What happened to 64 bit CPU`s..?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Ok Raystonn, I don't think you're getting my point yet.

But here we are with operating systems (Windows 2000 and XP) that no longer contain any 16-bit code.
Click to expand...
True, but how long has it taken? In those several years, would you want all the people still running 16-bit to have to run it at a snail's pace?
Let me make up an example.

Karen is a 35 year old single mom. She just bought her first computer after saving up for a few months (stick with me here, people! :)

It's now two years later, she still has the same computer and is thinking it's time for an upgrade. She just got that promotion at work, so she figures she might as well go big. She's hearing about these new "64-bit computers" or something like that that are supposed to be really fast. She goes out and buys a Compaq with the brand new Intel 64-bit processor (hey, she likes the colors and uses AOL...she's a typical home computer user :)

Anyhow, she gets it home and starts it up. <font color=blue>Wow</font color=blue>, she thinks. <font color=blue>This IS really fast. Ok, this new Windows Crappy Name© 64-bit is done installing, now I think I'll install Flask and encode those .vob files I have saved.</font color=blue>

So she installs Flask and starts encoding. She goes to bed and wakes up the next morning expecting it to be done, like it was last time on her P4.<font color=blue>It's not done yet, that's odd. It should've finished really quickly.</font color=blue>. So she leaves for work, leaving it running. When she comes home, it's still not even 25% done. <font color=blue>This is odd</font color=blue>, she thinks. <font color=blue>I wonder what's taking so long, this went a lot faster before</font color=blue>.

Two days later, she's back at Radio Shack, trying to return her computer. <font color=green>None of my software will work</font color=green>, she says. <font color=green>Wait, you're telling me I have to buy all new software just to get it to run properly? I don't have money for all of that, I just skipped my rent to pay for the computer!</font color=green>



<font color=red>Now is it making more sense??</font color=red>

-----------------------
Quarter pounder inside<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FatBurger on 08/09/01 12:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you lost me with this one

So she proceeds to install the accounting software. It installs ok, and she clicks on the icon and waits. And waits. Ok, it loaded really slow, but whatever, probably just because it's the first time it was loaded.. So she starts importing her old information, and it's taking forever. This is odd, she thinks. I wonder what's taking so long, this went almost instantly on my last computer…
Click to expand...
With the speed and cache size on the chips were talking about, even in emulation mode, the bottleneck is going to be disk access in such an action. Lets say the chips run at 4 clocks per emulated instruction, a very generous performance hit, with a 200mhz FSB and a on chip multiplier of 8, a very conservative estimate, all instructions are going to execute faster than the disk can feed it. So her new computer is still going to be faster than any of her previous computers, as all the support operations that are preformed by the OS are most likely going to run at 64bits.

Now this same woman decides to edit a video off her DV camera. Loads her cheep video editing software and cuts and pastes a quick edit of her kids birthday. Most likely her new system came with a codec for mpeg4 that runs in 64bits. She clicks render and watches the render bar move at 4 times the rate. You think she’s going to return that computer? A big don’t think so.

Schmide
 
The software simulator is real. www.simics.com

Link back to vans... The second biggest AMD lemming site on the net. Imagine that a anonymous person gave vans the info. GG on that find!

Kellidin, I get respect 100% respect in RL, I dont need blessing from lemmings to feel complete inside. I actually work hard at just the opposite here on this foum. so GG on that brilliant observation.

I tell you what I am making a 128bit CPU and im pouring melted plastic into a little square tray the size I want my 128bit CPU to be, does that mean im well on my way to creating samples of a 128bit CPU? Comon now I have my theory on how its gonna work, I wrote it all out on paper.

I have started sampling my 128bit cpu. NO i dont have a chipset to test it, no I dont have a working sample yet. but who really knows the diff, I have started sampling my new 128bit CPU.

I made a "software simulation" in macromedia showing the projected performance and it is HOT!
 
If your IRL behavior is anything like your behavior here, I doubt you get any respect IRL either.

My point is that you don't have to be an ass to be an Intel supporter. Raystonn argues effectively and is generally respected, even though he's an Intel supporter in the midst of a lot of AMD supporters. You argue like a whiney child who's not getting his way. I pointed out the obvious in the hopes that you would understand <i>why</i> you don't get any respect. Thanks for completely missing that little logical leap...

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."

P.S. I don't think you get much respect from the Intel people here either.
 
Yeah. I know nitpicking sucks. Sorry about that.

However, I feel that either example is an over exaggeration of the performance hits that may be seen on a 64bit processor’s emulated execution. Look at the Transmeta processor. It translates 86x instructions into VLIW instructions and performs very close to comparable processors. Once you reach a certain level of processor performance, it just doesn’t make that much of a difference. I also believe that the extended cache needed to support a 64 bit chip, the Intel IA-64 has 4mb cache, will make up for the difference lost in any emulated execution.

Schmide
 
Raystonn, I suspect you misunderstood that statement. Current processors = processors available at the time of Hammer's release.



When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
 
Itanium performs 32-bit applications at the level of a Pentium Pro. That's not being argued by any of the Intel fans. It's true.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 
I believe you; I guess I just want to live in denial. I still haven’t seen any benchmarks.

If any company would leave a beloved patriot in its armor, its Intel.

Schmide
 
Hi Gog,
I thought the 386SX was the CPU with 16 bit registers and the 386DX had 32 bit registers?

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
 
Nope, the 386SX was a 32-bit CPU with a 16-bit bus (and <i>no</i> numeric coprocessor in either one, the FPU was always a separate chip). The 486SX/DX always had a 32-bit bus, but the 486SX lacked a built-in FPU.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
 
"If your IRL behavior is anything like your behavior here, I doubt you get any respect IRL either."

No, I dont deal with this many asswipes in RL. Sorry.

Dont compare me to Raystonn, we are 2 different people.

Your an ass allot too, Im sure your life sucks and doubt you get laid if you act this way in RL. see...the shoe fits on the other foot.

That logical leap you speak of a figment of your imagination, only you knew it was there cause you made it up.

I am not striving for brownie points here, in case you missed my sarcasm last post directed at you.

You done whimpering yet? cause there are some flames I must attend too. seems I gotta repeat myself because some of the losers here cannot get simple facts thru there skull.
 
and if you were a lucky lil dude, you'd get a 386 motherboard with a 486 processor.
as I understand it, the only difference between the 486 and the 386 was the external bandwidth (32 rather than 16) and the internal FPU.
well, mine had a 16 bit bus, and an external FPU.
pricks sold a 386 with a 486 price and badging.
Cyrix can lick my sweaty nut sack...

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
 
The reason thats not being argued is because no one is runing 32bit code on Itaniums. People who buy them are educated enough to know better and have very specific 64bit applications for them.

It's not like your gonna run out and buy a Itanium on accident and try to load 32bit apps then get mad at a sales guy at Compusa cause he sold you a Itanium.
 
No actually, the article is talking about current as in what is out today. The hammer will be using the same 32-bit technology as AMD's 32-bit CPUs when it is released. You will not be getting any extra boost just because your CPU also supports 64-bit modes.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
 
"True, but how long has it taken? In those several years, would you want all the people still running 16-bit to have to run it at a snail's pace?"

We have. Perhaps you hadn't realized it but 16-bit code runs terribly slow on our 32-bit processors compared to the same application compiled for the full 32-bit instructions. The move from 32-bit to 64-bit will be no different. Additionally, the Itanium is not the processor that will be targetted toward home users, ever. This will be a different processor altogether that will be better optimized for 32-bit applications than the Itanium. There is a reason why the Itanium is so slow at 32-bit applications. Noone who is targetted to use that chip needs 32-bit applications. It wasn't a priority.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
 
Just a question, but wouldn't that chip which will be optimised for 32 bit applications....be exactly the same as the sledgehammer?

I think amd's chip is mainly for mid level conversion, and will be very useful as such.

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
 
I actually have an 80387 maths co pro in my desk draw :-(

--------------------------------

Look at the size of that thing!
 
Additionally, the Itanium is not the processor that will be targetted toward home users, ever. This will be a different processor altogether that will be better optimized for 32-bit applications than the Itanium.
Click to expand...

And how is it different? I've asked this several times and nobody knows. This is the point I've been trying to get you to see. Please, tell me how it's different.



Matisaro, the problem is that x86-64 and IA64 are incompatible. It wouldn't really solve any problems.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 
Burger,

Chances are that Intel processor will be similar to AMD's X86-64 processor. However, with AMD a year or two ahead of Intel in that arena it should place AMD in a great position in a couple years.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
 
ROFL@ this comment!

"However, with AMD a year or two ahead of Intel in that arena it should place AMD in a great position in a couple years" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Itanium and Hammer are two totally different processors.

AMD is technologicly behind Intel by a wide margin, get it right or get laughed at! Itanium is available now, Hammer is not even a working sample yet. Even Apple/Motorola has AMD beat to 64bit CPU. G5 is supposed to be available 1Q2002 capable of running all existing 32bit PPC applications at accelerated speeds.

www.macosrumors.com

According to AMD logic, G4 is a 128bit CPU
 
He's talking about ClawHammer/McKinely.
Way to go, Einstein.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
 
Fat, yeah sure he was. his post sure says that. WTG.

"However, with AMD a year or two ahead of Intel in that arena it should place AMD in a great position in a couple years"

you see Clawhammer/Mckinely in that statement? neither do I!
 
When are you going to say something worthwhile?
Iam not AMD or Intel bias, but when something is good or better I will buy it.
At least ya answered my question and you might want to post it again for all of us to see!
 
Fugger,

To clarify things, since it was apparently difficult to read my post immediately following THIS post:

"Additionally, the Itanium is not the processor that will be targetted toward home users, ever. This will be a different processor altogether that will be better optimized for 32-bit applications than the Itanium.
And how is it different? I've asked this several times and nobody knows. This is the point I've been trying to get you to see. Please, tell me how it's different."

My post was in response to the quoted text.

Mark-



When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom