ComputerBB

Many people don't think they need a 64-Bit CPU.
This is because they are devoted (greedy) Intel followers.
They are not independent.
AMD fans are independent though and gave AMD with the idea of inexpensive 64-Bit CPUs.
Why?
-MS Office Voice Command (Quicker Translation)
-More life-like games
-More RAM for 3D editing
As you see, this demand is from basic home users, to extreme gamers, to the business world.
Don't forget crunching SETI numbers to find the aliens.
AMD was the first to break the ice to allow the 64-Bit revolution for all to begin.
Intel is still shaky because their Itanium 2 series was a failure when it came to the price (over 1K per CPU).
But why should Intel followers stay followers?
They should become independent and hold the company up, not the other way around.
Join the 64-Bit legacy, run Linux 64-Bit (out now) or Windows 64-Bit (Beta is out now. Final will be released this quarter.)
Experience extremely fast voice commands, exciting new kinds of games, and much more RAM for a whole new environment.
But did AMD just add 64-Bit to their CPUs?
NO!!!
They also added extremely helpful features such as an onboard memory controller and Hyper Transport.
This gives maximum connection to your resources.
AMD doesn't just think about the CPU (like Intel, making the CPU cost hundreds), they think about the whole picture.

Many people don't think they need a 64-Bit CPU.

And they'd be right.

This is because they are devoted (greedy) Intel followers.
They are not independent.
AMD fans are independent though and gave AMD with the idea of inexpensive 64-Bit CPUs.

Ok...

Why?

The true question is, would we gain any benefits from doubling the width of standard data types like int and double?

In short, not for a while.

Thats what 64-bit computing means. larger data types with less overhead, you either get to store larger integer number, or more precise floating point numbers. Considering that current FPUs do their math with 80-bit precision, you gain no benefit from 64-bit computing, and most of the samples you cite would benefit from more instructions executed per second than from larger data types.

It also means access to larger amounts of memory - but as with the data types. pointless unless you need that type of memory... and if you do, a single CPU solution probably won't cut the mustard.

Onboard memory controllers are a side effect of the rapid increase of the number of cycles per second - less latency, high memory and cpu frequencies. don't be surprised when most of the electronics of a motherboard come on the CPU.

But don't be lulled, AMD64's beating of the p4ee is soley on the basis of its 32-bit core, not its 64-bit features. And unless AMD starts getting its frequencies up. Intel will again push past them

AMD is a good bargin, but unless they get to work, Intel will still spend most of the time on the top.

Remember, as much as you'd like it not to be true, CPU performance is ultimatly brute force dynamics.

I know that AMD did not test their 64-Bit power yet.
But 64-Bit does more than just increase memory size ability.
It also increases complex caculation effectiveness.
Such as oral commands.
64-Bit gives more breathing room for programs so they can operate more effective.
Thus when they do test it, there will be a large performance difference.
Yes 64-Bit makes no difference w/o 64-Bit programs.
But Windows XP 64-Bit (Final for AMD64) comes this quarter.
Also, AMD wanted to get 64-Bit out of the way now so they can get the promised Hyper Threading, huge caches (1, 2, and 3), and increased GHz through the K9s.
AMD didn't want to make the same mistake Intel made with their Itanium series.

Aggressor Prime wrote:I know that AMD did not test their 64-Bit power yet.
But 64-Bit does more than just increase memory size ability.
It also increases complex caculation effectiveness.

Increasing the number of usable registers also does that, and does it better than doubling the word size.

Intels 64-bit Itanium didn't use 64-bit extensions to x86, it flubbed because programmers needed to do more hand optimization,

and running a 64-bit OS by itself doesn't do anything for performance - most of the programs it will run will be 32-bit programs running with the 32-bit core. Recompiling programs to target 64-bit CPU would only mean it doesn't run in 32-bit mode, and not double the size of any of the data types its using. you'd probably need to do some code tweaking just to get it to compile.

its like covincing people to buy a big-rig as a family car. First adopters don't care, they get the latest and greatest, and generally have the money to do so.

Everyone else looks at it a tad more skeptically, and as a whole, 64-bit computing is a expensive soltution to a problem that isn't really there.

You'll see more 64-bit chips when AMD and intel are stop making 32-bit parts, not because people are adopting them.

I'd personalyl like to see CPU makers get together, and hammer out a new 64-bit Standard Instruction Set, rather than extending the old crappy x86.

And thats one of the reasons Itaniums are bad.
AMD should bring the cost of the Athlon 64 3000 (now at $178) to below one hundred before this year ends.
You have to say AMD did do a good job making a 64-Bit CPU thats 10 times less expensive than Intel's at the same performance level.
And, when it comes to building PCs, the only way you can build a 64-Bit system is through AMD CPUs (unless if you want to have a bulky Itanium rackmount which are servers' not home users').

You do realize that Itanium doesn't use any variant of the x86 instruction set, right, and it is primarly targeted at the high-end market?

Of course I know that, thats what makes it bad.

What does, not having the ability to run 32-Bit?

it runs 32-bit in emulation mode.

And no more cruddy x86. Tho EPIC(the instruction set used in the itanium) requires you to hand-work the parrelism.

All-in-all, I'd take a g5 over both.

LOL, a G5 eh?

G5 doesn't work on a descent operating system.

G5 is Apple.
Apple is bad.
Windows XP 64-Bit is good.
You are crazy.
AMD64 Opteron 848=Best.

Spoken like people that never acutally tried the thing.

You might want to broaden your experiences before recomending hardware.

Macs are not universal.
They are expensive.
AND WORST OF ALL:
You can't build them!
I want to add something else to the list "low performance" but I can't really say that if I don't know the specs.
Top Mac-2GHz, 96KB C1 (AMD's on Top Here w/ 128KB C1), 512KB C2, N/A C3, 1GHz FSB (AMD is on Top Here w/ 2200MHz FSB).
Anything else?
Here is a nice link for all you Mac users who think Mac is the greatest (PROOF).
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,a ... g,8,00.asp

01/30/04 - How I PC'd an Apple G5
"I got a shiny new Apple G5 for Christmas. I loved the case, but I’m no Mac user. So I....
- Get a brand new dual processor G5, then
- Rip out everything,
- Cut out the back of the case so I can use a PC motherboard, and Install an Athlon motherboard"

The_Man wrote:Dude Apple is going to make a Bad@$$ comeback. The G5's were the first 64bit PC Processor out on the market to be sold. You can't argue with that it was teh first. Which means Apple is the first to get a 64bit OS, OSX Panther. Apple will have the best video editing because of G5 and apple will always beat windows there. If comptuer companys were just to start making every application for apple too i garuntee you would see a big increase in the selling of apple computers.

Microsoft is giving away Windows XP 64 for AMD64. Mac's are too hard to program in, so no one makes programs in them, get it? That's why Macs are doing so bad. Programmers can't use them well. They are also expensive. You can't build them. They are even less compatable than Linux. Director MX 2004 works on both Windows and Macs, so video editing is the same. LOTR was made on Linux for example. Worst of all, you can't overclock Macs.

Uh, the comeback has already come and gone.
It was a failure.
Apple can't maximize their CPU's GHz like AMD can.
They have terrible performance when compared to even the slow Pentium 4 3.2GHz.
The #1 CPUs are Athlon 64 FX-51, then Athlon 64 3400, then Athlon 64 3200, then a bunch of Intels, then Apple.
Go to PCWorld if you don't believe me.

Woah, hold on. I thought we had agreed that we would not say that P4 or Athlon64 was better than the other: they are each better than the other at separate things. Say that first is Intel and AMD, and then Motorola.

I mean gaming.
Most people out there are gamers, not programmers anyway.

Actually, only a small percent of the population does gaming. The majority do office productivity stuff (word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) and programming (both professionally and as a hobby).

Well AMD also scores higher in Office.
The only thing Intel beats AMD in is most programming tests because of the 2MB C 3 on the EEs.
If soemone wants to do programming, just get a dual Opteron 240, its much cheaper and faster.

there is no need for 64 bit yet...

Aggressor Prime wrote:Well AMD also scores higher in Office.
The only thing Intel beats AMD in is most programming tests because of the 2MB C 3 on the EEs.
If soemone wants to do programming, just get a dual Opteron 240, its much cheaper and faster.

Office is for M$-fanboys like AP. For everyone else there's OOo.

Microsoft confirms the need for 64-Bit here.

w/e

if apple is so bad, why did the army just order a super computer built out of over 1000 G5's" it will also be one of the top 5 supercomputers in the world doing a nice 25 TereFlops

What do you think the army's main database is made out of?!

Because Apple is giving them away to the army to publicize; thus, we have to pay more for public systems.

And that