whats so good about 64bit cpus?

[nesck]

No one is claiming it's vital.

The main reason is that there are still a number of 32-bit P4 computers still out there that perform well enough for Vista. Hell, even Athlon XP's would run Vista. But seeing as how those are 32-bit only... you have to release a 32-bit OS if you want to avoid forcing everyone into a mass upgrade in hardware.

My law says that Moore's Law is WRONG.

Your law? When did you become a physicist?

WRONG once again, it makes the processor more complex, increasing costs to add more transistors for the 64bit support, wider registries.

The difference in cost is negligible. Sure, when 64-bit extensions were still a wet dream for a few engineers there were significant R & D costs and the costs to get the processor ready for mainstream use were also significant. However, with the processors having been around for more than 2 years, their mass production offsets any extra cost that is incurred now. Soon, it will be cheaper to make 64-bit processors than 32-bit. What sense would it make to continue with 32-bit at that point?

Your law? When did you become a physicist?

I become a physicist when I declared myself to be one. Yes my law. Moore's law will be untrue (it already is), as progress cannot keep on going on towards infinity.

If you believe laws are absolute truths, believe the statements I give you.

Rock's Law - the cost of semiconductor tools doubles every four years
Machrone's Law - the PC you want to buy will always be $5000
Metcalfe's Law - a network's value grows proportionately to the number of its users squared
Wirth's Law - software is slowing faster than hardware is accelerating

I would rather believe myself than those "physicist", btw Moore was NOT a physicist! Go back to school because u have NO IDEA what you are talking about!

The difference in cost is negligible

Now ur speaking out of ur ass, you don't work at a fabrication facility.

Soon, it will be cheaper to make 64-bit processors than 32-bit.

Your twisted / false made up statements translate to - "Soon it will be cheaper to build a computer than a car", keep on giving me ur opinions, they mean NOTHING to me.

 

[crapback]

physicist?

Call me silly, but if had a Phd in physics i think i might just be able to call myself a physicist.

Oh ya, i forgot to mention that "Moore's Law" has never actually been a scientific law, it was merely a prediction made by Dr.Moore back in the 1960's that was affectionately coined as "Moore's Law" by his peers in the industry.

 

[nesck]

physicist?

Call me silly, but if had a Phd in physics i think i might just be able to call myself a physicist.

He is wrong regardless, as with the people making "absolute truths"

Rock's Law - the cost of semiconductor tools doubles every four years
Machrone's Law - the PC you want to buy will always be $5000
Metcalfe's Law - a network's value grows proportionately to the number of its users squared
Wirth's Law - software is slowing faster than hardware is accelerating
Parkinson's Law of Data - “Data expands to fill the space available for storage”


I don't think a real physicist makes false laws that you should logically know aren't true. If you have half of a brain, you should know the statements above aren't true, same with Moore's "law".

His "law" was first published in a magazine that he called a law.

 

[General]

Wrong, the chips are actually 32bit chips with 64bit support.

Actually it's the other way around.

Electrons, protons, and neutrons only come in one size, therefore Moore's Law is incorrect,

Chewbacca defence.

My law says that Moore's Law is WRONG.

Moore's law is merely a prediction of the transistor count in future processors.

WRONG once again, it makes the processor more complex, increasing costs to add more transistors for the 64bit support, wider registries.

The long-term benefits are greater than the costs.

I become a physicist when I declared myself to be one.

You need to learn some proper grammar. And you are still not a physicist.

If you believe laws are absolute truths, believe the statements I give you.

These are not laws per se. They are merely predictions based on statistics.

Go back to school because u have NO IDEA what you are talking about!

You need to go back to school and learn some proper grammar.

with PAE the limit can be moved so high, no mainstream comp would need so much. (for the next 20 years and beyond)

PAE is not an elegant solution. In fact, its a very ugly and crude solution.

btw Moore was NOT a physicist!

I think he knows a lot more about physics than you do.

keep on giving me ur opinions, they mean NOTHING to me.

If that is the case, then why do you keep posting?

General

 

[nesck]

Electrons, protons, and neutrons only come in one size, therefore Moore's Law is incorrect,

Chewbacca defence.



Thats your awnser? Explain to me again in a sentence.

My law says that Moore's Law is WRONG.

Moore's law is merely a prediction of the transistor count in future processors.

WRONG once again, it makes the processor more complex, increasing costs to add more transistors for the 64bit support, wider registries.

The long-term benefits are greater than the costs.


Still, you have yet to tell me the long-term benefits.

I become a physicist when I declared myself to be one.

You need to learn some proper grammar. And you are still not a physicist.

If you believe laws are absolute truths, believe the statements I give you.

These are not laws per se. They are merely predictions based on statistics.

Go back to school because u have NO IDEA what you are talking about!

You need to go back to school and learn some proper grammar.

with PAE the limit can be moved so high, no mainstream comp would need so much. (for the next 20 years and beyond)

PAE is not an elegant solution. In fact, its a very ugly and crude solution.



How is PAE not an elegant solution when windows xp uses it?
Your response once again is pure opinion.

btw Moore was NOT a physicist!

I think he knows a lot more about physics than you do.

keep on giving me ur opinions, they mean NOTHING to me.

If that is the case, then why do you keep posting?

General

My advice, unplug your computer and put it back where you got it from.

M$ has purposely set windows xp to only see 4gb of ram, when they could very easily make it see more.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

 

[Corasik]

PAE Sucks. Its been done before too, remember Expanded memory, the 8086 way to break the 1024k barrier. It worked, but compared to 286's which supported a true linear 16meg limit it was slow, and very limited.

If we were to all believe nesck, then we should accept we're all using 16bit 8086 derived processors. All this 64bit RAX... bla bla... EAX was a 32bit 'extension' added onto the 16bit AX register.

But of course we all know that 386 is a true 32bit processor with 16bit compatibility, just as AMD64/Core 2 are true 62bit processors with both 16, and 32bit compatibility.

Stick an MS-Dos 3.2 boot floppy into a Core 2, and it will load up fine. Core 2 still supports x87 FPU commandset, and MMX as well.

If it was possible to underclock a Core 2 processor it would still outperform a 386, just as a 33mhz 386 was slower than a 33mhz 486. The chip companies have improved the processors by adding new features like out of order execution, branch prediction, wider cores (core 2 can processes 4-5 instructions per core, compared to 3 on amd/p4 cores)

Last update I read from microsoft still list the 2Gb limits on 32bit Vista, with higher memory limits only working on the 64bit versions. But if you actually did have an application that used >2 Gb memory, then a true 62bit linear addressing scheme would provide considerably better performance than a PAE 'HACK'

In theory using smaller registers (32bit, or even 8 bit registers like AH/AL) could reduce the amount of data switched from ram, to cache to processor, after all, if your dealing with 0-255 in 64bit, all then at least 56bits are 0. But with processors getting faster all the time, most programmers wont bother hand crafting X86 machine code programs. If they dumped all the high level languages, programs would probably be 1000 times faster, and smaller. On the other hand it would probably take a gazillion manhours of time to actually program and debug the software.

 

[General]

Thats your awnser? Explain to me again in a sentence.

Chewbacca defence is a legal strategy or propaganda strategy that seeks to overwhelm its audience with nonsensical arguments, as a way of confusing the audience and drowning out legitimate opposing arguments.

Still, you have yet to tell me the long-term benefits.

Action_Man already explained it to you.

How is PAE not an elegant solution when windows xp uses it?

PAE requires a combination of OS support and special mechanisms to allow 32-bit applications to use more than 4 GB of memory. Windows has the AWE mechanism while unix has a variety of tricks, most commonly the mmap().
None of these are standard.

Lets not forget the clumsy memory segmenting of the 286.

M$ has purposely set windows xp to only see 4gb of ram, when they could very easily make it see more.

If you have a problem with that, use Linux or *BSD (as i do).

 

[choirbass]

...i hope i dont get flamed for this, as i didnt read past the first page, before finding out there were 6 pages already(!) lol... so, i went to the last page, and have a question... ...aside from seeing the 64bit/32bit difference on paper, and reading reviews online... have you used a system with a current cpu, for doing demanding tasks or otherwise?... i mean, on paper, and even in reviews, it didnt seem there was much point in upgrading from my s462 2600+ sempron, even seeing my stepdads s462 3000+ sempron, it still seemed rather pointless to upgrade, i had never seen anything faster than an AXP which seemed plenty fast to me (cuz we always saw systems that were running PIII cpus and slower)... ...up until i got the system i have now, which i assembled on christmas... even at only 2 ghz, and having only 1 additional core, on a 32bit os... ...was noticably faster at EVERYTHING, no comparison (and ocing even more still)... ...not to mention the move to a 64bit os, was all that more staggaring in terms of performance jumps for 64bit apps, and i only have 1 gig of memory in my system, so the performance gain wasnt in additional memory... ...i mean, this is just coming from my experience, not from any reviews or anything, which do point a similar picture, but doesnt do reality justice by any means, or really 'quantify' the difference, that you can only tell by using, to really appreciate... and it does fall on par with other peoples reasons for upgrading what they have... but, if youre happy with what you have though and what youve seen, then theres really no reason to upgrade... most of my family is still using s462 (because of cost primarly, and, initially, just as with what i felt, there really wasnt a reason to upgrade at all, that anyone saw) ...older processors are fine for browsing online... but for much more than that, its sorely left in the dust for 64bit and 32bit performance (64bit can practically and honestly just be seen as a feature of the overall processor, nothing else, and in itself not too much of a reason to upgrade, unless you really do happen to need more than 4GBs of memory in your system, which is very uncommon for desktop users today anyhow)... so... yeah, thats just been what ive experienced, going from s462, to s939... and, that 64bit in itself, really shouldnt be seen as a reason to upgrade so much, especially for a desktop user.

 

[nesck]

PAE Sucks. Its been done before too, remember Expanded memory, the 8086 way to break the 1024k barrier. It worked, but compared to 286's which supported a true linear 16meg limit it was slow, and very limited.

16bit and 8bit are very different. Stop comparing the very old with the new. Very few people used a 8086 as a personal computer, so it didn't matter. PAE is in windows xp, http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

PAE give you a 36-bit address space, Its been supported since the PENTIUM PRO, So everyone's has been having support of PAE all along, how can you say it sucks? Your extremely mis-informed. If anyone's got a cpu thats slower than a pentium pro, they don't need 4gb of ram in the first place!

-text I ripped from somewhere for u to read

This had an interesting effect on XP SP2. The Data Execution Prevention [DEP] feature requires PAE to be enabled since the NX bit AMD added is bit 63 of a PAE-format page table entry [PTE]. There were no spare reserved bits in the 32-bit non-PAE PTE. To enable hardware DEP, the processor must run in PAE mode.

If we were to all believe nesck, then we should accept we're all using 16bit 8086 derived processors. All this 64bit RAX... bla bla... EAX was a 32bit 'extension' added onto the 16bit AX register.

The difference between 16bit and 32bit is extreme, but the difference between 32bit and 64bit is not seen.

Warning - The text below is all untrue and false from someone trying to persuade me that the world will end with 64bit cpus until choirbass line.

But of course we all know that 386 is a true 32bit processor with 16bit compatibility, just as AMD64/Core 2 are true 62bit processors with both 16, and 32bit compatibility.

Stick an MS-Dos 3.2 boot floppy into a Core 2, and it will load up fine. Core 2 still supports x87 FPU commandset, and MMX as well.

If it was possible to underclock a Core 2 processor it would still outperform a 386, just as a 33mhz 386 was slower than a 33mhz 486. The chip companies have improved the processors by adding new features like out of order execution, branch prediction, wider cores (core 2 can processes 4-5 instructions per core, compared to 3 on amd/p4 cores)

Last update I read from microsoft still list the 2Gb limits on 32bit Vista, with higher memory limits only working on the 64bit versions. But if you actually did have an application that used >2 Gb memory, then a true 62bit linear addressing scheme would provide considerably better performance than a PAE 'HACK'

In theory using smaller registers (32bit, or even 8 bit registers like AH/AL) could reduce the amount of data switched from ram, to cache to processor, after all, if your dealing with 0-255 in 64bit, all then at least 56bits are 0. But with processors getting faster all the time, most programmers wont bother hand crafting X86 machine code programs. If they dumped all the high level languages, programs would probably be 1000 times faster, and smaller. On the other hand it would probably take a gazillion manhours of time to actually program and debug the software.

choirbass: The problem is that people think 3ghz smeprons / celerons are to slow to use the internet and word with. So they get duel core for this, remember that the majority of users don't play games all day, and not everyone has 7800's, the valve statistics page showed that most people have only 64mb gpu ram. A celeron / sempon is enough to handle even the latest games. Why would you pay 2x as much money to get something 10% faster? I sure wouldn't. Thats like paying 2 times more ($40,000) for a car thats 220hp, rather than ($20,000) for a car thats 200hp. I think people that most who overclock now are doing it just for the thrills, not performance. And if you do overclock, it should be when your cpu is the only bottleneck slowing everything down, otherwise don't bother.

 

[Detson]

Nesck, you are absolutely right. It makes no sense to buy a new PC just to take advantage of a 64-bit processor. It also makes no sense to use a PCI-Ex equipped motherboard, or a SATA HD. AGP and IDE are perfectly suffcient for current gen hardware. It may be years before those busses are completly saturated...but they will eventually reach their limits. As has already been stated, regardless of whatever nonsense M$ codes into Vista, PC's will eventually be unable to address all the memory their applications require. Hardware first, software second. Dual-core CPU's, anyone?

 

[choirbass]

no... i was not referring to gaming performance (the 7800gt was best bang for the buck performancewise when i got it, as i needed a pcie card to go with the mb i had, as there wasnt an agp slot to transfer my card over to)... but okay... ...again, have you used a current system?... i mean, it does appear youre arguing your point, from lack of personal exposure to whats currently available... making numerous valid technological points in your defense... ...as far as ocing though, it was just a thing to do for fun (as it is with most people who are looking to save money instead of investing in a more expensive processor, to get the 'best bang for the buck', and is the primary reason for ocing), not at all required for anything to operate differently, just a way to conserve money, when a task is cpu intensive, (such as encoding a movie for example) and when it has headroom to improve (which is why processors at different speeds, sell for different amounts, even when under the same uarchitecture, especially when people arent going to oc at all)... its like saying there no benefit to having 7.1 channel surround over just 2 channel stereo... more channels, different technology, but so what? it might supposedly sound different, but it wont be by much... or wont be worth it to have that many speakers, or whatever... ...youre making valid points... but have you used it firsthand, to back up what youre saying... that newer processors, taking a64 or conroe as an example, scaling its speed waaay down, to 1.6ghz even... is not much faster at all, than a standard 32bit processor, from 4-5 years ago even?... ...64bit is coming, i agree (and so do many people)... slowly, but surely... ...but okay, to agree, no, you do not need much processing power, when all youre doing is browsing online, and typing something in word... or just playing solitaire even (or something that can closely equate to those things), you dont need anything really within the last 5 years to do those things quickly... cuz they certainly wont speed up by much... ...have you used a recent processor, within the last 2 years or so... for doing anything more than browsing online, or similar... ...theres a world of difference, but noone can force you to believe that, and actually succeed.

 

[nesck]

I do have an athlon 64 3200+ system that isn't used for gaming, then I have a athlon 2800+ barton that is. 2200mhz is 10% of 2000mhz, yet was the price justified for people to buy out 3200+ and 3000+ at the store I went to? They only had the 2800+ barton left, so I got it instead of getting an intel cpu. Unfortunately the general public is to dumb enough to know what the word cpu even stand for, they don't get this 64bit jargon, so whatever the big dogs give out, is what the public gets.

I mean really, I know people that say ur computer has a virus when it isn't turning on, etc... Just that almost everyone here knows computers more than the general public does, why don't you put your shoes in the clueless comp person that goes to the store to repair their comp.

I've also learnt that the best bang for the buck is not always good. You usually get the best bang for the buck for square footage as a house gets bigger, yet is it worth it?

Let me simplify this for you

$100 gets you gpu that gives you 50fps
$1000 gets you gpu that gives you 1200fps

Does that mean you should suddenly go to the store and buy the gpu for $1000?
Now consider that gpu is just going to render minesweeper, pictures, and your windows desktop. Still justified?

 

[choirbass]

i guess it was primarily going from a s462 sempron 2600+, straight to a s939 x2 3800+ (and then shortly to xp pro x64) that seemed to basically wow me... for me, it was definetly a night and day difference, possibly because of the extra core i guess, though i suppose that was mainly the reason... the 64bit processing does help, but 1) you need a 64bit aware os, which consequently consumes more memory by itself, just because its 64bit, and 2) it depends greatly on how efficiently the application is coded, to really show much of a difference performancewise... you can move larger chunks of data in 64bit, compared to 32bit, thus resulting in greater performance in that way... for gaming, theres really not much benefit from 64bit cpu processing... the gpu handles most of everything there, and the cpu then is often a bottleneck then (when the graphics are turned down anyhow, thus relying on other parts of your subsystem, such as your cpu lol)

edit: nope lol... having best bang for the buck, purchasing a high quality gpu for example, just to do something thats not going to even stress your gpu (or take advantage of anything it offers), makes no sense, and is a waste... which is why i stuck with my ti4200, until i actually played a game that, well... murdered it, to put it lightly... this does apply to every component, much like the house you gave as an example... why buy it, when you really dont need it (or cant make much use of it for that matter)...

 

[nesck]

i guess it was primarily going from a s462 sempron 2600+, straight to a s939 x2 3800+ (and then shortly to xp pro x64) that seemed to basically wow me... for me, it was definetly a night and day difference, possibly because of the extra core i guess, though i suppose that was mainly the reason... the 64bit processing does help, but 1) you need a 64bit aware os, which consequently consumes more memory by itself, just because its 64bit, and 2) it depends greatly on how efficiently the application is coded, to really show much of a difference performancewise... you can move larger chunks of data in 64bit, compared to 32bit, thus resulting in greater performance in that way... for gaming, theres really not much benefit from 64bit cpu processing... the gpu handles most of everything there, and the cpu then is often a then bottleneck (when the graphics are turned down anyhow, thus relying on other parts of your subsystem lol)

edit: nope lol... having best bang for the buck, purchasing a high quality gpu for example, just to do something thats not going to even stress your gpu (or take advantage of anything it offers), makes no sense, and is a waste... which is why i stuck with my ti4200, until i actually played a game that, well... murdered it, to put it lightly... this does apply to every component, much like the house you gave as an example... why buy it, when you really dont need it (or cant make much use of it for that matter)...

Nope, your paying extra on a graphics card so you can play a game with the quality settings higher, does paying $50 even justify from having no AA to AA2x, even AA4x? Not everyone cares so much about graphics, but about gameplay, as $50 can buy you an additional game (one u can play online with). I have a gfx 5700 ultra and run HL2 in Dx8.1 mode. I could've gotten a geforce 6600gt and run HL2 in dx9 mode with almost the same fps, the difference between dx8 and dx9 are HARD to spot, ever think of that?

I have 768mb of ram, (the only upgrade on my comp was adding 256mb @ $30), so I can play HL2 with very little pagefile, (very low initial size) the game never shutters with other light apps open.

Anyways this just shows that configuring a system can be better than getting the "best bang for ur buck".

 

[choirbass]

yes... i have... youre right though, IF someone does not care about the visuals in a game, and prefers to have them turned down (because either they dont care much about how things look, or the card they purchased cant handle the graphics they have enabled (or the shader model version/direct x their card supports for example)... then purchasing a higher quality card, wouldnt make any sense (actually, i dont think that made much sense the way i wrote it, but yeah)... again, if the card is not being stressed, older games DONT stress your graphics card when the card is capable enough... integrated graphics are honestly perfectly fine to run those games smooth, because theres not much demand placed on the card usually, due to the card not physically supporting the SM and dx version, and such that most games come with now, but when the card MANUALLY supports a setting by default, youre practically forced to have reduced performance... stuttering, choppiness, and the like, a slide show basically... so either upgrade to receive better performance with a mandatory setting, or downgrade to a card that doesnt offer that support at all, but can still run the game... ...but, yeah... with a dx 8 card like you have... your card isnt having to process more demanding features in a game that offers dx 9, that a card that supports dx9 would have to go through... so your performance as a result, is higher, so youre running smoother, and are seeing no reason to upgrade there... which i can understand, which is why i didnt upgrade my ti4200 for a few years, till just recently, cuz i then saw a point, aside from visuals.

 

[JonathanDeane]

I guess the main difference between 32 and 64 bits is Binary math you have 32 to the 2nd power VS 64 to the 2nd power possible memory address that can physicaly be addressed, PAE is just a software hack and it causes problems with certain aplications... If you know about PAE then you should be thankfull that it will be gone soon and the associated driver issues that it caused. Please dont talk any more about PAE as its realy just a PITA. Also just to inform you PAE does not support more then 4GB of ram in XP the end. Meanwhile 64bit XP and Vista will support much much more then 4GB's. If you read this link you will also see that PAE is slower and has driver issues as I mentioned.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEdrv.mspx

Read the part about DMA...

 

[deweycd]

You need to understand that we dont' need the fastest computers, or the best graphics, but we choose to so that we can enjoy the experience more. Its like buying plane tickets to go to greenland instead of iceland, its the same place isn't it? so what if the scenery isn't as nice, or you can't do everything as easily? You got a deal though so it was worth it right? Im sorry, but sometimes the lowest quality doesn't cut it, or having to wait for something to load or happen isn't enjoyable. I would rather pay a bit more and enjoy what im doing.

 

[choirbass]

exactly... i wasnt saying older technology isnt capable, and most of the time, it is... its like waiting 10 hours to encode a movie, instead of waiting only 1 hour for the same thing to take place... both can encode just the same... but ones gonna take abit longer (if you dont mind waiting, then theres absolutely no problem)... ...for graphics, its slightly different, things typically dont take any longer to get done... its just a matter of staying above a minimum frame rate, usually 20fps, and everything else is extra, and is usually never a requirement (i myself tend to run on fairly low settings usually, typically 800x600, or 1024x768, and either 0xAA or 2xAA most of the time, as im not a complete stickler for what i consider invisible performance gains, or what i dont notice most of the time, (though i do notice stuttering and jerkiness, which is what i usually try and avoid)... the 7800gt though, was a gift late last year, i was amazed when i moved up to my 6600gt from my ti4200, at the difference it made playing doom 3, the visual improvement was an unexpected bonus, as i just wanted it to run smooth, even on the lowest settings... which my ti4200 was beginning not to do well for once in a game (also considering i only had 2x256mb of system ram too... so yeah)... it was primarily the stuttering that bothered me initially, above all else... the cpu came farther down the line, after i got the 6600gt for playing doom 3, which sadly, wasnt going to transfer over to the motherboard the cpu came with, or i wouldve, but it had no agp slot... so, yeah...

 

[purplerat]

The difference between 16bit and 32bit is extreme, but the difference between 32bit and 64bit is not seen.

$100 gets you gpu that gives you 50fps
$1000 gets you gpu that gives you 1200fps

Does that mean you should suddenly go to the store and buy the gpu for $1000?
Now consider that gpu is just going to render minesweeper, pictures, and your windows desktop. Still justified?

Do you understand that technology actually progresses? Thank god you weren't a cave man, I can just picture it

nesk:
"Rock break open nut."
"GOOD."
"Best technology ever."
"No need for nothing else."
"The wheel is pointless."


The $1000 video card will someday be average in both price and performance. And just like 16bit to 32 was huge compaired to 32 to 64 currently so is the jump from 512 RAM to 1gig compared to 2gigs to 4, but soon 4 will be common.

 

[kitchenshark]

Right now, you are right, there isn't much benefit for the average user to have a 64bit processor. HOWEVER, the industry is heading that way and there's nothing you or any one single person can do to stop it. No matter how illogical arguments become. Besides, with the way the processor manufactures on such a large scale, the extra circutry doesn't cost THEM or US much additional at this point.

What everyone's been saying is that during the switch from 16 to 32 bit there was a lot of resistance and a VERY VERY VERY slow start to shift to 32 bit, just like there is now from 32 to 64. There's STILL some active business applications and systems that run 16bit for crying out loud! Anyway, there isn't much point in wasting energy arguing against the inevitible change. Besides, we WILL need the extra processing power afforded by the 64 bit architecture, we WILL have software that will take advantage of it. I am more than happy to wait for all the bugs to be ironed out. The software in the future will be pretty dang cool I think with 64 bits, and I'm willing to wait, I'm not in any rush. This 64bit/32bit transitional is necessary though.

As for the workaround that will allow Windows to use and see more ram, I agree with what's been stated before, that it's not as efficient as true hardware addressing. Any kind of emulation is always slower due to overhead.

 

[nesck]

Your all confused, the DMA problems are for LEGACY pci adapters, those pci adapters pre-date the pentium pro era. Ever heard of those adapters with imcompatibilities with x64? Its because there aren't any drivers for x64 for them! All of u making shit up, using the FUD,"WINDOWS CANNOT RUN WITH PAE!!!1" & " PAE IS VERY UNSTABLE!!!", give me a break. All lies you make up.


http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

The valve statistics showed than less than 0.03% of people have more than 2gb and above of system ram, and seeing a lot of people on these forums thinking 2gb is the minimum to run windows, it now explains how dumb u are all really are.

 

[choirbass]

The $1000 video card will someday be average in both price and performance. And just like 16bit to 32 was huge compaired to 32 to 64 currently so is the jump from 512 RAM to 1gig compared to 2gigs to 4, but soon 4 will be common.

this is going to sidetrack some, but i guess considering the thread already has some... the apprehensive reactions people typically had in a move from a 32bit to 64bit cpus (as with anything new really)... can be likened to a more recent move from single, to dual core... initially people were very much like, 'i dont need that, what i have works just fine, i wont see much benefit at all in what i do'... and, i honestly thought that too, with what i was used to using... ...and, this is something i didnt know, but when i got my dual core... (much like moving from dial up to cable), i realized i didnt feel as limited, i was able to mulitask, which i never thought i did before... now its like, i do it all the time, without even realizing it usually... any other computer really does feel slow compared to what im used to now, cuz i cant click on something without waiting for something else to finish... oh well, i got sidetracked lol... i guess i was just pointing out that people are usually apprehensive when it comes to something new, or different...

 

[nesck]

I'm going to start multitasking with internet explorer, running 2 ie's slows the COMP, OMG! Its to SLOW! 2088mhz is to slow for running 2 internet explorers, time to get duel core! Only 30 million computers game out of how many? 600million? I think the 600million is the bigger priority. Your 64bit cpu's comps usually come with 1gb of ram, by the time games come out that require 3gb+ of ram, you would get a new system and a new cpu, doesn't that make sense? So your really not taking any 64bit advantages, 64bit is no big deal, its just a marketting strategy to make you think your getting the best technology and ur computer is going to make use of it.

 

[choirbass]

I'm going to start multitasking with internet explorer, running 2 ie's slows the COMP, OMG! Its to SLOW! 2088mhz is to slow for running 2 internet explorers, time to get duel core!

again, if all youre doing is browsing (or typing, or anything nondemanding), then yes, again... that would be rather foolish to do for the minimal gain (though system responsiveness is improved overall)... but, yeah lol... ...if your cpu usage is maxxed out at 100%, or close, then tell me you couldnt see a point at all... ...not only that though, waiting, for much of anything to load, is reduced down to split second amounts (though that depends on the application)... its more of a nicety than anything, but, thats the reality from single to dual core... ...i know you were being sarcastic, but still... dual core isnt what this thread was about... there are plenty others on here about it if you want to know anything.

and hmm... aside from the total amount of system memory being able to go over 4GBs... what about improving the processing from 32bit chunks to 64bit chunks?... that, as of right now, would be more beneficial to end users... ...64bit on the actual processor though being bragged about?, yes... you could say its more of a marketing ploy right now... not without its benefits by any means, but most companies are still stuck in x86, being hesitant themselves to make a transition... so until they make the move, you mostly have very little x64 support, for much of anything... ...were just waiting really... a few years ago, we didnt have much at all... slightly more support now, with an unsupported windows x64 out, but still alot of hesitance from companies to make that transition... i would honestly think waiting on MS to release vista 64bit, before they release much more, cuz they know theyll have one of the largest companies backing them up... and they wont be as worried then.

 

[nesck]

I'm going to start multitasking with internet explorer, running 2 ie's slows the COMP, OMG! Its to SLOW! 2088mhz is to slow for running 2 internet explorers, time to get duel core!

again, if all youre doing is browsing (or typing, or anything nondemanding), then yes, again... that would be rather foolish to do for the minimal gain (though system responsiveness is improved overall)... but, yeah lol... ...if your cpu usage is maxxed out at 100%, or close, then tell me you couldnt see a point at all... ...not only that though, waiting, for much of anything to load, is reduced down to split second amounts (though that depends on the application)... its more of a nicety than anything, but, thats the reality from single to dual core... ...i know you were being sarcastic, but still... dual core isnt what this thread was about... there are plenty others on here about it if you want to know anything.

and hmm... aside from the total amount of system memory being able to go over 4GBs... what about improving the processing from 32bit chunks to 64bit chunks?... that, as of right now, would be more beneficial to end users... ...64bit on the actual processor though being bragged about?, yes... you could say its more of a marketing ploy right now... not without its benefits by any means, but most companies are still stuck in x86, being hesitant themselves to make a transition... so until they make the move, you mostly have very little x64 support, for much of anything... ...were just waiting really... a few years ago, we didnt have much at all... slightly more support now, with an unsupported windows x64 out, but still alot of hesitance from companies to make that transition... i would honestly think waiting on MS to release vista 64bit, before they release much more, cuz they know theyll have one of the largest companies backing them up... and they wont be as worried then.

You just wait when you see windows vista 32bit lower priced than 64bit, and all the major suppliers (dell, gateway, levono) put the 32bit version, showing how useless 64bit is.