Is 64 bit kinda going nowhere ?

[JimShady23]

Ok agreed, 64 bit is a good idea and should be the future of computing. But in all 99.9 percent of all household computers are still 32 bit.

Meaning that 32-bit support is not dead and still needs to grow as much or more than 64-bit. Windows Vista, previously named longhorn is going to be released the first or second quarter of 2006. As to my knowledge it will be released in 32-bit.

So what happens to all the new 64-bit CPU's that were baught thinking they were the future ? Are we still going to be relient on 32-bit software for the next 4 years and basically all of us who went 64 be out because lets face it how many of us hold on to a CPU for 4 years ? Yes they still work better than most 32-bit CPU's in 32-bit applications but what about extra 32 information pipes that we cant unlock.

Basically what I think is that 64-bit is not going anywhere besides the server market. Dual core althought they are also mostly 64-bit compatable is what the norm is going to turn into leaping over 64-bit architechture as the priority.
Muti-threaded programs becoming more and more prevelant.

I think the 64-bit guys got the shaft this run around. Yes things will eventually turn 100% 64-bit but im not betting my hat on it within the next 4 years.

Microsoft is holding back inovation by releasing a product that supports currant out dated CPU's. Everyone says that AMD won the fight over Intel with the introduction of XP x64 soly developed around AMD 64's but who really won in the long run with the introduction of Vista? Since 75% of all in home computers are run by a Intel 32-bit CPU i think the answer is simple. There gonna keep 32-bit around as the industry standard and let 64-bit tech lapse in the way of Dual core computing.

Looks like Intel won again, bastards.

 

[vnf4ultra]

The reason xp 64bit hasn't "taken over" is that companies don't want to make drivers. I would be using xp 64bit if I knew that all companies would supply 64bit drivers, but they won't some may, but many companies won't so it's a hassle, and then I'd have to get new 64 bit compatible hardware, and xp64bit doesn't even really give much benefit, so why bother? It costs more, you need compatible hardware, and no noticeable difference to the average joe.

I think vista will be in 32 bit and 64 bit.

I don't see how we got "shafted" by buying 64bit. Actually my amd 64 was much less than an intel cpu, plus it's faster in some things(gaming), and is 64 bit compatible.

I'm hoping that with a 64bit vista, then mfgs will have to make 64bit software/drivers, then it'll take over.

 

[Julio Franco]

I don't think anyone in the market is up for a radical transition from 32 to 64 bits, which means it may also take a longer time until everyone has moved. Certainly if you buy a new AMD processor now, don't just buy it for the 64-bit capability, in the other hand like you have mentioned, they can still be cheaper and offer better performance in current applications than Intel CPUs.

IMHO, Intel is not doing well in the desktop sector ever since Prescott was introduced.

 

[Blakhart]

Is 64 bit kinda going nowhere ?

At the moment, yes.




The "killer app" is needed to propel adoption of 64bit.
In time (years?) 64bit will be the norm, just as 16bit was done away with by 32bit.

Got a "killer" 64bit app? My guess is it'll be a game.

 

[SNGX1275]

It just takes time, its going to catch on. If they made a Server 2003 for 64bit and a XP for 64bit you can bet Microsoft is going to make Vista for 64bit.

I know I'm mixing software and hardware with this analogy but I think I can do it in this case: Remember when XP first came out? More than half the people on Techspot hated it and vowed to stick with Windows 2000. Now, pretty much everyone has switched over (you don't need to announce it here if you are still using 2k). Point being, people didn't initially switch, but once they did, they didn't go back (mostly). Same thing will happen with 64 bit.

The problem, and why it seems slow now, is developers aren't rapidly releasing 64 bit drivers, and the 'upgrade' to XP64 didn't really change much compared to the functionality of XP32 without the driver backing.

 

[duffguy]

the windows vista will probably have 2 versions(32 and 62). when people will most likely have 64bit pc is probably in 3-4 years.



well said vnf4ultra

 

[JimShady23]

wonderful

Thats all great and all but basically I think it was a bad move on AMD's list to promote that athlon 64's were the future.

Basically a mojority of guys took off and baught this line of CPU due to the fact that they thought 64-bit as the standard was right around the corner.

I think they could of played it better by releasing them mostly without 64-bit extentions and left the 64-bit for the server world (as of right now where they belong) until the time was right. Basically when 64-bit is adopted as the industry standard the CPU's of today even the mighty FX-57 will be insuficient to run most apps. Due to the fact that suck "killer apps" will most likley be multi-threaded, setting the bar of for dual or even quad core CPU's
wich I think are going to put 64-bit on hold for a few years. Why innovate to 64-bit when you can run multi-threaded programs in 32-bit, you dont need the extra 32-bit highway as you would if you had a single core 64-bit cpu.

All in all I still would have baught a Athlon 64 I just dont like the feeling that I was rushed into buying it. I understand noone put a gun to my head but saying I had to buy it, I just believed that a 64-bit working envirorment was just around the corner. If I knew then what I know now I would have stood on the Athlon XP 3200 for another year and waited until the dual core's came a little less expensive and skipped the whole Athon 64 phase out all togeather.

Just like all you guys buying Dual high end video cards for SLI setups $1400 to play a game is unacceptable. But if the people didnt buy it they wouldnt make it.

Mark my words dual core tech will work its way into the GPU world rather quick but fist they need to make as much money as they can with off of ya with this SLI crap.

Oh by the way remember a little company called 3D-FX ? They also produced SLI setups only difference is both GPU's were on the same card .....Voodoo 5

 

[MrGaribaldi]

First off, it was a smart move from AMD to push 64-bit CPU's. Why? Because they sold more CPU's that way. And not only that, they forced Intel to adopt their x86-64 bit standard, instead of Intel just dropping the old x86-32 bit instruction set for a new "pure" 64-bit instruction set. This gave AMD more leverage, and gave them a higher % of CPU market share.
It also allowed the desktop market to use 64-bit CPU's, since it is an extension of the 32-bit instructions.

Now, if you want to make proper use of your CPU, you'll have to either run a Linux distro, or one of the two MS OS' which supports 64-bit (XP-64 and 2003-64).
And yes, Windows Vista will most likely be released in both 32 and 64 bit versions, though it could be that the 32 bit version will be limited! Just look at what MS is doing when it comes to the graphics...

And you seem to have a misconception that each bit in the CPU equals a pipeline.. It is true that we don't utilize the potential of the CPU, but it's not like with GPU's where x pipelines have been disabled, but are still there if you know how to unlock them...
The underutilization is that parts of the pipelines are left idle, since they're made to deal with the new 64-bit instructions that a 32-bit OS can not issue...

As for the graphics part of your last post, actually 3dfx (no "-" in the name) started using SLI with their Voodoo2 graphics adapters way back in the day. And they way they did that has not much in common with todays SLI, except for the name...
And ATI have done the same earlier with their MAXX cards that used AFR, and the R300/Radeon 9700pro was created with the possiblity to add several chips per card. There are a few cards in the retail channel based on this, but they are very expensive. And the US military used extreme versions of those cards to create a war-simulator...

And dual core GPU's are most likely a very long way off, since they are moving towards a different path, getting rid of conventional pipelines, and instead creating a core that is much more flexible. This is partly done because of the unified shader model that is coming within the next releases of DX, and since it makes more sense, since it'll decrease the amount of logic in the chips which are left idle...
Thus creating a dual-core version of the core wouldn't make much sense, when you could spend the wafer realestate to increase the new "multi-purpose" core instead, since having 2 cores on one chip does require extra logic to be added..

Oh, and SNG, I stuck with Win2k

 

[nein]

Ok agreed, 64 bit is a good idea and should be the future of computing. But in all 99.9 percent of all household computers are still 32 bit.

Meaning that 32-bit support is not dead and still needs to grow as much or more than 64-bit. Windows Vista, previously named longhorn is going to be released the first or second quarter of 2006. As to my knowledge it will be released in 32-bit.

So what happens to all the new 64-bit CPU's that were baught thinking they were the future ? Are we still going to be relient on 32-bit software for the next 4 years and basically all of us who went 64 be out because lets face it how many of us hold on to a CPU for 4 years ? Yes they still work better than most 32-bit CPU's in 32-bit applications but what about extra 32 information pipes that we cant unlock.

Basically what I think is that 64-bit is not going anywhere besides the server market. Dual core althought they are also mostly 64-bit compatable is what the norm is going to turn into leaping over 64-bit architechture as the priority.
Muti-threaded programs becoming more and more prevelant.

I think the 64-bit guys got the shaft this run around. Yes things will eventually turn 100% 64-bit but im not betting my hat on it within the next 4 years.

Microsoft is holding back inovation by releasing a product that supports currant out dated CPU's. Everyone says that AMD won the fight over Intel with the introduction of XP x64 soly developed around AMD 64's but who really won in the long run with the introduction of Vista? Since 75% of all in home computers are run by a Intel 32-bit CPU i think the answer is simple. There gonna keep 32-bit around as the industry standard and let 64-bit tech lapse in the way of Dual core computing.

Just because your processor had further multiplication extension and division extension, it didn't meant that the old substraction extension and addition extension are useless and should no longer be used.

Looks like Intel won again, bastards.

They didn't win, the newly invented Intel "netburst architecture" is a trademark name for Distributed Processing architecture, the same one currently AMD is using and had already been using for sometimes.

Don't worry, sooner or later everybody will dump "Symmetric Processing" architecture including Intel, and go with the same AMD Distributed Processing arhitecture whether they wanted to or not.

Technology progress may get retarded and slowed by technology ignoramuses holding things back, but it can't be stop.

 

[Didou]

As with anything (64-bit, DirectX9, etc.) the only way to get developpers to use them or simply take them seriously is to make them realize that the market is there. Do you think developpers will work on something 5% of users will be able to purchase ? The more people have 64-bit extensions available, the more "sane" it will appear to develop for x86-64.

 

[Justin]

Some of us are already using a fully 64bit OS.

I have 2 machines with x86-64 processors, and both of them have a fully functional fully 64bit (meaning I do not need 32bit emulation libraries) operating systems.