64bit vs 32bit

[Ridgerunr]

What are the differences between these relating to both software and hardware?
Why should I build a 64bit system(which is much more expensive),rather than a top of the line 32bit system at this point in time?

[Jeff Snyder]

This is from PC World: " The Skinny on 64

The amount of data a chip can process at once is a fundamental difference between today's 32-bit desktop processors--like Intel's Pentium 4, AMD's Athlon XP, and Apple's Motorola-made G4--and future 64-bit desktop CPUs, says Kevin Krewell, senior editor at Microprocessor Report. In the 64-bit camp are Apple's pending IBM-made G5 and AMD's upcoming Athlon 64.

The 64-bit CPUs can handle more memory and larger files. "The advantage of 64 bits is it gives you a larger address space, which means it lets you address more memory," Krewell says. Today's 32-bit Intel and AMD chips can address up to 4GB of memory (an Apple G4 unit can address 2GB). In Windows-based machines, that 4GB is split between the operating system and the applications. That means the most memory any given application can access is 2GB.

"That limit is not a big deal now, but it could be down the road--particularly in video-editing applications and the like," he adds.

A 64-bit processor, on the other hand, can address up to 16 exabytes of memory (that's over 16 billion gigabytes). "

I did a fair amount of reading on this before I built this last PC for myself. It's the wave of the future if you listen to the "hype" by the industry. What I looked at is that most software my be a year or two away. Gamers want it, people who do video editing could benefit I guess. I just couldn't justify the cost for what I'm currently do now.

Having said that, now that I jumped to a P-4 775 3.4ghz I should have looked at something that would do as good but without all the heat from the CPU. 3- 4" fans plus the 4" on the power supply (all set to med & low) to keep the sound level down would have been better.

Just my opinion.

[Ridgerunr]

Seems to me to be a great waste in many ways. I capture,edit and burn video to DVD and my AMD Athlon 2500+ mobile is set to run at 2.25Ghz. It does so at 39c idle and never above 42c on full load. Why in the world would I want to pay almost usd$1,000.00 just for a CPU when I can build a 32bit 'complete' system that will do all I need for less than that?

[Train]

Wonder what the time difference would be with the newer setup?

That would be interesting to find out.

[Ridgerunr]

Well,,this article leans towards the M$ .net framework uses of 64 bit,but if you care to read down a' ways, it 'does' give some basic differences between 32 and 64: http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframewo...t/default.aspx

Still doesn't give this ol' Irishman much of a push towards jumpin' on the bandwagon tho'. Don't even have .net installed myself,haven't seen a useful need for it yet. What do ya'all think?

[Tuttle]

Right now, 64-bit doesn't mean much unless you do serious data crunching and have software written to take advantage of it. For most general users, 32-bit is still the way to go.

From an architectural point of view, it's like going from a 286 to a 386 (but at the same clock speed). It opens up the potential to do bigger stuff, and one day there will be software that only runs on 64-bit chips, but until there's 64-bit software floating around you won't notice any difference.

[usil]

I agree with Tuttle. At the moment, there is more potential than anything else. If you plan on keeping the system for the next 2-3 years, you will probably get a lot more out of it than you would today, and also more than you would with a 32 bit system.
64 bit systems to have some advantages today over 32. For example, when it comes do gaming, the 64 bit processor constantly gets better marks on benchmarks. When 64 bit games will be available, the 64 bit processor will have a big advantage over the 32 bit.

[greengoose1]

In what I do, I have not not come close to the full capability of 32 bit in use. The only differences is that my wallet would be lighter and I would have a cpu that had far more capability than needed. So from a cost effective standpoint it is not required at this time.

[SuperSparks]

While I agree that the benefit of 64-bit computing is more theoretical than real right at the moment, 64-bit does offer a bit more futureproofing. I'm not sure where the extra cost is coming from though. I'm looking to build myself a server box very soon, and I've been pricing components a lot recently - the AMD64 is currently cheaper than it's equivalent Pentium, and the motherboards for AMD64's don't seem any more expensive.

And I believe 64-bit Windows will be made available as a free upgrade as well, so there isn't the cost of a new OS involved. Putting all that together, there just doesn't seem to be any advantage in not going for a 64-bit system.

[JPnyc]

Well personally I'm never too quick to jump onto any cutting edge technology. I just bought a new XP box with longhorn right around the corner. I did it because I will let the rest of the world find and live with the bugs that plague ANY 1st version software, while I wait until all that's out of the way, before I try it.

[Ridgerunr]

Have to agree with those who say 'wait and see'. And yes, you can get an AMD 64 here in the States for about usd$120.00,example:
(quote from Newegg)
Specifications -
Model: AMD Athlon 64 2800+
Core: Newcastle
Operating Frequency: 1.8GHz
FSB: Integrated into Chip
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/ 512KB
Voltage: 1.5V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket 754
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Packaging: Retail(Heatsink and Fan included)

But the one I use is not much behind the above and can be had for usd$88.00
(Newegg quote):
Specifications -
Manufacturer: AMD
Model: AXMH2500FQQ4C
Core: Barton
Operating Frequency: 1.83GHz
FSB: 266MHz
Cache: L1/64K+64K; L2/512K
Voltage: 1.45V
Process: 0.13Micron
Socket: Socket A
Multimedia Instruction: MMX, SSE, 3DNOW!, 3DNOW!+
Of course we're looking at the Newcastle core and the fsb is integrated on chip.
But many gamers(and others) just "have" to have the latest n' greatest and that would be a jump to the(at least for AMD fans)the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 with the 1MB L-2 cache socket 939 chip. And that baby runs at usd$837.00 at the Egg.
Personally,it will be quite some time for the reason such as JPNYC and others gave,(and a large price drop) before 'this' Guy decides to go the 64 route.
What's your opinion?

[hongman]

Again, I agree the potenial for 64bit is huge, considering the amount of data cruching it can do. But on the otherside of the coin, as others have mentioned, software needs to be written for it.

For gamers, this is big news. I dont think it will be long before a bunch of 64 bit games are released, they are probably working on them right now.

I built a 64bit system for a friend of mine that wanted futureproofing: so thats what i did. The entire system came to around £450, exc HDD, CD-ROM, FDD, Keyboard, Mouse, VDU and Speakers. Now that isnt bad in my books, for an AMD643000+ and a Gig of Kingston in there. If I had the money I would build myself one tomorrow!

When the price drops even more, I think I agree with Sparks in that there wont be any point in NOT getting a 64bit sysem. Hell, if you're gonna upgrade and 64 bit is only a tad bit more expensive, why not? :P

There;s my 2 pennies

[DrMDJ]

In looking at the 64-bit systems today one doesn't necessarily just want to consider them only in light of the increased memory and address spaces they can handle, or the avaialbility (or not) of 64-bit OSes and apps which would allow them to run in 64-bit mode. There are some key and potentially significant (depending on what one does with their pc) baseline architectural enhancements and aspects of both the processors and motherboards that support them. Take the AMD64 platforms where you have things like the on-die memory controller(s) and (what is equivalent to a) frontside bus, the hypertransport link technology that's employed, enhancements (and in some cases enlargement) in the L1 and L2 caching, larger Table Look-aside Buffers (and better logic for using them), etc. These things can produce tangible benefits (again, depending on what one does) even in the 32-bit OS and app world.

[OPOVET2]

Does any one know if the folks writing this new software for the newer 64 bit processers are the same ones that were going to write that software for MMX and that Hyper-Threading stuff?

I seen to remember the 64 bit processors we had in the DEC ALPHA's (back in the 90's) were going to get 64 bit MS software and that never happened.

[Tuttle]

I dunno, did anyone ever get around to writing 32-bit code for 386s?

I think the problem with Alpha was that it was a high-end, low-volume market. Developing a whole new set of software for that sort of processor instead of just porting what already exists is normally a pretty unattractive proposition. This time around, 64-bit is aimed at the mainstream, and so the software developers have good reason to take advantage of it.