Printable View
Hello all
Will there be any significant difference in performance b/w 32bit processor and 64 bit processor if you are using around 1Gb memory.
My understanding is 64 bit processor can access more memory addresses upto 2TB, 32 bit processor 4Gb. So I think there shouldn;t be any performance diff if we are using less than 4gb of memory...
Please post your insight on this, and correct me if i am getting this wrong..
Thanks....
No diff regarding the RAM (if less than 4 gb), but side by side the 64 bit proc will out perform the 32 bit IF you are using a processor intensive app. Toms Hardware Guide ( http://www.tomshardware.com ) has several decent articles on the subject, including a recent one comparing Intel and AMD's dual core offerings.
Yes, the 64 bit will outperform during processor intensive operations.
Sooner rather than later, ALL applications will become processor intensive for a 32 bit processor. We have reached the limits of 32 bit processing, and so have developed a newer, faster, better processor.
There is nothing a 32 bit processor can do that a 64 bit cannot, as opposed to the day when 32 bit processing broke 16 bit applications. They are also close enough in price now (I think) to warrant the purchase of 64 bit processors.
I see no reason to buy a 32 bit processor anymore, beyond the ever diminishing cost savings. Nobody ever buys 16 bir processors anymore -- they are obsolete, much like 32 bit processors will be in the very near future. Buy purchasing 32 bit processors, one is essentially purchasing obsolete technology.
And the memory limit as I understand works like this: 2^32 = 4*10^9, or 4 gigabytes. Should the theoretical memory limit of a 64 bit processor not then be found with 2^64, which equals 16 million terabytes?
Well, the 64 bit processor will out perform the 32 bit processor with processor intensive apps, but where you'll see the real difference is when a 64 bit OS comes out and applications specifically programmed for the 64 bit OS start coming out. But until then i'm sticking with 32 bit, because most of the world will be using 32 bit still and most software companies are not going to want to cut off 70% of their customers by only making 64 bit software... Eventually everyone will be forced to switch to 64 bit processors, but I don't see the forced move for a while, that's just my look into the future, I could be wrong...
Exactly. Unless you have a 64 - bit Operating System you wont notice practacly any difference what so ever.
Microsoft are due to release Windows XP Pro X64 around now, it may have been released already, ive been away for a bit and not been able to keep "in date". Linux however already takes advantage of 64 bit proceccors though, so if you have a 64 - bit CPU it may be worth trying it out.
What a lot of people I talk to dont realize is that only the applications/ programs that have been compiled or even re-compiled to run on a 64 - bit machine will get any benifit from it. 32- bit drivers wont work with Windows XP pro X64 and it will prob take companies a while to come up with them.
I would have thought the Linux community will produce 64-bit app's/drivers before they start to appear for Windows due to most companies worrying about the cost!
64 - bit CPU's are not designed to give speed increases though. The main idea behind 64 - bit cpu's it handle more data and a higher resolution in games/audio/video etc and also to increase the ammount of on board memory (up to 64GB with the Intel cpu and 1 terabyte with AMD's cpu, if i remember right). The P4 L2 cache gets a 1MB boost to 2MB however.
There wont be much in the way of a speed increase.
At the moment there is very very few 64-bit app's out there and I wouldnt imagine there is a great hurry at the moment for vendors to start producing any.
One of the pluses thought is you wont need a new Mother Board to have one though, you will just need to upgrade your BIOS and get a 64 bit OS!!
From Toms Hardware.Quote:
When it comes to games and multimedia, the FX-55 gains even more lead over the P4 processor family, beating the Extreme Edition in 3DMark, Doom 3, Far Cry, Unreal Tournament 2004 and Wolfenstein ET. These are also precisely the applications for which the P4 EE and the Athlon FX are designed. Only some synthetic benchmarks, 3DStudio Max and encoding applications like Windows Media Encoder 9 are still dominated by Intel's processors.
Sorry Nokia...you will see a difference. Actually, the 64 bit OS LOWERS benchmark scores...info again from THG, I just can't find the link at the moment.
Personally, I'm opting for for a 64 bit processor for my next build. It WILL make a difference in performance and by using a dual boot scheme I'll be able to blaze through those 32 bit apps AND take advantage of the 64 bit apps as they come down the pipe.
I havn't even looked at the guide that Tom provides, I havn't because i'm farely confident you won't see a huge difference until the 64 bit software start coming out. You will see a difference, but not a big enough one for me to make the switch until more 64 bit software comes out...
Like I said, games/audio/video will get a preformance boost but your computer wont work any faster just because you have a 64-bit cpu - unless you have a 64 - bit OS/app etcQuote:
Originally posted here by Nokia
64 - bit CPU's are not designed to give speed increases though. The main idea behind 64 - bit cpu's it handle more data and a higher resolution in games/audio/video etc
This includes anti-virus:Quote:
At the moment there is very very few 64-bit app's out there and I wouldnt imagine there is a great hurry at the moment for vendors to start producing any.
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1162755
Quote:
Users of the latest 64-bit version of Microsoft's Windows XP Professional x64 Edition operating system will not have the option to install Norton or McAfee antivirus software, vnunet.com can reveal.
Users trying to install the Norton Internet Security 2005 security suite for consumers on the 64-bit version of Windows see an error message stating that the product can not be installed.
They are referred to a web page which states: "Symantec currently does not sell any consumer products that are certified to be compatible with 64-bit processors and operating systems."
The performance increase doesn't have much to do with being a 64bit processor.
The Performance Increase Has A Lot To Do With The Processor Having An Integrated Memory Controller, On The Die/CPU Itself.
That said, AMD's 64bit processors will definately have awesome performance when it comes to managing memory, and memory intensive tasks. Latency between the CPU and memory-controller is now almost non-existant, and that is what matters when it comes down to great latency and bandwidth. There should be improvement, even managing 1GB of RAM.
Thanks for all the replies...
Again my qn is.... 64bit processor can access more data from the memory and process it compared to 32bit processors and therefore the performance difference.. but what if the memory is say 2gb, which a 32 bit processor can effectively access, in this case will there be any difference in performance theorietically.....?
Correct me if I am wrong
Quote:
Originally posted here by oxygen
Thanks for all the replies...
Again my qn is.... 64bit processor can access more data from the memory and process it compared to 32bit processors and therefore the performance difference.. but what if the memory is say 2gb, which a 32 bit processor can effectively access, in this case will there be any difference in performance theorietically.....?
Correct me if I am wrong
The answer is YES...there is a difference. At this point in time the AMD 64 bit processors are the fastest x86 processors on the market.....with the exception of a couple of benchmarks where the P4EE tops out. Tim_Axe explained why the 64 bit works so well and I provided links where you can learn a lot more about them.
Look at the charts!