64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?

On 1 Mar 2005 15:16:35 -0800, "aether" <>
wrote:

>I honestly overlooked that. Appreciate it, Ed.
>
>I suppose that means the AA8XE is 'future proof' for a couple years.
>Or, am I missing something?

Hopefully someone else can answer your Qs, I haven't done Intel in
years.
Good Luck,
Ed

Intel will be releasing their 64 bit P4's shortly. I would recommend
waiting if you want the computer to be current for several years.

--
DaveW



"aether" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
> it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
> whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
> how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
> slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
> long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
> programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
> obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
> years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
> assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
>

aether wrote:
> Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
> it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
> whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
> how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
> slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
> long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
> programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
> obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
> years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
> assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?

I actually don't think you will have to worry at all about whether your
processor will be obsolete by the time 64-bit software becomes more
prevalent. There used to be a time in the not-too-distant past when
processors were getting faster and faster all of the time -- those days
have now past. You won't get more than a few percentage points of
additional performance even after several years; and the processors are
way overpowered for the most part. These days they seem to compete on
"features", such as USB 2.0, or WiFi, or SATA; another feature that they
compete on is of course 64-bit.

Go ahead get the 64-bit "feature". The next feature after that might be
the dual-core feature.

Yousuf Khan

I read recently that MS expects the number of deployments of XP64 bit to be
in the millions in the first year.
Secondly, that MS will be aggressively moving apps it markets over to 64bit.
IE 64 bit is the future, it is here in h/w and the s/w is coming.

S/W vendors that do not move across quickly will get lost in the rush so
expect some new Big Names. H/W vendors that do not provide 64 bit drivers
promptly will be in the shyte. The good thing about the AMD 64 bit
implementation is the ability to run 32 bit systems. The bad thing about it
is the ability to run 32 bit systems.

If you need a system Now then buy what you can Now. The old formular of 1
step down from the best has always worked well for me IE a Winchester 3500
on an SLI motherboard would be a good bet. (There used to be 1 very sharp
price increment between fastest and 2nd fastet).

The "best" system now tends to last the longest into the future - so long as
the componentry is good.

- Tim


"aether" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use
> it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should
> whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so,
> how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is
> slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the
> long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit
> programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be
> obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two
> years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it
> assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
>

Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.

Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
available.

In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
EM64T' -- right?

On 1 Mar 2005 23:23:34 -0800, "aether" <>
wrote:

>Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
>cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
>through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
>things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.
>
>Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
>place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
>upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
>available.
>
>In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
>Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
>'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
>EM64T' -- right?


I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64.
When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and
32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under a
32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit
applications and operating systems.

Ed

"NuTCrAcKeR" <> wrote in message
news:QrKdnciIxrrDs7vfRVn-...
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On 1 Mar 2005 23:23:34 -0800, "aether" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
>>>cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been
>>>through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better
>>>things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever.
>>>
>>>Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take
>>>place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply
>>>upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards
>>>available.
>>>
>>>In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means?
>>>Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more
>>>'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel
>>>EM64T' -- right?
>>
>>
>> I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64.
>> When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and
>> 32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under
>> a
>> 32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit
>> applications and operating systems.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> I am not sure about the Intel offerings, but the AMD 64bit chips do not
> experience performance degradation when executing 32bit code. If the new
> Xeon/P4 chips will be anything like the Itanum implimenations, you can
> expect horrific 32bit performance. ( 32cpu cycles to execute 1 32bit
> instruction, as opposed to the native 64bit RISC implimenation where its
> nearly a 1:1 ration of clock cycle to instruction execution for native
> 64bit code).
>
> I have been working with the 64bit Itanium 2 systems from HP ( entry,
> midlevel, and superdomes) ... i like the systems, but not a fan of the
> lack of 32bit performance, since nearly every 64bit app has 32bit code
> in it somewhere. I have been working with 2003 enterprise IA64 and
> Datacenter IA64. Havent been able to play with the enterprise linux
> platforms yet.
Dead right.
I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large
application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the
source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application,
but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64,
I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and
get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!.
Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some
things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real
'killer' for 90% of users.

Best Wishes

"Roger Hamlett" <> wrote in message
news:2MqVd.595$...

> Dead right.
> I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large
> application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the
> source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application,
> but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64,
> I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and
> get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!.
> Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some
> things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real
> 'killer' for 90% of users.

Don't confuse the Itanium processors, which are 64-bit processors, with
the new 64-bit Pentium processors, which are 32-bit processors that also
perform 64-bit operations natively. Itanium processors do not perform 32-bit
operations as quickly as they perform 64-bit operations. 32-bit processors
with 64-bit extensions should be essentially equally fast at both (depending
upon how you measure).

DS

Could anyone tell me if this motherboard
(http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159)
supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but what
of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the
board
(http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/...s=1&model=262),
and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm thinking
that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros.

aether wrote:
> Could anyone tell me if this motherboard
> (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159)
> supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but what
> of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the
> board
> (http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/...s=1&model=262),
> and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm thinking
> that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros.

All socket 939 boards support Dual Channel.

Thats the reason they aren't socket 754.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...