64 bit Processors

I was thinking about upgrading my machine to an AMD Athlon 64 3000+. But suddenly it struck me: do I need a 64 bit processor? What are the advantages to someone who uses VStudio, MS Office and games quite a lot? Should I stick to a 32 bit processor?

Gobledigook
Thursday, June 17, 2004

The Athlon 64 has more features than just being 64 bit (bigger register file, different cache strategy etc.), but mostly for apps that were specifically compiled for it (or .NET or java apps, if you can get a special runtime - don't know if it exists anyway).

However, it remains to be seen if AMD can hold on to its position, since Intel has another 64 bit platform up its sleeve (incompatible).

To wrap up endless discussions elsewhere on the internet: the Athlon is a very very good processor, and even better for specific applications, but, IMHO its 64-bitness is of little use in everyday life. So don't pay too much for it.

Janonymous
Thursday, June 17, 2004

AFAIK the Intel 64bit platform is mainly compatible with AMD's. My kernel had the option of compiling it specifically for this Intel platform but I stick to my Amd64. I could have done generically for both.

A x86_64 user
Thursday, June 17, 2004

Personally I'm waiting for the dual core CPU's and even more important are silent PC's. I can do whatever I want on a 2Ghz+ PC 32bit but if I could get a something of the same power but with no noise and in micro-itx form it would be great.

So my priorities are:

1. Stabilty of system (drivers MUST be good and system MUST be certified to work stable on this and that OS) Thats also why I'm going back to Dell, Compaq from homebuild PC's
2. Noise
3. Speed (CPU+graphics+memory+PCI)
4. Size of PC.

somemorone
Thursday, June 17, 2004

Does Intel have *another* (a 3rd) 64-bit technology up their sleeve? I doubt it.

The original Itanium was incompatible with 32-bit x86 code except in a slow emulation mode, whereas AMD64 is an extension of x86. An extension that Intel themselves have now reverse engineered. Intel is "AMD compatible" (http://tinyurl.com/3a9kn) but according to the rags their implementation "sucks" (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15149).

Nate Silva
Friday, June 18, 2004

Intel's new 64-bit processors due to be released sometime in the next two weeks will run the same software as AMD64 processors. This has been common knowledge since Intel Developer Forum in February.

Intel will only support AMD64 on their Nocona Xeon processors in the beginning, but at the end  of 2005 all AMD cpus and most of Intel CPUs will be 64-bit. This means that software support will grow quickly.

According to unconfirmed reports, Nocona will not be very competitive with Opteron in 64-bit mode.

Vidar
Friday, June 18, 2004

'Intel is "AMD compatible"' - how ironic !

Steve Jones (UK)
Friday, June 18, 2004

So, if by the end of 2005 all AMD processors and most of Intel processors will be 64 bit, where does the compatibility issue stand? Will they be compatible with each other or will we have to use sucky emulation things? Shouldn't there be a standard instruction set?

RP
Friday, June 18, 2004

The AMD64 and Intel's "Nocona" processors will be compatible with each other and with x86. Intel's earlier, but higher-end, Itanium uses a new instruction set.

Thus there will be two 64-bit CPU families (well, not counting Apple's G5): the Itanium, targeted at datacenters and the AMD64/Nocona targeted at mainstream servers and desktops.

Nate Silva
Friday, June 18, 2004

what happened to Cyrix?

Tapiwa
Friday, June 18, 2004

Road kill?

RP
Friday, June 18, 2004

  Recent Topics

  Fog Creek Home