INTEL.....is there a problem ?

[T800-101]

how so? please post your benches

Benches on Intel graphics hardware? Surely you jest.

 

[Pippero]

That isn't a disadvantage. Because 64-bit with Core 2 Duo doesn't slow down compared to 32-bit, it gains performance!!! The performance impact of the "lack of support" is less than 5% in most of cases. People seem to be almost paranoid of the lack of some performance features for 64-bit. But it doesn't matter!! Cause it still kicks any other CPU even in 64-bit. 25% performance advantage is now 20%!! Who cares!!

With initial versions of 64-bit with Pentium 4's, they actually had disadvantages of 64-bit, because it wasn't fully compatible with the x86-64. But Core 2 Duo does, just that you may lose few % of performance out of the tens of %.

Lol, so it's still the fastest, duh.
Where did i say the opposite?
What i wanted to point out, is that it could have been even faster!
As a consequence of that, K8L will gain a certain edge clock for clock in SSE code when working in 64 bit, thanks to its 32byte fetching.

 

[Pippero]

dont claim it with out proof
i bet you could take intel integrated GFX and bench it compaired to amd and nvidia integrated GFX and get similar numbers. i only suggest this because if they all use UMA then they all have the same issues.but anyways make sure you compair apples to apples intel gfx costs the user 10-20 dollars

Here you can find the Ati Xpress 200 VS Intel 950 GMA
(link)

 

[Stimpy]

One reason why they have 32bit. Business Software.
Alot of companies run back-end systems with some sort of Gui installed locally on the PC. They may well have invested millions and do not want to reinvest in a major upgrade, just because the Gui doesn't run under a 64bit OS. I know you should be able to run a 32bit App under 64bit windows, but they don't want to take the risk.

Another reason, they may want to upgrade to Vista for the security features it offers, but they don't want to throw away an investment and upgrade 1000s of machines that they may well have invested in say 2 years ago, based on core duos or celerons.

 

[Pippero]

What you say makes a lot of sense.
However, enterprises are generally veeery slow at adopting new solutions and OS.
While i'm sure Vista 32 bit serves very well the market of today, it is also an obstacle to the takeoff of 64 bit apps.
64 bit drivers will always be buggy and half-arsed as long as there's few people who has a 64 bit OS.. and there will always be little demand for a 64 bit OS, as long as the drivers are buggy and half-arsed.
So it's not easy to break this vicious feedback, Microsoft had the power to do it, but probably this was currently not their best interest.
My guess is, we'll finally switch to 64 bit with the *next* Windows release.

 

[heartview]

Well, beginning with Exchange 2007, all new MS server aps REQUIRE a 64bit CPU/OS. Office will probably be next. The Ribbon interface should greatly simplify upgrades to Office apps. All Office apps can benefit from large RAM sizes. Access, Excel, Word (media inserts), PowerPoint(even more media inserts).

If Itanium had caught on I'd bet all of you would be singing a different tune.

The issue with servers is a whole different problem. The server realm NEEDS 64-bit, desktops do not. Also, I'm coming from the perspective of a company that actively uses a half dozen applications that are, at least in some part, 16-bit apps. There are a great many "32-bit" apps out there that use 16-bit installers, for example. Others use 16-bit libraries. There are volumes of legacy applications that use the 16-bit subsystem as well.

Point is, with the way Microsoft implemented 64-bit Vista by excluding support for the 16-bit subsystem, they alienated a large part of their market from being able to upgrade. My company, for instance, simply cannot move to 64-bit Vista because of this limitation. I know with certainty that my company is not in the minority on this.

As someone else mentioned, there is also a HUGE volume of PC's out there in use that do not even support 64-bit computing. Companies are not going to buy all new PC's just to run 64-bit Vista and Microsoft would have been pretty damn stupid to think they would. A 3 GHz Pentium 4 can still run most business apps these days with room to spare using XP. What is the compelling reason for a business to switch to 64-bit computers and software on the desktop?

 

[torque79]

2. Switching from 8bit to 16bit and from 16bit to 32bit gave immediate advantages. Running a 64 bit OS with less than 4GB RAM gives no advantages whatsoever.

is'nt that a bit short-sighted? sure RIGHT NOW there is no advantage to 4gb of system RAM, but this OS will have official support until 2012 I think? 5 years from now 4gb of RAM will be completely crippling for any kind of PC gaming. Already 1gb is the MINIMUM spec for aeroglass, never mind any games at all. Since obviously this new OS will need more RAM to run itself and nothing else, now you need more to run complex software like gaming. Already many people feel they need 2gb RAM with windows XP for games, but I would argue that currently 2gb would be a good gaming starting point for a new system purchase (for a non-hardcore gamer at least anyways). I could see 4gb becoming a gaming standard in 2 years.

to provide a little perspective: to run Windows XP minimum I believe is 256mb RAM? but ideally, you want 512mb right? Already most gamers are running MINIMUM 1gb ram, and many are already at 2gb. extrapolate a little to Vista with that % memory requirement growth, and Vista's 1gb required could easily change to 2gb later, then assuming the same % growth we're at 4gb for gaming at that point (double the basic Windows requirement). Enthusiasts would then be at 8gb? That might sound ludicrous, but I find my PC upgrades often occurr in doubles (double my old RAM, double my old HD capacity, CPU speed, etc). Of course things change and the rate of adoption/upgrade could slow down. However, it could also speed up!

 

[darkz]

Of course sooner or later, machines with 4GB+ RAM will be common.

The point is that right now, probably 99%+ of all PCs have less than that and would gain NOTHING by going 64bit.

 

[torque79]

Of course sooner or later, machines with 4GB+ RAM will be common.

The point is that right now, probably 99%+ of all PCs have less than that and would gain NOTHING by going 64bit.

Do I have to spell this out? Who cares if they do not CURRENTLY benefit, unless you're buying a new PC right now AND do not plan to buy another until the next Windows release comes out (In that case we can ignore gaming in 2-3 years and my argument is not applicable). If they are planning to buy Vista AND game, they have to consider the future, or end up buying an OS twice.

You have to consider what you expect to happen within the computer industry in the next 5 years (at LEAST), unless you want to re-buy the OS later on to get the 64 bit version anyways (unless you do not want to run new games maybe 2-3 years from now).

to put the icing on the cake, I read on wikipedia that vista will not be implementing the HD encryption requirements until 2010 (I believe that refers to HDCP compliant hardware, including monitors). So another thing for new pc buyers to consider is if they plan to later install a HDDVD/Bluray drive in their PC. If so, they may want to ensure they at least buy an HDCP compliant monitor for now, and maybe get the video card for it in 2010, rather than having to replace both at that time.

 

[heartview]

I would bet my paycheck that any game that wants to sell to the mainstream market will not REQUIRE a 64-bit OS for the next 5 years. There will be some games for sure, but the vast majority will not. And I'd even wager that those games that do come out with 64-bit versions will also have 32-bit versions over these next 5 years.

Most of the games today still work on Windows 2000. Things change slowly in the mainstream.

 

[Atolsammeek]

Dang people vista like windows 95 which is 16 bit and 32 bit. We have to live with it.

 

[torque79]

I am referring to RAM requirements, not the game design requirements. to get reasonable FPS in a demanding game of any kind (32 bit or 64 bit), you need more RAM as the game gets more demanding. This will continue to increase in the future, regardless of whether the game itself requires a 32 or 64bit OS. if the 32bit OS could handle 4gb+ of RAM it would not matter, but it does NOT.