TechSpot

64bit vs 32bit

By ripken204
Feb 24, 2005
  1. what is up with the 64 bit processors? they are so so so expensive, its like 1000$ for a 2.6 ghz one, how would this 2.6 64-bit compare to a 2.6 32-bit?
     
  2. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    64bit?

    64bit processors have the ability to run 64 bit operating systems(i.e. windows xp pro 64bit), and use 64 bit applications. 64 bit allows more system memory, among other things. Yeah the fx55 amd is over $1000 and is "only" 2.6ghz. But it is the fastest cpu in existance right now, so that "justifies" it's price. It beats an intel 3.8ghz. A 64bit 1.8ghz cpu, which is equivalent to a p4 3ghz is about $150. Not that expensive, and way cheaper than intel's new 64 bit chips.
     
  3. isatippy

    isatippy TS Rookie Posts: 497

    You can get a 1.8ghz for $115us at NewEgg and that isn't bad at all. :hotbounce
     
  4. ripken204

    ripken204 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 139

    okay then, so a 64 bit chip is about 2x faster than the 32 bit if u compare the same ghz

    such as a 1.5ghz 32 chip and 1.5ghz 64 chip, the 64 chip would be about 2x faster as the 32?
     
  5. ripken204

    ripken204 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 139

    also how much ram would u need to run this chip?
     
  6. Nodsu

    Nodsu TS Rookie Posts: 5,837   +6

    No, it is not twice as fast.

    You can run it with as little of RAM as you please.
     
  7. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    64bit

    If a 64 bit processor was running a 64 bit os and running 64 bit apps, then it might be 2x faster because it's processing 2x as many bits at a time. But if you run the 32bit windows xp that everyone has now, there isn't much advantage to it's 64 bitness. It's more efficient than a pentium 4, so it can run at lower clock speeds and get the same work done. A 3000+ amd is about the same as a 3.00ghz (3000mhz) p4, even though the amd is running at 1.8 actual speed. I saw it explained this way. A pentium 4 is a tunnel that can fit 1 car at a time through at high speed, an amd processor is like a multi lane highway where the cars go slower but more are going at one time. 6 cars at 50 mph go 300miles in an hour, but 1 car at 300mph also goes 300miles in an hour. That might make it more confusing, but I understood it.
     
  8. ripken204

    ripken204 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 139

    so i would be better off getin an amd 64 3000 than an intel 3.0? also the amd one costs about 50$ less than the intel.
     
  9. mokaboy

    mokaboy TS Rookie Posts: 136

    64bit athlon is great!

    the 64bit athlons are not really having a chance to perform to there best ability as yet until the windows 64bit os is propa about. The 64bit processors are VERY fast but no one can see how fast yet as they are being run on 32bit os's its a bit of a waste but still fast!! its a bit like having a gameboy colour or advanced and playing a gameboy normal (B&W) game on it :confused: KINDA lol :p
     
  10. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 109

    No, not at all.

    Opterons are both 64 and 32, having the same clock speed in both mode and the same computing power in both mode.

    It is equivalent to comparison of a single $100 bill VS two $50 bills.
     
  11. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    what cpu?

    "so i would be better off getin an amd 64 3000 than an intel 3.0? also the amd one costs about 50$ less than the intel."
    The short answer is it depends on what you want to do with it.
    As long as you don't do heavy multitasking (running antivirus scan, playing far cry, and listening to mp3's while burning a dvd), the Athlon 64 is great. They're cheaper, faster in games, use less power, run cooler. The new nforce4 ultra/sli mobos with socket 939 are really nice, and they can be had for as little as $90. The 939 athlon mobos will support dual core processors when they come out in the end of this year. Dual core= 2 processors built into one(2 3000+, or whatever speed, cpus on one chip), which makes for very good multitasking.
     
  12. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    64 bit.

    Really? I was told that 64 bit means that the cpu can process 64 bits at a time rather than 32 bits. If it can process 2x as much data at a time, wouldn't it be twice as fast. If this isn't correct, what does 64 bit mean then?
     
  13. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 109

    One big vs 2 smalls equalized. One single big is more optimal for range and dedicated offline or single taskings.

    Equivalent to having one hand with 10 fingers or 2 hands with 5 fingers each.
     
  14. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    64

    What your saying doesn't make sense to me. If a cpu runs at 1.8ghz and processes 32 bits, then in one clock it processed 32bits. If a cpu runs at 1.8 ghz and processes 64 bits, then in one clock it processed 64 bits, twice as much. Doesn't the 64 bit refer to how many bits it can process at once?
     
  15. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 109

    With the same die hardware resources you can have one 64 or 2-32 whatever the clock.

    It is the same as one big deep pipeline vs 2 shorter pipelines in the same die space.
     
  16. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    64

    So 64 bit doesn't do anything faster? The only thing 64 bit does is give large memory support? What's all the 64bit hype then?
     
  17. luvr

    luvr TS Rookie Posts: 59

    That's correct.

    No, it wouldn't: Suppose, for example, that you are running an application that does a whole lot of calculations on 32-bit integers (just to keep it simple). Now, whether you run the application on a 32-bit CPU, or on a 64-bit CPU, the number of operations is exactly the same - and, even on the 64-bit CPU, each operation will use just 32-bit quantities anyway.
    You may, of course, be tempted to extend the integers to 64 bits - but even so, the number of operations remains unchanged; yes, the CPU moves twice as much data around, but has to work just as hard as its 32-bit counterpart.

    Since the number of operations (i.e., machine instructions) remains the same, the 64-bit CPU won't inherently be any faster. However, the 64-bit CPU may be somewhat better optimised (but, then again, depending on the CPU, it may not), so it may process the sequence of operations a little faster than its 32-bit cousin. But then, similar optimisations may subsequently be backported to the 32-bit CPU, which would undo some or all of the speed advantage of the 64-bit CPU.

    It means that the CPU can move around and process 64 bits at a time, rather than 32 bits - just as you said. :)
     
  18. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 109

    With the same hardware resources you can move 1-64 or 2-32.
     
  19. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 109

    Pure 64-bit is optimal for single big deep pipeline, great for off-line and single taskings.
     
  20. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    64

    What do you mean by "offline and single taskings". Offline as in not connected to the internet? Single tasking as in doing one thing at a time?
     
  21. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 109

    Meaning not good for real-time applications, offline is non-time critical.

    yes.
     
  22. vnf4ultra

    vnf4ultra TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,388

    64bit?

    So when xp pro 64bit comes out, it won't be worth upgrading? Will 64bit games run better than 32 bit ones of the same game? I'm guessing not since 64bit seems worthless now. sigh.
     
  23. nein

    nein Banned Posts: 109

    Actually it would be perfect for 64-bit Distributed Multi-Processing, you have to have the right hardware for the right job.

    "Scalable" is the word.
     
  24. mweavil

    mweavil TS Rookie

    64?

    See the stupid thing is, you'll never take full advantage of a 64 bit processor unless youre using either Irix or Red Hat Linux Server 64-bit edition. Windows may eventually be able to do it, but the current proposed 64 bit windows A. looks like crap and B. runs like crap. My personal opinion is that you don't need a 64 bit, because on a 32 bit os, it can only run 32 bits. It's the same principal as with RAM, if you have 1 512 stick that runs at 400 MHZ, and another 512 stick that only runs at 333 MHZ, then the max operating speed of the two is 333 MHZ. Also, a 1.5 GHZ athlon, no matter what anyone tells you, is NOT the same as a 3.0 GHZ Intel. I used to use an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ that was supposedly equivalent to a 2.8 ghz Intel, and it most certainly was not. Bottom line, don't go 64 bit if you're counting on double performance, but if it's for a server, go for it.
     
  25. Forge

    Forge TS Rookie

    How do you tell a 64 bit chip from a 32 bit?
     
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...