whats so good about 64bit cpus?

[choirbass]

well, i cant predict pricing... ...but, i will say, that for native 64bit computing (your own a64 for example)... when has 64bit ever been slower than 32bit? except on a non native 64bit processor, or non native 64bit application? (most games right now for example, are not 64bit, so sometimes they suffer a few fps, compared to running in a 32bit native environment, especially when theyre not even patched for 64bit, but you wouldnt be able to see a negative impact otherwise... ...for virtually all applications though, its a benefit to be encoded in, rather than a hinderance.

 

[nesck]

Its hard to add support for duel core, why would companies make 64bit progs when they'll have to make 32bit prog with that or lose users. 64bit doesn't work and isn't needed for the mainstream user.

 

[threep]

From a progammer's standpoint: A 32-bit processor can access a range of memory addresses of 2^32 (or from 0000000000-4294967295) with one instruction. Hence, the so called 4,294MB limit. But with clever programming, these processors can easily access data on hard drives of hundreds, even thousands of gigabytes.

A 64-bit processor can theoretically access a range of addresses of 2^64, or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bits, with one instruction. I would never say we'll never see a computer that can use 18,446,744 GIGABYTES of memory... it just might take a while. Remember the (in)famous 64k limit in the 80's? It was based on a 16-bit processor.

The big difference here is speed. How many instructions does it take a 32-bit processor to access data on your 200GB hard drive? Now how many instructions would a 64-bit processor take? Will the average user ever need thousands of TERRABYTES of memory? Maybe not today, but someday we might.

For military, aerospace, scientific and even commercial endeavors, the advancement of 64-bit, dual-core and even multi-core systems is a tremendous thing. It doesn't matter if you use a computer to play games or decode strings of DNA, you will see a difference.

8)

 

[corvetteguy]

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 **** 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.

People being dumb doesn't make 64-bit bad, nor any other high end tech. If a person doesn't know what he's buying, and buys it anyway, its his problem. But for the people that will use that tech, it benefits them. You said about moor's law, and how he's wrong because hard drives and cpus can't be improved, that they have hit the limit.... are you a tard? They his a speed bump with hd's but now that they use perpendicular magnetism shit, instead of linear, they are past it and increasing capacity and speed. CPU's have many changes hapening now and in the next couple years so that was a stupid comment. Of course designs can't go on to infinity, but you are arrogant to think that we are close to the end. Some guy i think in the 1800's said that after what he just invented, there was nothing else to invent... you sound like him. Your questions are answered, go away.

 

[corvetteguy]

Its hard to add support for duel core, why would companies make 64bit progs when they'll have to make 32bit prog with that or lose users. 64bit doesn't work and isn't needed for the mainstream user.

YET.... but it is for enthusiats, and for forward thinkers unlike yourself, that will be ready when the software is.

 

[Zoron]

Here... I found some of P4Man's posts:

This discussion is getting old, but I'll recycle some of my old arguments for your pleasure:

64 bit has nothing to do with being able to use more than 4 GB RAM (even old Pentium Pro's could do that), it has everything to do with getting a nearly unlimited flat virtual memory model.

Do we need that ? Yes, we do. Currently the OS is limited to a 2 GB / process address space, and it its getting increasingly hard to give demanding apps a large enough contigeous block of (virtual) memory out of the 2 GB that is left for the OS to assign. Therefore, memory gets fragmented badly, hence the OS can often not fullfull an applications request for more (virtual) memory. Depending on the app, thhis either results in lower performance (typical), or "out of memory" errors (more rare, but still happens). 2 GB per app really is getting claustrophobic by itselve, many games will use well over 1 GB by themselves (IL2 Forgotten Battles with AEP will use up to 1.5 GB with ease, not too mention serious photo/video/audio editing apps)

If you ask me who needs 64 bit addressing, or when do we need it, I say first and mostly developpers need it, and we needed it 5 years ago so that we could start reaping the benefits today. Unfortunately, this has not happened, so will be screwing around with /3GB switches, ugly, difficult (therefore, expensive) and very slow PAE extentions, and we will be seeing developpers having to work "double" to create both 32 and 64 bit code (drivers, games, apps,..) for many years to come. THis is silly, useless and slows down advances, and it was completely unnessary considering a 64 bit x86 cpu costs maybe 2% more than a 32 bit one. If intel and AMD had been making their cpu's 64 bit capable since 2000, I'm fairly certain no game, no OS, no high end app and no driver would still be written for 32 bits today. Ask yourselve why.

Now, this means IMO, the (x86) IT industry as a whole needs (or at the very least benefits from) 64 bit computing, but since more than 99.5% of the installed userbase is still 32 bit only, and even 5 years from here I estimate 50% of the installed base will still be 32 bit only, it means as an individual buying a 64 bit capable machine will not give you nearly as much benefit as it could have. most apps will still be written for 32 bit limitations in mind, will not use sparse mapping to simplify porting between 32 and 64 bit, etc, etc. The biggest (only?) benefit as an individual buyer will therefore come from either the OS in combination with one or two specialty apps that really benefit from it, and from slightly increased performance due to the other improvements AMD threw in (more GPR's, remove some old legacy bagage, twice the number of SSE2 registers, .etc).

IT will take at least another 5 years now before we all reap the benefits (cheaper/simpler development of powerfull apps/games) that could/should have been ours today. 64 bit x86 is way overdue, perhaps even more so 32 bit was in 386/486 days when we still messed with crappy 16 bit OSes (DOS, 3.11, even 9x) and apps when could have had something as powerfull as OS/2 or NT.

Its like buying GPRS or 3G enabled GSM phones. IF you're the first/only one owning one, and your operator doesn't support it yet (cause you're the only one) the benefit is nill, but when all your friends have one, as well your operator, its pretty damn nifty and usefull technology.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

I wish he were around to post more... but I'll keep digging up these nuggets if you insist on being a stubborn idiot.

 

[corvetteguy]

😛 neskass is gone for now... but he'll be back... with avengance.... throwing more denial our way. Just wait till tomorrow, he'll have have 5 posts in a row disputing us and calling us idiots for being m$ pawns or something. :lol: :roll:

 

[choirbass]

hmm... lol... im out of constructive ideas to bring up as of now, im tired... ...but, yeah... very possibly...

 

[corvetteguy]

hmm... lol... im out of constructive ideas to bring up as of now, im tired... ...but, yeah... very possibly...

Don't worry, we all ran out of constructive ideas back on page 1.... the rest is just beating that info into his head.

 

[choirbass]

hmm... lol... im out of constructive ideas to bring up as of now, im tired... ...but, yeah... very possibly...

Don't worry, we all ran out of constructive ideas back on page 1.... the rest is just beating that info into his head.

yeah... shouldnt be too hard on him though, he just wasnt seeing a benefit, i guess cuz he was in denial like you said, and i guess refusing to acknowledge what was being said... so, yeah... you cant make someone do something if they really dont want to, or at least as easily... but everyone knows that i guess...

 

[Atolsammeek]

Bad thing is This is the same fight in the 1980s. Why do we need 32 bit and it took 10 years for 32 bit to be 90% used. Now the same thing happing now. We have one wantabe computer geek. Who dont know Crap about 32 bit and 64 bit. Man I remember having people look at me crazy when I had 1.5gb of ram When 512 to 1gb was the normal. But a months later It seem people had 2 gb.

I think nesck need to get his head out of his ( ! ).

1 Yes 32 bit took a while to progress from 16 bit. But untel Intel or amd took the step to 32 bit we would of still been in 16 bit world.

2 Now we are stepping in the 64 bit world. Starting with windows 64 and vista. Then like 32 bit it going to take time for people to accept 64 bit.

Let me ask nesck a question. From Horses to Cars do you think everyone had a car the next year? If you dont know answer here is the Answer. No. It took 10 to 30 years from the frist Car made. Why People where scared of the new technology. And price and gas stations where not around. So starting with the bigger citys. Smaller towns it took longer. Now Most major Contrys of this world the people from 20 and up has a car or use cars or at least been a passanger of a car.

So Necsck Stop living in the past with your grand parents.

 

[cas2]

As a developer of scientific software I thought I might add my 2 cents to this topic.

Although we need to surpass the 32 bit memory access barrier at some point, I don't consider this the primary reason for migrating to a 64 bit cpu with a 64 bit OS.

64 bit computing comes in handy when you need to use large amounts of memory, work with large numbers or you need high precision.

I'll try to explain my point in a simplified, yet almost correct picture:

A 32 bit cpu can operate on 32 bits pr. clockcycle, whilst a 64 bit processor can operate on 64 bits.

Thus, if I want to do something with a large number or I need high accuracy a 64 bit cpu can handle it in one go, whilst the 32 bit cpu needs to split the large number into two 32 bit chunks and handle it in 2 operations.

From a developers point of view, we have gotten used to program within the limitations of 32 bits over the last 10 years. That means current applications are designed to work within the 32 bit limitations from the very start. Naturally, migrating such applications to 64 bit won't make any difference. However, that doesn't mean 64 bit computing can't be usefull. You just need to design your application to be more demanding from day one. My way of looking at it, is that 64 bit vs 32 bit computing provides higher accuracy and the ability to operate on more complex data without any performance penalty. Just to name a few things that i personally think will change over the next few years( Due to 64 bit computing 🙂 ):

More detailed games.
Better AI.
Faster and more accurate spreadsheets and databases.
Better encoding without performance penalty.
Last but definitely not least, twice as fast scientific computing and CAD.


Now that I'm at it, I might as well adress the memory issue too. First of all, when you migrate to a 64 bit OS and use 64 bit applications only, you need twice the memory as on a similar 32 bit system. In a pure 64 bit enviroment the smallest chunck of data you can work with is 64 bits. Hence, a 64 bit application doing the EXACT same thing as a 32 bit app, needs twice the memory. Therefore, at least for personal computing, I don't really consider breaking the 4 GB barrier a neccesity if we were to keep running 32 bit applications, I see it rather as a consequence of migrating to a 64 bit environment.

To briefly address the issue of using more than 4 GB on a 32 bit system - yes it is possible. However, there is a performance price to pay by doing it.

 

[m25]

>>64 bit CPUs coupled with 64 bit software can be 5-15% faster than 32 bit ones, especially for SSE3 optimized apps.

>>Have you tried to edit a 8m X 4m billboard ?! It will eat ALL your 4G of RAM.

>>Native 64 bit CPUs can be up to 4 times faster in encoding/decoding than 32 bit CPUs.

Pff, ur confused. Even IF the current 64bit supporting cpus, did NOT support 64bit, SSE3 would still be there!

I have stated things pretty clear (performance is better for 64bit/SSE3 combination). 8)

 

[gman01]

Its hard to add support for duel core, why would companies make 64bit progs when they'll have to make 32bit prog with that or lose users. 64bit doesn't work and isn't needed for the mainstream user.

I am not sure I completely understood what you were trying to type? Are you saying companies won't make 64 bit programs, since there are still 32 bit computers?

(1)They will swich to 64 bits for the same reason companies stopped makeing 16 bit, and swiched to 32 bit...
(2)You don't have to re-write the program, just re-compile it with a 64 bit compiler

In regards to your mainstream comment:
64 bit is becoming mainstream.... AMD hasn't made a non-64 bit computer in a while now....

In regards to you dual core comment:
Just having your operating system work with Dual core is a big speed difference....

* I know I am not mainstream, but my operating system is 64 bit, and works with dual core - And all my software is 64 bit.... And if Vista would have come out 2 years ago(like it should have).... You might be saying the same thing as me....

 

[hucklongfin]

Memory? They support plenty. 64-bit computing is about the instruction set and registers! They have 64 bit registers instead of 32 bit and instructions to work on them. Max 32 bit integer is 4 billion. Max 64 bit integer is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616.

 

[nesck]

From a progammer's standpoint: A 32-bit processor can access a range of memory addresses of 2^32 (or from 0000000000-4294967295) with one instruction. Hence, the so called 4,294MB limit. But with clever programming, these processors can easily access data on hard drives of hundreds, even thousands of gigabytes.

WRONG, its in hex FFFFFFFF - 1, not an additional instruction.
With PAE, more memory can be seen on the RAM, not pagefile on the harddrive!

A 64-bit processor can theoretically access a range of addresses of 2^64, or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 bits, with one instruction.

Same with PAE, its called double buffering u tard.

I would never say we'll never see a computer that can use 18,446,744 GIGABYTES of memory... it just might take a while. Remember the (in)famous 64k limit in the 80's? It was based on a 16-bit processor.

Will you ever see 100 cpus on one processor? Think the yields cell is getting. 100 cpus would have to be to underclocked or they would make to much heat, what use is a 100mhz cpu good for a process?

The big difference here is speed. How many instructions does it take a 32-bit processor to access data on your 200GB hard drive? Now how many instructions would a 64-bit processor take? Will the average user ever need thousands of TERRABYTES of memory? Maybe not today, but someday we might.

I depends based off the program to access data on my hard drive, however its usually done with 1 line of code, I don't think you'll ever see terabyte ram sticks until they reduce the power consumption of our current ram sticks nm by a lot. Did you know 512mb of ram draws a little less than twice as much power as 256mb of ram?

For military, aerospace, scientific and even commercial endeavors, the advancement of 64-bit, dual-core and even multi-core systems is a tremendous thing. It doesn't matter if you use a computer to play games or decode strings of DNA, you will see a difference.
8)

I already installd windows longhorn on an athlon 3200+ that I have, I uninstalled it becaue it used 400mb of ram running useless junk, its basically windows xp with style xp.

 

[nesck]

People being dumb doesn't make 64-bit bad, nor any other high end tech. If a person doesn't know what he's buying, and buys it anyway, its his problem. But for the people that will use that tech, it benefits them. You said about moor's law, and how he's wrong because hard drives and cpus can't be improved, that they have hit the limit.... are you a tard? They his a speed bump with hd's but now that they use perpendicular magnetism ****, instead of linear, they are past it and increasing capacity and speed. CPU's have many changes hapening now and in the next couple years so that was a stupid comment. Of course designs can't go on to infinity, but you are arrogant to think that we are close to the end. Some guy i think in the 1800's said that after what he just invented, there was nothing else to invent... you sound like him. Your questions are answered, go away.

I'm still waiting for my 100,000 rpm hard drive. If you think that cpus are going to the quantum atomic level, then your in a dream world. Even before the atomic level, cpus simply can't go near it because damage to a transistor means a dead cpu and the leakage.

 

[nesck]

This discussion is getting old, but I'll recycle some of my old arguments for your pleasure:

64 bit has nothing to do with being able to use more than 4 GB RAM (even old Pentium Pro's could do that), it has everything to do with getting a nearly unlimited flat virtual memory model.

Then why is Windows Vista home edition limited to 8gb, thats not unlimited. 32bit can also have a nearly unlimited flat virtual memory model.

Do we need that ? Yes, we do. Currently the OS is limited to a 2 GB / process address space,

WRONG, the OS windows xp is limitted 4gb, with GB's reserved for the agp aparture, OS, and adapters.

and it its getting increasingly hard to give demanding apps a large enough contigeous block of (virtual) memory out of the 2 GB that is left for the OS to assign.

No it isn't, very rarely do I see pagefile and ram fragmented, if it is, it'll simply move it around, it isn't a problem with PAE enabled. There isn't 2gb thats left for the OS to assign its 4gb.

Therefore, memory gets fragmented badly,

Wrong, Windows by default goes to the next available memory address that can hold the application, resulting in very little fragmentation for the average user.

hence the OS can often not fullfull an applications request for more (virtual) memory.

I have NEVER had the problem where the OS couldn't fullfull an applications request for more virtual memory. When was the last time I got that "Out of memory" error? NEVER, and I only have 700mb virtual memory max!

Depending on the app, thhis either results in lower performance (typical), or "out of memory" errors (more rare, but still happens).

Completely wrong, you should first of all install 16mb of ram and let windows xp run off your hard drive! PAE allows a very high limit for ram yet M$ doesn't want the mainstream to use it, and OF COURSE companies such as Dell, levono, gateway make sure their systems are PAE compatible, (they already are)

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875352

Infact, WINDOWS XP Already supports PAE!! If you enable DEP, it automatically enables PAE! Here I quote from the link above,

"To use these processor features, the processor must be running in Physical Address Extension (PAE) mode. However, Windows will automatically enable PAE mode to support DEP. Users do not have to separately enable PAE by using the /PAE boot switch."

2 GB per app really is getting claustrophobic by itselve, many games will use well over 1 GB by themselves (IL2 Forgotten Battles with AEP will use up to 1.5 GB with ease, not too mention serious photo/video/audio editing apps)

Thats what PAE solves, more ram detection!

If you ask me who needs 64 bit addressing, or when do we need it, I say first and mostly developpers need it, and we needed it 5 years ago so that we could start reaping the benefits today. Unfortunately, this has not happened, so will be screwing around with /3GB switches, ugly, difficult (therefore, expensive) and very slow PAE extentions, and we will be seeing developpers having to work "double" to create both 32 and 64 bit code (drivers, games, apps,..) for many years to come. THis is silly, useless and slows down advances, and it was completely unnessary considering a 64 bit x86 cpu costs maybe 2% more than a 32 bit one. If intel and AMD had been making their cpu's 64 bit capable since 2000, I'm fairly certain no game, no OS, no high end app and no driver would still be written for 32 bits today. Ask yourselve why.

Even if you ENABLED DEP on windows xp which automatically enables PAE, windows xp has been HARDCODED to only let you use 4gb, the same limit as with PAE disabled, why would they allow a feature such as DEP if the performance would "suffer"?

Now, this means IMO, the (x86) IT industry as a whole needs (or at the very least benefits from) 64 bit computing, but since more than 99.5% of the installed userbase is still 32 bit only, and even 5 years from here I estimate 50% of the installed base will still be 32 bit only, it means as an individual buying a 64 bit capable machine will not give you nearly as much benefit as it could have. most apps will still be written for 32 bit limitations in mind, will not use sparse mapping to simplify porting between 32 and 64 bit, etc, etc. The biggest (only?) benefit as an individual buyer will therefore come from either the OS in combination with one or two specialty apps that really benefit from it, and from slightly increased performance due to the other improvements AMD threw in (more GPR's, remove some old legacy bagage, twice the number of SSE2 registers, .etc).

WRONG, 64bit cpus carry on bagage that requires more than twice the amont of registers as 32bit cpus had, this results in lower cpu yeilds, higher research and devolpment, a bigger cpu die, and higher cost to the consumer for what? You think the worlds gonna end because you think that you might run out of memory running on 32bit?

IT will take at least another 5 years now before we all reap the benefits (cheaper/simpler development of powerfull apps/games) that could/should have been ours today. 64 bit x86 is way overdue, perhaps even more so 32 bit was in 386/486 days when we still messed with crappy 16 bit OSes (DOS, 3.11, even 9x) and apps when could have had something as powerfull as OS/2 or NT.

Ohh yeah, 64bit is "way overdue", you are clearly a M$ and AMD fanboy, I myself havn't got an intel cpu since the p3 so don't be saying that im an intel fanboy. I am neutrel unlike most of you.

Its like buying GPRS or 3G enabled GSM phones. IF you're the first/only one owning one, and your operator doesn't support it yet (cause you're the only one) the benefit is nill, but when all your friends have one, as well your operator, its pretty damn nifty and usefull technology.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Who cares, you go on the phone to talk, not play games on it.

 

[nesck]

Bad thing is This is the same fight in the 1980s. Why do we need 32 bit and it took 10 years for 32 bit to be 90% used. Now the same thing happing now. We have one wantabe computer geek. Who dont know Crap about 32 bit and 64 bit. Man I remember having people look at me crazy when I had 1.5gb of ram When 512 to 1gb was the normal.

No, the same thing is not happening now. Companies did not release 2 versions of their operating system, but microsoft is releasing 32bit and 64bit vista.

But a months later It seem people had 2 gb.

AS of RIGHT NOW, only 0.03% of people that participated on the valve survey have 2gb or more of ram!

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

I think nesck need to get his head out of his ( ! ).

1 Yes 32 bit took a while to progress from 16 bit. But untel Intel or amd took the step to 32 bit we would of still been in 16 bit world.

2 Now we are stepping in the 64 bit world. Starting with windows 64 and vista. Then like 32 bit it going to take time for people to accept 64 bit.

People don't know what 32bit and 64bit is! They call a computer a pentium, you are way out of reality in how much the average user knows about there computer. They will not UNDERSTAND what 32bit and 64bit is, therefore cannot make a good judgement and buy anything the big M$ gives them.

Let me ask nesck a question. From Horses to Cars do you think everyone had a car the next year? If you dont know answer here is the Answer. No. It took 10 to 30 years from the frist Car made. Why People where scared of the new technology. And price and gas stations where not around. So starting with the bigger citys. Smaller towns it took longer. Now Most major Contrys of this world the people from 20 and up has a car or use cars or at least been a passanger of a car.

So Necsck Stop living in the past with your grand parents.

There difference of horse's and car's is different from 32bit and 64bit, the difference of 32bit and 64bit is more like comparing a convertable with a SUV. Both 32bit and 64bit make similiar programs, as seen in the windows xp 64bit.

 

[nesck]

I am not sure I completely understood what you were trying to type? Are you saying companies won't make 64 bit programs, since there are still 32 bit computers?

(1)They will swich to 64 bits for the same reason companies stopped makeing 16 bit, and swiched to 32 bit...
(2)You don't have to re-write the program, just re-compile it with a 64 bit compiler

In regards to your mainstream comment:
64 bit is becoming mainstream.... AMD hasn't made a non-64 bit computer in a while now....

In regards to you dual core comment:
Just having your operating system work with Dual core is a big speed difference....

* I know I am not mainstream, but my operating system is 64 bit, and works with dual core - And all my software is 64 bit.... And if Vista would have come out 2 years ago(like it should have).... You might be saying the same thing as me....

Once again the difference between 32bit and 16bit is extreme in comparision to the difference between 32bit and 64bit.

Just having your operating system work with Dual core is a big speed difference....

Rofl, you call your OS starting 1 second faster is a big difference, does that justify the cost of buying a duel core?

 

[djgandy]

Thank god you don't have any power in the industy.
How are we going to progress technology if we don't embrace breakthroughs?

64bit might not be useful to everyone now, however the day we do need it we can't just click our fingers and expect it to be there. It will take time to make it perfect. Making it available now means that people can adopt it as and when they like. Also it gives software developers a chance to make apps 64bit ready.
There is so much software out there nowadays and there is no way you could just convert it all over night.

You know everything anyway, so you should be capable of getting a very high paid job, and the worries of those precious pennies being lost will be gone!

 

[Heyyou27]

Rofl, you call your OS starting 1 second faster is a big difference, does that justify the cost of buying a duel core?

It's spelled "dual core".
No one is forcing you to buy anything; you're against innovation and the advancement of technology and have no place here. Seeing as a 64-bit processor can be had for $60, your argument makes no sense. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819104249

 

[Zoron]

All right... this, in a nutshell, is what you're saying:

"Technology shouldn't advance if it isn't absolutely necessary. I prefer the days of yesteryear... when all data processing involved pen, paper and the human brain. We don't need 64-bit... so why are we developing it?"

As long as we've got that cleared up, it's all good. You stick with your 32-bit system while I look to the future with 64-bit. No one is forcing you to buy a 64-bit OS... you can stick with 32-bit XP if it floats your boat. Just don't expect the rest of us to stagnate because you don't think it's necessary.

As P4Man stated, the cost difference is negligible. A whopping 2%. Wow. That's something to be concerned about. Considering the cheapest 64-bit processors are about the same price as the cheapest 32-bit processors... I really don't understand what the hell your beef is. If the difference in price works out to be maybe $20 (if that)... tell me why that is so significant to you.

 

[Viperabyss]

Just having your operating system work with Dual core is a big speed difference....

Rofl, you call your OS starting 1 second faster is a big difference, does that justify the cost of buying a duel core?
don't take it personally, but are you mentally challenged, or just born stupid?

he mentioned nothing about how fast his OS booted up, so you just automatically assigned a value yourself, and used it as an arguement?

on the other hand, you also stated that Moore's Law is false, because your law said so.

1. where and what is your law? what is your law based on?

2. you provided no logical argument as to why Moore's Law is false. you DO know that "i said so" doesn't count right? *humm that reminds me of someone who is also on this forum...*

3. Intel followed that doctrine, and Intel had became the world's largest chip supplier. even it may not apply to current situation now, but it did help Intel in getting their crown.

4. Thank god that no one uses your law, or we're still be using 8086 to calculate 2+2.

EDIT: editted for grammar

 

[garnin]

OK, let's put it simply.
You're saying moving from 32-bit to 64-bit does not inherently make your processor better. I see that you like your analogies, so I'll give you one.

Let's say your 32-bit is a 4-cylinder car and your 64-bit is an 8-cylinder car. If they have the same horsepower, then fine, no big difference. However, having the 8-cylinder increases your "capacity" for improvement.

What's the cost of having 8-cylinders? Less gas efficiency: you need more memory to power this 64-bit processor. However, as you may or may not see, some cars have the option of running on 4-cylinders.

Note: this analogy is not perfect (duh?)