
>>If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
>>whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
>>
>>I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like
>>that.
>>
>>Ben
>>
> And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
> chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
> yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong habit
> of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa stinks up
> the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool dude, smoked
> stogies).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

<dums39@hotmail.com> writes:

> Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start
> being coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released..
> There arent many out there right now, but until then, all programs
> run in 32 bit, regardless of weather or not you have a 64 bit
> processor installed.

Unless you want to use an alternative OS (Linux, BSD, Solaris). Since
there are a lot of programs whose source is also available making
them 64-bit is just a recompile away.

Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for
recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main
thing.


P.S. Could you please not top-post?

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"David Magda" <dmagda+trace050112@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote in message
news:86r7iiqasd.fsf@number6.magda.ca...

> Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for
> recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main
> thing.

That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors
and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors
and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of
software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However,
there is very little currently existing software that can significantly
benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with
numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with
numbers larger than a hundred thousand.

DS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

I think David has a point, if it's speed your looking for but you dont
want to risk it use Parallel boards instead.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:
> That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors
> and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors
> and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of
> software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However,
> there is very little currently existing software that can significantly
> benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with
> numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with
> numbers larger than a hundred thousand.

In the case of x86 64-bits, the real gain is to be had from the
additional registers, and the onboard memory controller (in some cases).
Also some unrecompiled 32-bit apps can gain from having additional
address space specifically devoted to them and not shared with the OS,
which now has its own address space well out of the way of these apps.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

<gkalsisoft@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110844869.442915.154290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I think David has a point, if it's speed your looking for but you dont
> want to risk it use Parallel boards instead.
>

what?

please elaborate.

 

[dd]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

While for the most part that may be true for the majority of users, there
are applications where the added memory and address space would make a
significant difference, most notably where massive amounts of data requiring
extremely accurate calculations are slugged around. There are also a
significant number of businesses whose data mining operations, and on
occasion regular database requirements, would benefit from the extra hard
memory. Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy operating
system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway there.

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:2IOdnfPC8uKP3qvfRVn-gQ@rogers.com...
> David Schwartz wrote:
> > That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit
processors
> > and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit
processors
> > and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge
base of
> > software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability.
However,
> > there is very little currently existing software that can significantly
> > benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal
with
> > numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal
with
> > numbers larger than a hundred thousand.
>
> In the case of x86 64-bits, the real gain is to be had from the
> additional registers, and the onboard memory controller (in some cases).
> Also some unrecompiled 32-bit apps can gain from having additional
> address space specifically devoted to them and not shared with the OS,
> which now has its own address space well out of the way of these apps.
>
> Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"DD" <ddgamerMAPS@ONcogeco.ca> writes:

> Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
> 64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy
> operating system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway
> there.

While I don't necessarilly disagree with you, now that Intel and AMD
are producing commodity 64-bit processors (I don't classify Itanium
as commodity), this may (probably will) lower the cost of getting a
64-bit system.

In the past 64-bit platforms could only be had as a premium. They
were generally engineered as servers or "workstations" (e.g.,
UltraSPARC, Alpha). In the near future any old "PC" will be 64-bit.

It's not so much a case of what will happen when 64-bit is available
-- it's been around for a while. Rather it's a case of: will anything
interesting happen when everyone and their dog has a 64-bit machine?

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Magda wrote:
> "DD" <ddgamerMAPS@ONcogeco.ca> writes:
>
>
>>Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing
>>64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy
>>operating system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway
>>there.
>
>
> While I don't necessarilly disagree with you, now that Intel and AMD
> are producing commodity 64-bit processors (I don't classify Itanium
> as commodity), this may (probably will) lower the cost of getting a
> 64-bit system.
>
> In the past 64-bit platforms could only be had as a premium. They
> were generally engineered as servers or "workstations" (e.g.,
> UltraSPARC, Alpha). In the near future any old "PC" will be 64-bit.
>
> It's not so much a case of what will happen when 64-bit is available
> -- it's been around for a while. Rather it's a case of: will anything
> interesting happen when everyone and their dog has a 64-bit machine?
>
Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
than server apps, benefit from 64bit?

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

In article <EuBee.2188$6E.2032@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
> than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
>
The HPC community already benefits as well. Our sims run significantly
faster in 64bit mode than in 32bit, and several *couldn't* be run
on a 32bit system due to the limited memory space.

--
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Fri, 6 May 2005 23:10:27 +0000 (UTC), Joshua Baker-LePain
<jlb17@begone.spam.duke.edu> wrote:

>In article <EuBee.2188$6E.2032@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
>> than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
>>
>The HPC community already benefits as well. Our sims run significantly
>faster in 64bit mode than in 32bit, and several *couldn't* be run
>on a 32bit system due to the limited memory space.


C'mon, Josh, don't scare the children 😉

They're so happy with their little itty bitty computers and microsoft.

Micro... what a concept.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
> than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
>

I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
from 64-bit.

Yousuf Khan

 

[geoff]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

> C'mon, Josh, don't scare the children 😉
>
> They're so happy with their little itty bitty computers and microsoft.

Resistance is futile . . . you will be fitted with a 'Bill' face to carry on
the mission.

-g

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>>Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody other
>>than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
>>
>
>
> I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
> 32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
> from 64-bit.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Right answer. Using a machine that cannot address its own installed memory
from an application is sad, and takes us back to 1987, when 386 was used
to run DOS.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the real question of when will everybody, or even anybody
>> other than server apps, benefit from 64bit?
>>
>
> I think even using the 64-bit address space to be able to use multiple
> 32-bit apps with their own *full* 32-bit address space is real benefit
> from 64-bit.

I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT
used as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think
of the majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will
any of these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business
the huge databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual
on a GB machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need
that will get people to upgrade?

There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone
hit the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for
most of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add
memory, even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

And even on servers it's hard to find a benefit for many applications.
The bottleneck is i/o, and even if the hardware could do it I wouldn't
spend the money to put 10TB databases in memory. I can go to 16GB with
32 bits, and the individual processes are only a few MB, so address
space per process isn't an issue.

I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:aMZke.1477$uu.726@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

> I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
> as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
> majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
> these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
> databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
> machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
> people to upgrade?

The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks of
address space for sparse data.

If you don't think 90% of computers are servers or game machines, what
do you think they're doing? I think a lot more than 10% of general-purpose
computers have games as a significant application.

> There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone hit
> the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
> of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
> even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

The need will be the things that are easier to do on 64-bit platforms,
and so over time they will only be available on them. But you are right that
the 32-bit limit is not being hit hard, so the change will not be nearly as
swift as the change from 16-bit to 32-bit was, and that change wasn't all
that swift.

> I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
> replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow at
the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit pretty soon
now, in about three years if memory serves me.

It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
processors than don't.

DS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:aMZke.1477$uu.726@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

> I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
> as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
> majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
> these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
> databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
> machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
> people to upgrade?

?

PlayStation
Nintendo


> There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone hit
> the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
> of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
> even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.

But the Industry forgot to move the 16bit programmers, too. 🙂
All I see today is 16bit programming with a couple of overlayed programs
(Visual... Virtual..) to program the 32bit machines. Where are the times, of
realtime screen outputs programmed in machine code, or assembler?

> And even on servers it's hard to find a benefit for many applications. The
> bottleneck is i/o, and even if the hardware could do it I wouldn't spend
> the money to put 10TB databases in memory. I can go to 16GB with 32 bits,
> and the individual processes are only a few MB, so address space per
> process isn't an issue.

Bank Switching? Like the 8bit CP/M machines with some MB of Memory!
Lets Say, 16 times 4GB.


> I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
> replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.

An impossible mission to substitute analogue technik. Even with 512bit (I
suggest Industry having a great number in mind) it could not compare, by
picture quality, to a 70mm Cinemascope. Realtime, and at least 24 pictures a
second ;-)
I would not have one peni left for such a project. That would be, just mad.

Also a today 64bit DVD Player cannot compare to a 45 Years UHF,
air-broadcasted BetaCam or U-Matic Video. Digital is just a dazzling,
jerking picture.



> --
> bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
> SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
> Project Leader, USENET news
> http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:aMZke.1477$uu.726@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>I don't hear an answer yet. Assume that 90+% of all computers are NOT used
>>as servers, game machines, or for engineering calculations. Think of the
>>majority of systems at home or in the office. What benefit will any of
>>these people get (ie. pay for) from 64bit? In any sane business the huge
>>databases are on servers, I can word process a 300+ page manual on a GB
>>machine and have lots of memory left over, where is the need that will get
>>people to upgrade?
>
>
> The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
> that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
> 'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks of
> address space for sparse data.

Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that? I keep
hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but we
have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
have now. Where's the killer app?

My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users
will not need the address space, because the common things are bounded
by the human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web
page, graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in
the USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet
of huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better
served by a database.

>
> If you don't think 90% of computers are servers or game machines, what
> do you think they're doing? I think a lot more than 10% of general-purpose
> computers have games as a significant application.
>
>
>>There was huge pressure for people to move from 16=>32 bits, everyone hit
>>the limit all the time. I don't see that same driving need today for most
>>of the market. I don't hear people saying they are going to add memory,
>>even at $70/GB most peole think they have enough.
>
>
> The need will be the things that are easier to do on 64-bit platforms,
> and so over time they will only be available on them. But you are right that
> the 32-bit limit is not being hit hard, so the change will not be nearly as
> swift as the change from 16-bit to 32-bit was, and that change wasn't all
> that swift.
>
>
>>I expect the change to 64 bit to be quite gradual, done as end of life
>>replacement rather than upgrade in most cases.
>
>
> Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow at
> the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit pretty soon
> now, in about three years if memory serves me.
>
> It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
> processors than don't.

New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:Klble.1821$uu.728@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

> David Schwartz wrote:

>> The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
>> that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
>> 'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks
>> of address space for sparse data.

> Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?

All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

> I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
> we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
> common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
> have now. Where's the killer app?

It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
of address space and using it.

> My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
> not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
> human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
> graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the USA
> the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of huge
> size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served by a
> database.

How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

>> Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow
>> at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
>> pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.
>>
>> It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
>> processors than don't.
>
> New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
> inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
> upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.

I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will still
only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit market is
really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher percentage of the
target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely that 64-bit only
software will be released.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
64-bit mode.

DS

 

[TK]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:d73ho3$eh0$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
>
> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:Klble.1821$uu.728@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> David Schwartz wrote:
>
>>> The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit
>>> platforms that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For
>>> example, you can 'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that
>>> reserves large chunks of address space for sparse data.
>
>> Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?
>
> All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
> only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.
>
>> I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
>> we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
>> common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
>> have now. Where's the killer app?
>
> It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
> of address space and using it.
>
>> My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
>> not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
>> human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
>> graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the
>> USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of
>> huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served
>> by a database.
>
> How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
> high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?
>
>>> Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to
>>> grow at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
>>> pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.
>>>
>>> It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
>>> processors than don't.
>>
>> New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
>> inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
>> upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.
>
> I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
> sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will
> still only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit
> market is really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher
> percentage of the target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely
> that 64-bit only software will be released.
>
> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
> 64-bit mode.
>
> DS
>
>

I think the only reason I would need to upgrade to 64bit in the future
will be software written for it. My guess anyways, I can already do
pretty much all I want on a 3.5 P4E with 2 gigs ram, not weather mapping
here or doing HD encoding yet but DVD encoding works great.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

supp@darkstar.prodigy.comDavid Schwartz wrote:
> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:Klble.1821$uu.728@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>>> The need will be the things that will be possible on 64-bit platforms
>>>that we don't even think about on 32-bit platforms. For example, you can
>>>'mmap' an entire partition. You can write code that reserves large chunks
>>>of address space for sparse data.
>
>
>>Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?
>
>
> All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app that
> only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

Hate to keep asking, but what "high end ones" are those? Outside of BIG
database apps, which are usually server functions rather than user apps,
and high end graphics, which are usually done on dedicated workstations,
I don't see where the benefit will come. And to use all that address
space will require rewriting the applications which now use the 64 bit
file addressing which has been around for about a decade.
>
>
>>I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
>>we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
>>common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
>>have now. Where's the killer app?
>
>
> It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having lots
> of address space and using it.

I keep hearing that, too, what's the app which benefits?
>
>
>>My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
>>not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
>>human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
>>graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the USA
>>the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of huge
>>size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served by a
>>database.
>
>
> How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the next
> high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

Which applications read an entire DVD into memory, and why? And other
than a tiny reduction in code complexity, where's the gain? That's a
real gain for a "from scratch" new program, but what vendor will lock
out the 32 bit market by doing it? The gain is not in performance, if
the data doesn't fit in physical memory performance will be limited by
disk speed.
>
>
>>> Probably so. If you assume memory sizes will want to continue to grow
>>>at the same rate, the average machine will be hitting the 4GB limit
>>>pretty soon now, in about three years if memory serves me.
>>>
>>> It won't be long before more new x86 machines have 64-bit capable
>>>processors than don't.
>>
>>New machines? That sounds possible, the 64 bit capable CPUs are
>>inexpensive, it's cheap insurance. But people won't be rushing to get
>>upgrades to 64 bit, their stuff works now.
>
>
> I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
> sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will still
> only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit market is
> really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher percentage of the
> target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more likely that 64-bit only
> software will be released.

You express my thoughts exactly in that paragraph! I just don't see many
places where there will be a co$t advantage or a performance advantage
with applications which sell in any significant volume. I talked to an
archetect about 64 bit when the UltraSPARC came out, and he said that
the drawing programs were all vector, and took almost no space at all.
That was one place I thought 64 bits would help, and it doesn't.
>
> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
> 64-bit mode.

I doubt that make a difference. There's so much register aliasing in
modern processors that (from what I read) the program logic is more of a
limiting factor. That and the quality of the compilers.

--
bill davidsen (davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com)
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
Project Leader, USENET news
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

"Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
news:JkMne.10224$4u.7521@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

>>>Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?

>> All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app
>> that only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.

> Hate to keep asking, but what "high end ones" are those?

Physics engines such as are used in 3D games. Graphics applications.
Development tools. Encryption. All the applications that don't exist yet
because today's computers can't run them efficiently.

> Outside of BIG database apps, which are usually server functions rather
> than user apps, and high end graphics, which are usually done on dedicated
> workstations,

What about the high end graphics, where by high end I mean high end for
what's done on PCs? Things are done on dedicated workstations only when they
can't be done on PCs.

Don't forget, when the '486 first came out, everyone was saying that
nobody would ever need that much power on the desktop. If you give people
the ability to do things, they will want to do them.

> I don't see where the benefit will come. And to use all that address space
> will require rewriting the applications which now use the 64 bit file
> addressing which has been around for about a decade.

Not necessarily. A lot of work can be done by the OS. And the 80/20
rules means that only 20% of the application has to be rewritten to get the
benefit.

>>>I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
>>>we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
>>>common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
>>>have now. Where's the killer app?

>> It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having
>> lots of address space and using it.

> I keep hearing that, too, what's the app which benefits?

All applications that use disks and files. Games. Document preparation
tools. Encryption. Once people can do things, they will insist on being able
to.

>>>My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
>>>not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
>>>human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
>>>graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the
>>>USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of
>>>huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served
>>>by a database.

>> How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the
>> next high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?

> Which applications read an entire DVD into memory, and why?

That's not the point. The point is that the application may need any
part of the DVD at any time.

> And other than a tiny reduction in code complexity, where's the gain?

It's much more than a tiny reduction in code complexity. Managing a
limited address space is a major PITA.

> That's a real gain for a "from scratch" new program, but what vendor will
> lock out the 32 bit market by doing it? The gain is not in performance, if
> the data doesn't fit in physical memory performance will be limited by
> disk speed.

The gain is also in performance. Not having to view the world through a
narrow window will improve performance as the OS manages the caching rather
than the application, which has a more limited view of system resources and
priorities.

>> I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
>> sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will
>> still only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit
>> market is really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher
>> percentage of the target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more
>> likely that 64-bit only software will be released.

> You express my thoughts exactly in that paragraph! I just don't see many
> places where there will be a co$t advantage or a performance advantage
> with applications which sell in any significant volume. I talked to an
> archetect about 64 bit when the UltraSPARC came out, and he said that the
> drawing programs were all vector, and took almost no space at all. That
> was one place I thought 64 bits would help, and it doesn't.

The issue is not what current applications will benefit, but what new
applications will be possible.

>> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
>> 64-bit mode.

> I doubt that make a difference. There's so much register aliasing in
> modern processors that (from what I read) the program logic is more of a
> limiting factor. That and the quality of the compilers.

More registers will mean you won't need as high a compiler quality to
get the performance. Or, to put it another way, for the same compiler
quality, you can get more performance with more registers.

DS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.sys.intel,comp.hardware (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:

This has become pointless, I keep asking for the name or type of
application which any significant postion of desktop users (personal or
business) would find useful enough to justify buying a 64 bit computer
before the normal lifespan of the existing 32 but unit. Haven't gotten
it yet.

I don't expect any rush to 64 bit, when it's cheap and time for a new
computer, then people will go 64 bit. I would guess that means 90% of
the office desktops and 75% of the home units will be 32 bits until they
hit end of useful life.

> "Bill Davidsen" <davidsen@darkstar.prodigy.com> wrote in message
> news:JkMne.10224$4u.7521@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>>>Sure they can, but what application will benefit from that?
>
>
>>> All of the high-end ones. As soon as it's practical to make an app
>>>that only works on a 64-bit machine, people will do it.
>
>
>>Hate to keep asking, but what "high end ones" are those?
>
>
> Physics engines such as are used in 3D games. Graphics applications.
> Development tools. Encryption. All the applications that don't exist yet
> because today's computers can't run them efficiently.
>
>
>>Outside of BIG database apps, which are usually server functions rather
>>than user apps, and high end graphics, which are usually done on dedicated
>>workstations,
>
>
> What about the high end graphics, where by high end I mean high end for
> what's done on PCs? Things are done on dedicated workstations only when they
> can't be done on PCs.
>
> Don't forget, when the '486 first came out, everyone was saying that
> nobody would ever need that much power on the desktop. If you give people
> the ability to do things, they will want to do them.
>
>
>>I don't see where the benefit will come. And to use all that address space
>>will require rewriting the applications which now use the 64 bit file
>>addressing which has been around for about a decade.
>
>
> Not necessarily. A lot of work can be done by the OS. And the 80/20
> rules means that only 20% of the application has to be rewritten to get the
> benefit.
>
>
>>>>I keep hearing the old song "things we haven't even thought of yet," but
>>>>we have had 64 bit Sparc and Power for a decade, and I haven't seen the
>>>>common desktop application which is pushing the limits of the memory we
>>>>have now. Where's the killer app?
>
>
>>> It's not about pushing the limits of the memory, it's about having
>>>lots of address space and using it.
>
>
>>I keep hearing that, too, what's the app which benefits?
>
>
> All applications that use disks and files. Games. Document preparation
> tools. Encryption. Once people can do things, they will insist on being able
> to.
>
>
>>>>My premise is that somewhere between 75-90% of home and office users will
>>>>not need the address space, because the common things are bounded by the
>>>>human not the computer. That limits the size of a useful web page,
>>>>graphic, etc. Email isn't going to be 4GB, or manuals, and even in the
>>>>USA the tax forms won't be that large. You can propose a spreadsheet of
>>>>huge size, but it's not easily human usable and generally better served
>>>>by a database.
>
>
>>> How much data fits on a DVD? How much will fit on a blu-ray or the
>>>next high density storage medium? How much fits on a hard drive today?
>
>
>>Which applications read an entire DVD into memory, and why?
>
>
> That's not the point. The point is that the application may need any
> part of the DVD at any time.
>
>
>>And other than a tiny reduction in code complexity, where's the gain?
>
>
> It's much more than a tiny reduction in code complexity. Managing a
> limited address space is a major PITA.
>
>
>>That's a real gain for a "from scratch" new program, but what vendor will
>>lock out the 32 bit market by doing it? The gain is not in performance, if
>>the data doesn't fit in physical memory performance will be limited by
>>disk speed.
>
>
> The gain is also in performance. Not having to view the world through a
> narrow window will improve performance as the OS manages the caching rather
> than the application, which has a more limited view of system resources and
> priorities.
>
>
>>> I agree. Nothing will dramatically change until it makes commercial
>>>sense to release software that only works on 64-bit. Then people will
>>>still only do that if they get some significant benefit or the 32-bit
>>>market is really small. The more the 64-bit benefit, and the higher
>>>percentage of the target machines that are 64-bit capable, the more
>>>likely that 64-bit only software will be released.
>
>
>>You express my thoughts exactly in that paragraph! I just don't see many
>>places where there will be a co$t advantage or a performance advantage
>>with applications which sell in any significant volume. I talked to an
>>archetect about 64 bit when the UltraSPARC came out, and he said that the
>>drawing programs were all vector, and took almost no space at all. That
>>was one place I thought 64 bits would help, and it doesn't.
>
>
> The issue is not what current applications will benefit, but what new
> applications will be possible.
>
>
>>> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the larger register set in
>>>64-bit mode.
>
>
>>I doubt that make a difference. There's so much register aliasing in
>>modern processors that (from what I read) the program logic is more of a
>>limiting factor. That and the quality of the compilers.
>
>
> More registers will mean you won't need as high a compiler quality to
> get the performance. Or, to put it another way, for the same compiler
> quality, you can get more performance with more registers.
>
> DS
>
>


--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com