Ran across this board and I'm confused...
What's the diff between 32-bit and 64? How do you know if your OS is 32 or 64??
What's the diff between 32-bit and 64? How do you know if your OS is 32 or 64??
32-bit OS vs 64-bit
- Thread starter andyfasthands
- Start date
Specifically, your wallet would know it (from the cost of buying an Itanium2, Opteron, SGI MIPS, or HP PA-RISC workstation).
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 35,383
- 2,502
- 126
Originally posted by: jliechty
Specifically, your wallet would know it (from the cost of buying an Itanium2, Opteron, SGI MIPS, or HP PA-RISC workstation).
?
You missed out on free Itanium2 day? Damn, I sent you a fax.
Anyway, in all seriousness, you'd know if your OS was 64-bit. All home user (and "enthusiast 31337") systems are 32-bit. 64-bit systems are very expensive right now. All of the buzz about Opteron is that it's the first 64-bit solution that is really affordable enough to be on a desktop as well as a server (that and it's backwards compatability).
LOL, unless I had just got some large sum of cash and had acquired an Opteron system with a 64 bit edition of Windows, and you happened to be my parents. They couldn't tell the difference, unless it specifically says "Windows 2003 64-bit" in the Start Menu or something (I dunno, does it?).
I figure it would be a couple years before 64bit will be cost effective, probably when the AMD 64bit for home users matures (good compitition keeps things cheap) then maybe I'll think about buying one.
When I say cost effective I just mean you can get more performance for $200 from a x86 system then a $200 64-x86 system. If you want high-end best of the best 64bit will be the way to go probably by fall of next year I am guessing.
As far as OS's go, I believe there is a version of XP that can run in 64bit versions of x86. i expect that it will be like win95 was... partly 16bit, partly 32bit. Unless you recieve special versions, the majority of software will run in 32bit mode (or 32bit emulation mode in Intel's 64bit arch.) Not much performance boost to be found there over similarly clocked 32bit proccessors. That's why they release server versions of their platform first, it's jsut easier that way.
Of course I don't have to worry about that since I use linux and linux is easy to port and has been running on 64bit architectures for many years now.
When I say cost effective I just mean you can get more performance for $200 from a x86 system then a $200 64-x86 system. If you want high-end best of the best 64bit will be the way to go probably by fall of next year I am guessing.
As far as OS's go, I believe there is a version of XP that can run in 64bit versions of x86. i expect that it will be like win95 was... partly 16bit, partly 32bit. Unless you recieve special versions, the majority of software will run in 32bit mode (or 32bit emulation mode in Intel's 64bit arch.) Not much performance boost to be found there over similarly clocked 32bit proccessors. That's why they release server versions of their platform first, it's jsut easier that way.
Of course I don't have to worry about that since I use linux and linux is easy to port and has been running on 64bit architectures for many years now.
Since no one has mentioned exactly what 64-bit means, I will try to.
What this number (32 or 64) indicates is how many bits are used to reference a certain memory address. So, on a 32-bit machine a valid memory address may be 0xF8E2A910 while on a 64-bit, that same address would be 0x00000000F8E2A910... do you see how insignificant it seems on 64-bit?
To be more accurate, one can reference 2^32 addresses on a 32-bit machine, which comes out to be slightly over 4 GB, if each address is one byte. On a 64-bit machine, the range is 2^64, which is about 18 million terabytes. 4 GB is more than enough for most home and business applications, so there's no stampede to 64-bit systems... only certain specialized functions require this much memory.
edit: I forgot to mention -- this is the only meaning of "64-bit" that I know... if there's another benefit, please enlighten us.
What this number (32 or 64) indicates is how many bits are used to reference a certain memory address. So, on a 32-bit machine a valid memory address may be 0xF8E2A910 while on a 64-bit, that same address would be 0x00000000F8E2A910... do you see how insignificant it seems on 64-bit?
To be more accurate, one can reference 2^32 addresses on a 32-bit machine, which comes out to be slightly over 4 GB, if each address is one byte. On a 64-bit machine, the range is 2^64, which is about 18 million terabytes. 4 GB is more than enough for most home and business applications, so there's no stampede to 64-bit systems... only certain specialized functions require this much memory.
edit: I forgot to mention -- this is the only meaning of "64-bit" that I know... if there's another benefit, please enlighten us.
GigaCluster: I believe the registers on 64-bit CPUs are larger as well. This means that operations on an extremely large number too big to fit into a 32-bit CPU's registers would require lots of extra MOV instructions, which slows things down big time. 64-bit CPUs with larger registers, however, can fit more of that number, or maybe even the entire number, into a single register, thus reducing the number of instructions needed to do what must be done.
cleverhandle
Diamond Member
- Dec 17, 2001
- 3,566
- 3
- 81
There are more registers available on a 64-bit system as well. From the little I understand, that is the big deal as far as general performance is concerned - fewer swaps out to cache and/or memory. Not many people who don't work with big iron need more than 4 GB, but having more registers helps everyone.
too bad 64-bit edition of windows is only for itaniumsOriginally posted by: jliechty
LOL, unless I had just got some large sum of cash and had acquired an Opteron system with a 64 bit edition of Windows, and you happened to be my parents. They couldn't tell the difference, unless it specifically says "Windows 2003 64-bit" in the Start Menu or something (I dunno, does it?).
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Not necessarily. My Alpha running Linux looks 99% the same as my dual Athlon workstation running Linux, you have to look in the right places to tell the difference.
For now, I believe they said there will be a 64-bit Windows for Opteron, but yes right now the only way to run Windows on Opteron is in 32-bit 'legacy' mode.
Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Originally posted by: jliechty
Specifically, your wallet would know it (from the cost of buying an Itanium2, Opteron, SGI MIPS, or HP PA-RISC workstation).
?
You missed out on free Itanium2 day? Damn, I sent you a fax.
Anyway, in all seriousness, you'd know if your OS was 64-bit. All home user (and "enthusiast 31337") systems are 32-bit. 64-bit systems are very expensive right now. All of the buzz about Opteron is that it's the first 64-bit solution that is really affordable enough to be on a desktop as well as a server (that and it's backwards compatability).
So my 1337 enthusiast Ultra 10 is 32 bits? Man, that's what I get for a free machine :|
EDIT: forgot
Since you guys have experiance with 64bit platforms, how well do you think the traditional 63bit platforms are going to react to the new x86 derivitive 64bit cpu's?
Would they continue to run in their respective roles, with low priced x86's as the masses's platform and the alphas, sparcs, power4s keeping the high-end? Would this be because the "high-end" would be specificly designed to fit their assigned roles, while 64-x86s will be more generic and still not up there in quality?
Because I am thinking that raw performance is not a issue. PC's have progressed very far in the past couple years and I don't see the performance advantage that those higher end products still being a big factor.
And how do you think Linux is going to play in all this?
As I see it, in order for companies like Sun to enter into the market they are going to have to throw a bit of developement work and resources at getting as much out of their hardware as possible to make them more attractive then companies like HP, while HP on the other hand can in turn use that developement to further it's own performance. Some people think we can see this in Itanic vs low-end Power4 servers. Will this lead to a kind of arms race in the developement of hardware like we see with AMD vs Intel and Nvidia vs ATI we see in the consumer markets? With free OS's like Linux making the playing ground a bit more even in terms of software, people will be able to switch much easier between platforms then it has in the past. Or are they going to get tired of the Linux GPL BS and go back completely to MS or maybe BSD derivatives?
Would they continue to run in their respective roles, with low priced x86's as the masses's platform and the alphas, sparcs, power4s keeping the high-end? Would this be because the "high-end" would be specificly designed to fit their assigned roles, while 64-x86s will be more generic and still not up there in quality?
Because I am thinking that raw performance is not a issue. PC's have progressed very far in the past couple years and I don't see the performance advantage that those higher end products still being a big factor.
And how do you think Linux is going to play in all this?
As I see it, in order for companies like Sun to enter into the market they are going to have to throw a bit of developement work and resources at getting as much out of their hardware as possible to make them more attractive then companies like HP, while HP on the other hand can in turn use that developement to further it's own performance. Some people think we can see this in Itanic vs low-end Power4 servers. Will this lead to a kind of arms race in the developement of hardware like we see with AMD vs Intel and Nvidia vs ATI we see in the consumer markets? With free OS's like Linux making the playing ground a bit more even in terms of software, people will be able to switch much easier between platforms then it has in the past. Or are they going to get tired of the Linux GPL BS and go back completely to MS or maybe BSD derivatives?
Alphas are typically boring (the ones I have seen!). I've only seen the beige box ones. Who cares? Give me the Sun Grey/Purple (or whatever colors those are!) anyday. My U10 is a pretty machine. The 280Rs are nice. The 3800 ain't bad. The 4800 is definitely a super model. And the 6800... Well, she is what dreams are made of.
I see the big iron staying where it is and the new 64bit machines taking over some of the sexier roles. Number crunching could be (and I don't know jack about the Hammer as compared to say an Alpha) where these x86-64 machines really shine. Sparc64 isn't a huge numbers sort of processor, its the platform that makes it appealing. But, if you need raw power for cheap, x86 is where it is at. I can definitely see a bunch of x86-64 machines crunching on big numbers in some sort of a cluster with the master being a slower Sun system built more for the storage and reliability. Maybe I'm nuts though.
Really, I don't care. I'm not a huge Linux fan. The biggest benefit to Linux in this market place is (and I guess I should really care about this, but I don't at the moment) the fact that it gives Open Source and sometimes Free Software a chance. If it was just the BSDs corporations probably wouldn't care and they might not be getting what little help they are getting.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
Well mine's white, but yes they're not as colorfull as Sun boxes unless you go out and get something like a GS160 which I doubt anyone here will be doing soon =) Although I have seen some cheaper models with the blue cases, but if you're shopping on eBay you're choices are limited.
Performance hasn't been a huge factor for a while, unless you need a machine like a GS160. The advantage is in the whole system, you get things like hotswap everything (i.e. disks, pci cards, memory, cpus, etc) and fanatical support. The advantage from an application standpoint is that you can address >4G per process but that's only important for things like huge databases.
Only certain people are tired of the GPL BS, mainly the BSD people =) Some companies have even used it to their advantage, like SGI released XFS under the GPL into Linux but they won't release it under another 'more free' license because they don't want someone like Sun to be able to incorporate it into Solaris so the GPL is one of the main reasons Linux now has the XFS filesystem.
White, beige, whatever.
I'll have to check out the GS160 though and see how it looks.
OpenBSD has an implimentation of XFS under the old BSD license. I'm not sure how stable it is though.
EDIT: Am I supposed to include: This product includes software developed by the Kungliga Tekniska
* Högskolan and its contributors. in there because I mentioned it?
God, I nearly spit water all over my monitor when I saw that... Whew, catastrophe narrowly avoided...
I think all the new Alphas(ES, GS, DS, etc) look nice.
Not as nice as the Sun Blade 2000 though.
Sun Blade 2000
Sun Blade 2000 again, cause it's so sexy
And yet again
One more, last one...
Man, that's the BMW M5 of workstations...
Well, the E39 M5 that is, not the new fugly thing
Oh and drag, regarding the 32 vs 64 bit thing, I agree with what's been said.
You don't buy SPARC boxes, and you don't buy Solaris, you but the Sun platform, including Solaris, SPARC, service agreements, disk chassis, etc etc.
Same for IBM/POWER, zSeries, whatever.
x86 boxen are pretty reliable these days, but IMO they'll never be up there with the high end Sun/IBM/whatever gear, simply cause the high end RISC stuff is made from the ground up to be reliable, Sun/IBM control the entire platform, chipsets, CPU's, OS, drivers, etc etc.
If I were to be tasked with setting up a big cluster for pure number crunching, x86 would most definately be my pick though.
Not as nice as the Sun Blade 2000 though.
Sun Blade 2000
Sun Blade 2000 again, cause it's so sexy
And yet again
One more, last one...
Man, that's the BMW M5 of workstations...
Well, the E39 M5 that is, not the new fugly thing
Oh and drag, regarding the 32 vs 64 bit thing, I agree with what's been said.
You don't buy SPARC boxes, and you don't buy Solaris, you but the Sun platform, including Solaris, SPARC, service agreements, disk chassis, etc etc.
Same for IBM/POWER, zSeries, whatever.
x86 boxen are pretty reliable these days, but IMO they'll never be up there with the high end Sun/IBM/whatever gear, simply cause the high end RISC stuff is made from the ground up to be reliable, Sun/IBM control the entire platform, chipsets, CPU's, OS, drivers, etc etc.
If I were to be tasked with setting up a big cluster for pure number crunching, x86 would most definately be my pick though.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter