whats so good about 64bit cpus?

Heyyou27 · Jul 18, 2006

Why did we ever go to 32-bit? :roll:

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

Becuase of the programming limitations of 16bit, and the extreme lack of ram it can support up to. Programs however really look and function the same in 32bit and 64bit. Programs look completely different 16bit and 32bit.

Why is Vista starter edition limitted to 256mb of ram? Awnser that first.

Why is there Win2K3 Server(least expensive), Win2K3 Advanced Server(more expensive), and Win2K3 Enterprise Server(you can buy a gaming computer or this.), all with huge different price tags.

I think Microsoft is trying to charge more for people that use there operating system for how they want to use it. The difference between those operating systems is different pictures, and only a few lines of hardcoded code that makes the limitations purposely put inside the operating system.

SidVicious · Jul 18, 2006

First of all, the word tremendous to you means a 10% performance difference. The word big performance means a 5% performance difference and I am sure that if athlon 64 didn't support 64bit, it would still show the same performance increases.

Ohh i see, everyone buys parts online and not from Dell, gateway, or levono. Tell me if DELL is going to have 8gb supported motherboards, I think not. And they could clearly add PAE to 32bit systems on windows xp by just an update. The pentium PRO supported PAE.

Again, the advantage the A64 has over the AXP goes well beyond 5~10% (you're obviously making those numbers up) and got nothing to do with the x86-64 extention, the K8 can process more Instructions Per Cycle than the K7 can.

Please have a look at This article where an XP-M OC'ed to 2.4GHz (~600MHz over stock) was pitted against early A64 CPUs. My personnal experience confirm their results, even when overclocked, the K7 just can't keep up.

P.S. 1K posts !

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

First of all, the word tremendous to you means a 10% performance difference. The word big performance means a 5% performance difference and I am sure that if athlon 64 didn't support 64bit, it would still show the same performance increases.

Ohh i see, everyone buys parts online and not from Dell, gateway, or levono. Tell me if DELL is going to have 8gb supported motherboards, I think not. And they could clearly add PAE to 32bit systems on windows xp by just an update. The pentium PRO supported PAE.

Again, the advantage the A64 has over the AXP goes well beyond 5~10% (you're obviously making those numbers up) and got nothing to do with the x86-64 extention, the K8 can process more Instructions Per Cycle than the K7 can.

Please have a look at This[/a] article where an XP-M OC'ed to 2.4GHz (~600MHz over stock) was pitted against early A64 CPUs. My personnal experience confirm their results, even when overclocked, the K7 just can't keep up.

First of all I did not ask for XP-mobile. Its performance is below the athlon xp barton. Second of all, even if AMD did NOT add 64bit support for its athlon 64 cpu's, I bet they would still perform the same. In other words, the performance advatange that A64 has isn't due to its 64bit support. I am talking about the advantages that 64bit offers over 32bit, of course newer cpus are usually better than their predicessors.

You still have not awnsered the question,
Why does Windows Vista Starter Edition support only 256mb of ram when microsoft could easily make it support 4gb like the rest of the 32bit systems?

Consider the fact that Microsoft has taken extra time to program those limitations in.

Heyyou27 · Jul 18, 2006

Why is Vista starter edition limitted to 256mb of ram? Awnser that first.

Because Microsoft is an "evil monopoly"? :roll:

deweycd · Jul 18, 2006

First of all, 64 bit means that there can be twice as many things completed at once over 32 bit. And then you have to ask your self, why not stick with 16 bit, or go back to 8 bit? Whats the difference, you can adjust for the memory differences using software, but its the benifit of having more done per cycle that matters. So, 64 bit is an advantage over 32 even if we ignor the memory, and 128 bit will be an advantage over 64 bit if we go to that. So, in the end, speed will come about due to the change.

SidVicious · Jul 18, 2006

First of all I did not ask for XP-mobile. Its performance is below the athlon xp barton. Second of all, even if AMD did NOT add 64bit support for its athlon 64 cpu's, I bet they would still perform the same. In other words, the performance advatange that A64 has isn't due to its 64bit support. I am talking about the advantages that 64bit offers over 32bit, of course newer cpus are usually better than there predicessors.

You still have not awnsered the question,
Why does Windows Vista Starter Edition support only 256mb of ram when microsoft could easily make it support 4gb like the rest of the 32bit systems?

Consider the fact that Microsoft has taken extra time to program those limitations in.

The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

First of all, 64 bit means that there can be twice as many things completed at once over 32 bit. And then you have to ask your self, why not stick with 16 bit, or go back to 8 bit? Whats the difference, you can adjust for the memory differences using software, but its the benifit of having more done per cycle that matters. So, 64 bit is an advantage over 32 even if we ignor the memory, and 128 bit will be an advantage over 64 bit if we go to that. So, in the end, speed will come about due to the change.

Wow, you just completely made that paragraph up and have NO IDEA what you are talking about! 64bit does NOT mean double the performance, it just is another Bit, the cpu still has to make calculations. 16bit and 8bit have limitted programming abilities, 16bit /8bit does not support enough memory. The nintendo 64 had a 64bit cpu, did it perform good? I think not. I wonder why the gamecube is 32bit....

The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

That is whats called an OVERCLOCKED XP-m, athlon 3200+ = 11multi and 200fsb, not 12 multiplier.

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

First of all I did not ask for XP-mobile. Its performance is below the athlon xp barton. Second of all, even if AMD did NOT add 64bit support for its athlon 64 cpu's, I bet they would still perform the same. In other words, the performance advatange that A64 has isn't due to its 64bit support. I am talking about the advantages that 64bit offers over 32bit, of course newer cpus are usually better than there predicessors.

You still have not awnsered the question,
Why does Windows Vista Starter Edition support only 256mb of ram when microsoft could easily make it support 4gb like the rest of the 32bit systems?

Consider the fact that Microsoft has taken extra time to program those limitations in.

The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !

I am talking about the advantages of 64bit cpus, not in debate of 32bit cpu performance. The 64bit support on the athlon 64 simply does not attribute to its performance in 32bit OS and APPS!

SidVicious · Jul 18, 2006

The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !

I am talking about the advantages of 64bit cpus, not in debate of 32bit cpu performance. The 64bit support on the athlon 64 simply does not attribute to its performance in 32bit OS and APPS!

You were back a few posts ago, I'll go ahead and refresh your short lived memory :

The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.

The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.

Either you're a smart chimp that escaped from a research lab or your trailerpark just got "The Internets"...

purplerat · Jul 18, 2006

I'm new here and just poking around, but I have a question; Why is this even being discussed? Every new AMD and Intel CPUs are 64bit anyways so why even argue "32-bit vs 64-bit"? Regardless of how much is gained directly from 64bit every new 64-bit CPU is better then their 32-bit predecessors.

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

The bolded part clearly shows how hopelessly clueless you are, in the article I linked to, the XP-M CPU they used is a full fledged Barton core which was running on a 200MHz FSB (400DDR just in case you are clueless about that too) with a 12x multiplier (FYI XP-M CPUs were also factory unlocked), how can you say that its performance is below a lower clocked Barton ?

You're clearly out of your league, now go crawl back under your rock and don't forget that tinfoil hat, the big bad Microsoft boogeyman is conspiring against you !

I am talking about the advantages of 64bit cpus, not in debate of 32bit cpu performance. The 64bit support on the athlon 64 simply does not attribute to its performance in 32bit OS and APPS!

You were back a few posts ago, I'll go ahead and refresh your short lived memory :

The performance difference between athlon 64 3200+ and athlon xp 3200+ aren't to big, plus the price difference is huge.

The first athlon 64 that came out performed roughly the same as the athlon xp barton. The k8 is based off the k7 architecture.

Either you're a smart chimp that escaped from a research lab or your trailerpark just got "The Internets"...

I will still stand by the statements I made, a performance difference thats huge is 50%, not 10%. And your message's point? My definition of a major performance difference, means its justifiable to buy a new pc. Your definition must be the same, you prob waste money to get the "greatest" and overclock it 1mhz more.

After and even before AMD made the price decreases to the barton family, a 3200+ barton > its A64 counterpart at the same price.

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

I'm new here and just poking around, but I have a question; Why is this even being discussed? Every new AMD and Intel CPUs are 64bit anyways so why even argue "32-bit vs 64-bit"? Regardless of how much is gained directly from 64bit every new 64-bit CPU is better then their 32-bit predecessors.

The problem is the added pricetag added to the cpu, just so it supports 64bit. The Sempron and celeron family doesn't support 64bit for the reason that it adds to the cost of the cpu. Not only that, but upgrading means you really need to buy a new computer just to support 64bit.

Software can only be compiled to work in either 32bit or true 64bit, not both. That means 2 cds (32bit and true 64bit) for 1 game. Later, you'll be left in the dust as no apps support 32bit.

purplerat · Jul 18, 2006

The Sempron and celeron family doesn't support 64bit for the reason that it adds to the cost of the cpu. Not only that, but upgrading means you really need to buy a new computer just to support 64bit.

Actually both do. Enough said you are an idiot.

edit- Sempron 64 = 69.97, Celeron w/EM64T = 39.99. Where are they packing in the extra cost?

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

The Sempron and celeron family doesn't support 64bit for the reason that it adds to the cost of the cpu. Not only that, but upgrading means you really need to buy a new computer just to support 64bit.

Actually both do. Enough said you are an idiot.

WRONG, you are refering to the sempron 64, I said just sempron. And I was refering to the celeron Northwood-128. Both have no 64bit support.

edit- Sempron 64 = 69.97, Celeron w/EM64T = 39.99. Where are they packing in the extra cost?

The extra cost comes in research and devolpment. It IS being added to the cost. Not only that, but they have to add many transistors on the cpu just for 64bit support.

Back to the topic: What advantages does 64bit cpu give again?

You STILL have no explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

and what advantages do 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didnt have 64bit support?

purplerat · Jul 18, 2006

Sorry I'm reffering to NEW CPUs, which both those prices are good for, so still where's the extra cost. If somebody has an older 32 bit system and don't want a new PC then fine. But it sounds like you're advocating buying old technology for no good reason seeing as 64 bit is all there is today and just as cheap. Complete 64 bit systems easily go for around $300 if not cheaper. You'd probably have to pay more to build a 32 bit system if you really wanted to, so why?

purplerat · Jul 18, 2006

$40 CPUs, how much cheaper do you expect? Forget R&D $40 is barely covering everything else.

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?

purplerat · Jul 18, 2006

1-

You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

This was already explained as "Microsoft is an evil corporation...", if you can't figure out what that means then there is no helping you.

2 -

And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?

It's called progress. Maybe the benifets aren't huge right now but eventually they will be. It has no affect on current CPU prices so why wouldn't you want the technology there for when it's need?

JonathanDeane · Jul 18, 2006

You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

I dont know if this is even true I do know they are releasing a legacy version of XP wich will work on older machines (its stripped down a bit)

And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?

No advantages right now (well in some cases aplications are faster but not the majority) Its true of all things electronic your TV rocks right now becouse its a Plasma HD with HDMI and 1080p but 5 years from now its gonna look outdated when compared to the carbon nano tube sets

32bits where great and still work realy well but eventualy HD games and higher resolutions will force 64bits on you.... resistance is futile ! lol

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

1- You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

This was already explained as "Microsoft is an evil corporation...", if you can't figure out what that means then there is no helping you.

2 -

And what advantages would 64bit cpus have over 32bit cpus if the current 64bit cpus didn't have 64bit support?

It's called progress. Maybe the benifets aren't huge right now but eventually they will be. It has no affect on current CPU prices so why wouldn't you want the technology there for when it's need?

1. Good u got the awnser correct, the reason why bill gates gave his money away is cuz he'll get 10x back with vista.

2. No, you still have no explained the benefits of 64bit. You just given me blank statements.

Actually the main problem with windows vista is its activation, looks like ms got dumb again and it'll be easy to bypass... Who would want to pay $500 for something you should get for $100.

I dont know if this is even true I do know they are releasing a legacy version of XP wich will work on older machines (its stripped down a bit)

They already released windows xp starter edition, its so restricted than not even mainstream comp manufactors in the U.S. are giving it out, however unfortunate people in other countries are running this junk, lol.

Action_Man · Jul 18, 2006

You STILL have not explained why Windows Vista starter edition will only support up to 256mb of ram.

Because its a cut down version for poor countries. You can't rock up to a store and buy it.

2. No, you still have no explained the benefits of 64bit. You just given me blank statements.

Benefits: more SSE and GP registers, extra memory addressing, cleaner ISA.

My advice is to start a new account and not be such an idiot if you want to stick around here.

purplerat · Jul 18, 2006

1. Good u got the awnser correct, the reason why bill gates gave his money away is cuz he'll get 10x back with vista.

Why would you be so insistent on getting such an obvious answer that was already stated?

2. No, you still have no explained the benefits of 64bit. You just given me blank statements.

Didn't think I'd have to. If 64bit is no better then 32 and never will be then why not just go back to 16, 8, 4, 2, or just 1 bit systems. Software along with fast enough hardware could theorotically use a single bit CPU to do the same as a 64, so why not? Because it's much easier to just use more bits and free up software/hardware to do better things.

So then why are you so against having 64 bit CPUs at no extra cost?

nesck · Jul 18, 2006

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+pitches+pay-as-you-go+PCs/2100-1003_3-6074589.html

It turns out Microsoft is now stripping even the poor of their wallets. After you buy the computer with the pay as you go system, you pay about 2x the price of the computer.

Here is your error message, "Please insert a card code to continue unrestricted use." translated to "PLEASE INSERT 10 DOLLARS TO CONTINUE TO RUN WINDOWS"

So then why are you so against having 64 bit CPUs at no extra cost?

Why are you so against having 32bit / 128bit CPUs at no extra cost?

Microsoft expects people to spend their week's pay to run windows for 1 hour instead of buying / getting food and water.

purplerat · Jul 18, 2006

Why are you so against having 32bit / 128bit CPUs at no extra cost?

Show me one that meets price/performance of current CPUs.

whats so good about 64bit cpus?

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page