4 Gigahertz 16 bit CPU (Hypothetical)

[Crypticburn]

Duvie & Ticktanium2038: "mute point"

Just to clarify it's "moot point"

Moot: Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
Mute: Refraining from producing speech or vocal sound.

Crypticburn

 

[Wolfdog]

I don't think anybody would buy a 16-bit cpu at any price right now. Especially since 16-bitness would limit you to about 1mb worth of ram, which would choke on a winxp install. As for the assumption that 64-bit is better, and all should jump on the boat, well. Maybe in time. In the right here and now there is no need for more than 1gb worth of ram for the average consumer. Even the extreme edge people would rather buy lower latency ram than put on 4gb+ worth of memory. Hey you could run multiple games in windows on your pc?? Now servers and workstations are another market altogether. There are quite a few cases in that market that adding multi g/b's worth of memory realizes a healthy speedup. So you need to ask yourself-"when is the last time I loaded a 1-GB database file into my pc?". Give it five years or so until it becomes more mainstream. 64-bit land isn't for everyone(right now), and really doesn't offer anything over and above what 32-bit can give you right now. It especially does not mean that 64-bit is 2x faster than 32-bit. In time though and a couple more windows releases and you will be loaded down by a spectacular amount of bloat only microsloth can provide for you. I would buy a 32-bit cpu since they are the best value today on the market. The operon and fx chips from AMD are way too bleepin expensive to catch anything but a gas bubble from me. As such if I built a cpu next year it most definitely wouldn't be 64-bit. A prescott chip, or even a high mhz athlon or a p4 is a better value. I will wait out the time it takes for the 64-bit software revolution to take place. For all those who think it future proofs your pc, think. By the time that 64-bit software abounds from the major companies your current operon or fx will be too slow to run it.

 

[bgeh]

where did you get the beta from ticktanium2038?

 

[Jeff7181]

By the time that 64-bit software abounds from the major companies your current operon or fx will be too slow to run it.

True, but did you see AnandTech's newest review on Gigabyte's nForce3 940 board? There's hardly a test that the FX51 doesn't beat the 3.2 Ghz P4 in, or at least hold it's own. I'm kinda glad Intel isn't releasing any stiff competition yet... they're giving AMD time to iron out manufacturing problems and work on increasing clock speed and getting better yields.

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Im a part of a lot of Beta programs as well as a part of MSDN. Microsoft grants me access to a lot of toys. In return I give them feedback and support thier products. A lot of vendors have open ralationships with me because I work with many large companies. Im not talking about companies with 500 employees but 30K to 200K+ employees. I speak with a lot of engineers and was once asked by Microsoft if I wanted to be submitted to work on the X-Box team because of some of the ideas I presented to them.

To Prove I have a Beta copy here is some info.

Here is what I get when I put the CD in a regular 32 bit machine.
"This Version of Windows cannot be installed on this machine."

here is quick clip

Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Only Back to Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Software
16-bit applications
Windows XP 64-Bit Edition does not support most 16-bit DOS, Windows, and OS/2 applications. This is also significant to 32-bit applications where the initial setup.exe is a 16-bit stub which checks the machine type, then launches a 32-bit install engine to perform the install.

On computers running Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, certain proprietary 16-bit applications do not run correctly and might affect other applications.

Programs that use 16-bit Microsoft ACME Setup versions 2.6, 3.0, 3.01, and 3.1 and InstallShield versions 5.x should install without error.

32-bit device drivers
Computers running Windows XP 64-Bit Edition do not support 32-bit device drivers.

Some 32-bit applications ship with device drivers that are not supported by the 64-bit kernel. These applications will not function properly and might cause an error during installation or operation. Most 32-bit antivirus programs fall into this category and should not be loaded on computers running Windows XP 64-Bit Edition.

32-bit plug-ins on 64-bit Internet Explorer
The 64-bit default browser for Windows XP 64-Bit Edition will not load 32-bit plug-ins. However, a 32-bit version of Internet Explorer (IE) is included with Windows XP 64-Bit Edition.

To use the 32-bit version of IE in Windows XP 64-Bit Edition:

Click Start, then click All Programs.
Click Internet Explorer (32-bit).
Microsoft ActiveSync® version 3.1
On computers running Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, after launching ActiveSync and clicking on the Explore icon, the following message appears:

The path does not exist or is not a directory.ActiveSync relies on 32-bit Explorer shell extensions. On Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, the 64-bit Explorer is the default shell.

Speech recognition
On computers running Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, speech recognition for applications (including Microsoft Office) is not supported. In some applications, speech recognition options might be present on menus but do not function.



Other Back to Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microsoft virtual machine for Java
32 - bit Platform The Microsoft virtual machine (Microsoft VM) is now only available as a Web download. The latest 32-bit edition of the Microsoft VM can be obtained at the Microsoft Web site. If you do not already have a virtual machine on your system and visit a Web site with a Java applet, Internet Explorer will automatically ask if you wish to install the Microsoft VM.

64 -bit Platform The Microsoft virtual machine (Microsoft VM) is now only available as a Web download for customers who wish to run the 32-bit Microsoft VM under WOW64 on Windows XP 64-Bit Edition. The latest 32-bit edition of the Microsoft VM can be obtained at the Microsoft Web site. If you do not already have a virtual machine on your system and visit a Web site with a Java applet, Internet Explorer will automatically ask if you wish to install the Microsoft VM (IE running under WOW64). This is a one-time installation. Note that Microsoft does not produce a 64-bit native Microsoft virtual machine.

 

[zephyrprime]

I cant wait to see the benchmarks of video encoding done with 64 bits and MP3 encosing.

I'll say it again even though it's been said so many times before:

The primary benefit of going to 64bits is more memory.

Video encoding and MP3 encoding will see no benefit from going to 64bits.

 

[Cerb]

1. bang/buck is served best buy 32-but current CPUs. For basic use, Athlons. Dapunisher, multitasking is about even with HT, unless you're doing something like video encoding and anything else, in which case a P4 is better (with HT).
2. Win XP Pro is here. Now. Stable. Software will run on it for quite some time (3 years or more, say).
3. Servers and gaming machines benefit most from 64-bit. That is what, 10-15% of users (not counting cheap gamers like me--gamers that would be willing to pay at least the cost of a P4C right now)?
4. Never bank on the future except for this time of the year, when product refreshes are right around the corner.

Edit: #3 said low-end servers. They're served well by the Opterons, but that wasn't the point, the general 64-bit move was the point.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
Given the price of an Opteron is in direct comparison of Intel's 32 bit offering means you are getting the 64 bit option FREE.

Really? Opteron 244: $700, Xeon 3.06: $500. Xeon mobo: $200, Opteron mobo: $400.
Nope, not free. Not that the Opteron wouldn't be worth it for database work (notice how in practically every review it scales far better when under heavy load), but it is priced higher, as are mobos. On the other hand, there are many cases where it will be worth the extra $.

Its like getting a P4 with SSE3 (If Existed). Somewhere down the line you will get to enable that functionality and enjoy the benifits of it.

And if it's like SSE2 was, you'd have good chances to upgrade at least three times now, and would have to upgrade to see the benefits of the P4C's FSB. It's more sound and a bit cheaper to wait until it becomes used.

As to 32 bit being mainstream. 16 bit to 32 bit met the same reaction and now everything is 32 bit. The same applies to moving toward 64 bit. Support has been announced and more applications will be arriving soon. Some games are in their final stages of being AMD 64 ready.

And that's good news, and I plan to make my next upgrade to an Athlon64, maybe getting 64-bit XP for it, but that helps a minority of users. While the Opteron is reaching fewer, it has many more benefits RIGHT NOW as a product than the Athlon64 does. Server OS? Check. Great performance? Check. Less power draw than comparable Xeon or Itanium? Check (unless something new has occured, aside from the low priced low-power Itaniums). Even lower-powered versions right around the corner for tight racks and blades? Check.
Athlon64: got windows coming, Linux if you're using it (but far more common for the servers), a couple games, but they still have to wait on the OS and new drivers.

And it wont cont you a cent more than do I buy the 32 bit CPU for 400.00 or the 64 bit CPU for 400.00? Hmmm.

Actually by that logic it should be 64-bit for $400 and 32-bit for $600 .

Around October 26 that question will be.
do I buy the 32 bit CPU for 300.00 or the 64 bit CPU for 300.00? Hmmm.

Why Oct 6?
(the benefits will exist, but not right now)

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
I would still have to give credit to Intel on Itanium. Great architecture and a bold move to attempt to abandon the slower 32, 16, 8 bit code still found in all CPU's today. It would have worked if AMD was not around. In fact when HP and Intel got together on the Itanium they didnt expect AMD to compete and didnt see them as a threat.

Oh, I bet HP did, but HP, despite any other failings, has been making AMD boxes for quite awhile now, and doesn't plan on stopping...and they have enough influence to keep Intel from being able to twist their arm much. Also, HP never spoke of any plans to try to get Itaniums in lesser servers like Intel wants to. Also, however a bold move it was, AMD and Intel themselves have shown that this well-worn ISA can still host CPUs able to compete with the best. How many supercomputers use Itanium? How many use Opteron? I can think of three using the Opterons, but have yet to hear of one using Itaniums...does such a beast exist?

AMD's gamble is paying off. Intel is in a panic and doing what it can before Itanium is a total flop and AMD is the one holding all the cards.

I think Intel is more in a panic about their Prescott problems than AMD doing well. Right now, AMD might be able to latch on and grow, but it won't cut into Intel's bottom line. It may in a few years to come, and I hope it does, but right now, it doesn't. AMD has the community, they have small shops looking for the next cost-effective solution...but they won't eat into Intel's pocket until they get Opterons coming from a major OEM. IBM is a first step, but it will take time.

Intel isnt dying off any time soon its just that AMD is leading the way to 64 bit instead of Intel. Intel will be back but 64 bit is on the move and fast. Intel wont have a competitor for at least a year plus. Were so used to Intel being the king it is hard to believe david may have beaten goliath.

Here's the problem: Goliath now has a cup and helmet on.

Sorry those comment will ruffle many feathers but its not really bad thing at least the government cant drag Intel into suit claiming they are a monopoly again.

Dont count out VIA (CYRIX). Certainly not of the top end. They may not be cutting edge but most consumers dont need bleading edge performance. They need a cheap quiet pc they can surf, compose a document, balance their checkbook and get an e-mail on. This is why the PC revolution died off around the 300Mhz mark is because most people simply dont need the power beyond that. They dont do MP3 or Video encoding or play intense video games. Its only us geeks and server field that is allways looking for more power. If they can just up the FPU on them just a little without increasing the wattage then a lot more of those puppies are going to be put into machines.

Speech to text...really took about 1GHz.

Intel is in a very bad position. Its not good to be too big in a market that has been slowing down. Meanwhile AMD is still small in for them is a growing market becuase they were never the majority holder especially in servers. This is good for AMD bad for Intel. AMD is chewing them up on the top and bottom. Not in the middle.

Dont think in the NOW. Think 6 months to a year. When the 32 bit OS showed up. Within a year everyone I knew was 32bit. Now that 64is here it wont be 6 months before I am 64 all the way.

...it's just that, it was far more than a year then, and may be as long this time. Personally, I'd get the A64 if I had the money, because not only does it have good future performance potential, but also performs great RIGHT NOW.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Ticktanium2038
I would still have to give credit to Intel on Itanium. Great architecture and a bold move to attempt to abandon the slower 32, 16, 8 bit code still found in all CPU's today. It would have worked if AMD was not around. In fact when HP and Intel got together on the Itanium they didnt expect AMD to compete and didnt see them as a threat.

AMD's gamble is paying off. Intel is in a panic and doing what it can before Itanium is a total flop and AMD is the one holding all the cards.

Intel isnt dying off any time soon its just that AMD is leading the way to 64 bit instead of Intel. Intel will be back but 64 bit is on the move and fast. Intel wont have a competitor for at least a year plus. Were so used to Intel being the king it is hard to believe david may have beaten goliath.

Sorry those comment will ruffle many feathers but its not really bad thing at least the government cant drag Intel into suit claiming they are a monopoly again.

Dont count out VIA (CYRIX). Certainly not of the top end. They may not be cutting edge but most consumers dont need bleading edge performance. They need a cheap quiet pc they can surf, compose a document, balance their checkbook and get an e-mail on. This is why the PC revolution died off around the 300Mhz mark is because most people simply dont need the power beyond that. They dont do MP3 or Video encoding or play intense video games. Its only us geeks and server field that is allways looking for more power. If they can just up the FPU on them just a little without increasing the wattage then a lot more of those puppies are going to be put into machines.

Intel is in a very bad position. Its not good to be too big in a market that has been slowing down. Meanwhile AMD is still small in for them is a growing market becuase they were never the majority holder especially in servers. This is good for AMD bad for Intel. AMD is chewing them up on the top and bottom. Not in the middle.

Dont think in the NOW. Think 6 months to a year. When the 32 bit OS showed up. Within a year everyone I knew was 32bit. Now that 64is here it wont be 6 months before I am 64 all the way.

Exactly...6-12 months from now!!! Within that time amd will change sockets ending some boards upgradeability.

If you're affected by the socket change, you have pockets that are far too deep.

I tend to look at things as an entusiast. MOst here keep up with the "jones" and always have new gear. we upgrade here to fast, and with that no one really needs to rush fast and jump on that train yet.

1) Wait for prices to come down a bit.
2) Wait for nforce3 and other mobos to come out and work through the bugs.

VIA boards are all but there right now...so...tempting...I'm glad right now I don't have a credit card .

3) Wait for socket change amd will hold for awhile

754 looks to be staying for at least another full year (where the last roadmap I saw stopped with 3GHz+).

4) wait for 64bit windows OS (sorry I don't run Linux)

That'll be the key.

5) Wait for 64bit to be adopted by much of the software or the advantage will not be there.

That probably won't take as long--one of the good things about AMD's approach. Even if it does, there's another good thing...it will be a smooth transition if you have the new hardware. People complaining about something like a blanket 6% performance drop...IMO, that's amazing. I used WoW in NT4 on a K6-2 350...you don't notice 6%...you notice 50%.

I will hopefully have a 2.6 or 2.8c by the end of the month and then I will likely be set for 4-6 months. In that time I will reasses the state of the a64 and fx models and determine then....TOO EARLY!!!

w/ plain A64, the main question is of voltage...if they do a core revision that drops it, does your mobo support the low Vcore? Should be simple and most cases would be a "yes".

 

[gwuasg]

16bit CPU can only address 8 megabytes of ram me thinks, so dumb question. the big reason for 64 bit is to address more ram.

 

Originally posted by: Crypticburn
Duvie & Ticktanium2038: "mute point"

Just to clarify it's "moot point"

Moot: Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
Mute: Refraining from producing speech or vocal sound.

Crypticburn

Umm, we knew what he meant. I know this is a pointless thread but is the spelling of moot all you got out of it?
I mean, maybe its a coincidence that this guy sounds like he is an AMD salesman. Or, he says he has the beta of Windows 64
and is trying to justify his desire to purchase a 64 bit processor. I have no idea where this is going. confusing.... losingg... consciousne.... Zzzzzzz.....

 

[BD231]

Why buy a 32 bit CPU? Looking for Honest answers.

Your an idiot Ticktanium2038.

I'll buy a 32-bit CPU becase you can get a decent one for $40 bucks, I WONT buy a 64 bit CPU right now because I know any currently available 64bit CPU will be obsolete/cheaper by the time any software is availble to make a 64bit CPU worth the purchase.

Why do you insist on questioning a stupid way of thinking? If I were going to buy a computer that needed to last me for the next 5 years then yeah, I'm gonna put every last phuggin cent I can into the best parts available.

Screw the furture of Intel and AMD, if either company isn't making something worth the price tag then they deserve to die. Obviously they'll do everything in their power to keep their heads above water so your pondering amounts to the fat load of sh*t my dog left on a sidewalk on his last walk.

I really wish I could see you in person, I would not hesitate to beat the sh*t out of you for posting such dead end threads.

 

[MadRat]

And that 4GHz 16-bit CPU addresses how much memory?

 

[Ticktanium2038]

I think a few of you are missing the Hypothetical portion of the message. Everyone seems to be critisizing the use of 64 bits and that its not needed.

History
Once we were all 16 bit and probably didnt see a need for 32 bit but now everyone defends 32 bit as if their life depends on it without realizing that 16 bit can easily do many of the daily functions we require. MS Office, E-mail, Netscrape were all once 16 bit programs. Once could get by perfectly fine with 16 bits. So maybe most dont understand the need for 64 bit and are buying into the Intel hype of 64 bit is not needed yet.

You need 64bit only you dont realize why. You most certainly need it for Servers. Desktops are not as urgent. But I have a few workstations that definately could use it right now.

SO.
Once you see Games, Video Encoding/Decoding, and Mp3 encoding done with 64 bit and how significantly faster it will be and how much deeper it will take you. You will look at 32 bit the same way you look at 16 bit now.

One will not care about 4 gigahertz 32 bit cpu's once you start down the 64 bit path.
As much as it angered some of you about a hypothetical 16 bit processor at 4 Gig.

 

[sao123]

I think a few of you are missing the Hypothetical portion of the message. Everyone seems to be critisizing the use of 64 bits and that its not needed.

History
Once we were all 16 bit and probably didnt see a need for 32 bit but now everyone defends 32 bit as if their life depends on it without realizing that 16 bit can easily do many of the daily functions we require. MS Office, E-mail, Netscrape were all once 16 bit programs. Once could get by perfectly fine with 16 bits. So maybe most dont understand the need for 64 bit and are buying into the Intel hype of 64 bit is not needed yet.

You need 64bit only you dont realize why. You most certainly need it for Servers. Desktops are not as urgent. But I have a few workstations that definately could use it right now.

Noone is criticizing the use of 64bit CPU's. Eventually, they will become critical to modern computers. We are arguing that you claim they are necessary NOW. There is no software available that absolutely has a necessity for 64bit. There is no desktop/workstation application that requires more than the limit of 4 GB of RAM. These things take time to catch on, its never immediately.

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: sao123

I think a few of you are missing the Hypothetical portion of the message. Everyone seems to be critisizing the use of 64 bits and that its not needed.

History
Once we were all 16 bit and probably didnt see a need for 32 bit but now everyone defends 32 bit as if their life depends on it without realizing that 16 bit can easily do many of the daily functions we require. MS Office, E-mail, Netscrape were all once 16 bit programs. Once could get by perfectly fine with 16 bits. So maybe most dont understand the need for 64 bit and are buying into the Intel hype of 64 bit is not needed yet.

You need 64bit only you dont realize why. You most certainly need it for Servers. Desktops are not as urgent. But I have a few workstations that definately could use it right now.

Noone is criticizing the use of 64bit CPU's. Eventually, they will become critical to modern computers. We are arguing that you claim they are necessary NOW. There is no software available that absolutely has a necessity for 64bit. These things take time to catch on, its never immediately.

Amen to that.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Actaeon

Originally posted by: sao123

I think a few of you are missing the Hypothetical portion of the message. Everyone seems to be critisizing the use of 64 bits and that its not needed.

History
Once we were all 16 bit and probably didnt see a need for 32 bit but now everyone defends 32 bit as if their life depends on it without realizing that 16 bit can easily do many of the daily functions we require. MS Office, E-mail, Netscrape were all once 16 bit programs. Once could get by perfectly fine with 16 bits. So maybe most dont understand the need for 64 bit and are buying into the Intel hype of 64 bit is not needed yet.

You need 64bit only you dont realize why. You most certainly need it for Servers. Desktops are not as urgent. But I have a few workstations that definately could use it right now.

Noone is criticizing the use of 64bit CPU's. Eventually, they will become critical to modern computers. We are arguing that you claim they are necessary NOW. There is no software available that absolutely has a necessity for 64bit. These things take time to catch on, its never immediately.

Amen to that.

Actually some of the higher-end workstations and servers would do well with the larger memory addressing. I recall hearing about one company that does 3D rendering complaining about the lack of memory direclty addressable and something about having to run workstations on Windows 2000 server so that each thread can access 4GB.
However, at the server level, the machines that truly require 64-bit already have it available and have had it for years.

Biggest reason for defending 32-bit : It's not really needed for the vast majority of computer users; some of whom barely know how to use their machines let lone the VCR in the living room. The reasoning is exactly in line with the idea that about 1GHz is enough for most users, and may be overkill for others, depending on their usage. I can think of twelve people off the top of my head who have overpowered machines. Of those twelve, one is using a P3-450, one is using a P233MMX, and one still uses a P100. With 16MB RAM, no less.

One reason in having applications which can do fine with 16-bit recompiled into 32-bit is to enforce compatibility. It's somewhat hard for the Operating System to run 16-bit and 32-bit applications concurrently, especially when the older 16-bit apps are looking for a somewhat different API or direct hardware access. Granted, Windows does a pretty good job of making sure these programs can run on the new OS's, but truth be told, it's a patch job. Quite similar to the current x86 ISA.



And, yes, Tick really does sound like an AMD salesman. I said it before and I'll say it again : this smells a lot like that campaign by a PDA or cellphone company (I think it may have been Sony) that sent models out to bars to "demonstrate" the company's newest products and surreptitiously pitch sales without ever mentioning they're on the payroll.

 

[Wingznut]

I am certain that Tick is not an AMD salesman. They have better things to do than sell a relative few cpu's to people on a msg board. If every single person here in the market for a new cpu or PC were to buy an AMD (or Intel, for that matter), it wouldn't put a dent in anybody's sales.

People have accused me of being sent by Intel, and it's just as laughable.

Tick's just an AMD zealot. Why some people have such a passion for a corporation (without any actual vested interest) is beyond my comprehension. I can't imagine they do it for other products...

When was the last time you saw a Crest/Colgate, Whirlpool/Frigidaire, or Crystal Springs/Culligan flamewar?

 

[Acanthus]

it is my understanding that 64-bit applications will NOT be effected at all by going 64-bit over 32-bit. It will NOT speed up video encoding, it will NOT speed up games, and it will NOT run windows any faster.

(obviously if the Athlon-64 and AFX run applications better because of better 64-bit optimization then so be it, but the application does not magically just run faster because its 64-bit)

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
it is my understanding that 64-bit applications will NOT be effected at all by going 64-bit over 32-bit. It will NOT speed up video encoding, it will NOT speed up games, and it will NOT run windows any faster.

(obviously if the Athlon-64 and AFX run applications better because of better 64-bit optimization then so be it, but the application does not magically just run faster because its 64-bit)

In theory, yes. In reality, no. In reality there are benefits, quite clear benefits from what little has been seen (mainly database performance improving a good bit), however, it's more due to the fact that AMD made x86-64 around their plans for moving to 64-bit computing.

...but seeing the FX on this new Gigabyte board...wow. If I had the money, I would now consider the FX worth it.

 

[Ticktanium2038]

If you honestly believe that a 64 bit application of Video Encoding, Audio Encoding, and Compression wont be significalty improved by 64 bit over 32 bit.

You had better start writing letters to all the software companies about to write these applications and warn them of how it will not be faster and that they are going to waste their time and money.

LOL.
It will be approx 15-45% faster using 64 bit code over 32 bit code.

I have seen tests of compression using 64 bit and it is 43% faster than a P4 3.2. And approx 55% faster than the Athlon XP 32 bit CPU.

AMD sales rep. No I just cant stand people who wont admit AMD is making a better and faster CPU and will continue to do so over the next year.

I didnt expect Opteron to be so good. I expected another false promise sub par performance but the truth be told AMD kicked Intel in the Ding Ding. Real Hard.

 

[Ticktanium2038]

Just wanted to provide some information reguarding 64 bit performance increases over 32 bit increases. Since the Opteron is price directly in line with the P4 32 bit CPU. The 64 bit upgrade path is a freebie from AMD.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000256

Keep in Mind Windows 64 is still in beta and some improvements to the already exceptional performance can be expected. Making the gap between the Intel P4 and Opteron even wider.

1024-bit RSA Encrypt Opteron in 64 bit mode is over 3 Times faster than a P4 3.2.

MiniGzip in 32 bit mode the P4 is much faster than Opteron but once we use the 64 bit version Opteron is nearly twice as fast as P4 3.2 Who said 64 bit is useless must have a lot of free time on thier hands. This is only the beginning.

To those who think 64 bit version will do nothing for you should be able to see this is not true. 64 bit in some areas with make small improvments and others it will simply obliterate current 32 bit CPU's.