64bit vs 32bit
- Thread starter ripken204
- Start date
- Status
vnf4ultra
Posts: 1,360 +2
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.
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.
vnf4ultra
Posts: 1,360 +2
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.
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.
mokaboy
Posts: 112 +0
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
KINDA lol
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
KINDA lol
vnf4ultra
Posts: 1,360 +2
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 $90. The 939 athlon mobos will support dual core processors when they come out in the end of this year. Dual core= 2 processors built into one(2 3000+, or whatever speed, cpus on one chip), which makes for very good multitasking.
"so i would be better off getin an amd 64 3000 than an intel 3.0? also the amd one costs about 50$ 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.
vnf4ultra
Posts: 1,360 +2
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?
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?
That's correct.vnf4ultra said:
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.
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
The Best Handheld Gaming Consoles- MarkHughes replied
