BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Are we talking about true 64 bit CPUs or CPUs that can address 64 bit address space? On 32 bit hardware, to get 64 bit precision you have to run multiple operations. If you're currently running software that uses 64 bit precision, you could see a rather significant increase in performance moving to a true 64 bit CPU.
Edit: I don't do anything highly technical (I'm a business app programmer), but we already run into hassles with 32 bit. Just to do something as simple as display the free space on your average hard drive you have to jump through hoops. Yeah, it's not a huge deal to get around, but I'd love to just be able to to 64 bit math and not have to worry about having to break down values into high and low order DWORDs. Just add or subtract and be done. As it is now you've got to write cycle wasting functions to deal with large values.
Edit 2: As another example, I currently work for a real estate related company. It's a pain in the butt to deal with the sales figures for some of our large mortgage company clients. We've got to code around the $4billion limit that 32 bit imposes. 64 bit would make that much easier. An Itanium based server would solve some of problems, but there are programs in the company that run from the desktop and we have to code around those. Again, not a huge deal. But if I can buy convenience I will. When there start to be some reasonably priced 64 bit Windows desktops, my company will be in line to get some.
64bit version of linux for amd64 are out IIRC. and xp 64bit for A64 is just around the corner
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64xp&page=1
we won't have to wait a decade for a 64bit OS. nor will we have to wait a decade for 64bit computing to be widespread
also in the past, when a cpu chip came out, it took around a year for a chipset to actually use it. obviously, that is now not that case, most likely released same time.
what is past, is the past, things are different now
For floating point, the x86 CPUs have always had 80 bit registers, though SSE2 only goes up to 64 bit to match the rest of the computing world. Just by going to 64 bit doesn't make any double precision floating operations go any faster. This can be seen by the fact that Opteron scores higher in SpecFP with Intel's 32 bit compilers than any 64 bit compiler.
Why can't you use long integers, or use libraries that work on wider integers? The compiler and CPU may have to jump through hurdles, but it should be hidden from the programmer. Its not that difficult to do higher bit integer math for lower bit CPUs, after all, the P4 does 32 bit integer adds/subtract with 16 bit ALUs.
Wouldn't you used fix integer math for financial transactions? And unless you're working in assembly, why exactly would you need to deal with the details? And frankly, I would expect the time costs of financial applications to be dominated by database retrieval, compared to actually making the (relatively) simple monetary calculations.
me, when I bought my first computer, I asked for dos and win 3.11 and not win95, later I installed Winnt351server for desktop use, most stable OS I have ever used. Later I put in WindowsNT4 workstation, used that for a long time. When games started to require direct3d I installed win98 on another partition which I only used for gaming. then came Win2k and I was sooo happy
MY thoughts exactly... 64 bit will come to the mainstream desktop, it's just a question of when.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Accord99
Well, I never said I was a good programmer.
I really don't know much about the internals of modern microprocessors. I've always been a high level programmer, designing and writing the business logic and leaving the nitty gritty to the guys who live for optimizing tiny loops. I guess it wouldn't kill me to pick up a book on x86/x87 assembly.
Well, I never said I was a good programmer.
I really don't know much about the internals of modern microprocessors. I've always been a high level programmer, designing and writing the business logic and leaving the nitty gritty to the guys who live for optimizing tiny loops. I guess it wouldn't kill me to pick up a book on x86/x87 assembly.
All x86 processors since the 386 have had the x87 FPU on-chip and is fully capable of processing 64-bit double precision or 80-bit extended precision FP data at "full speed", meaning they don't need to take multiple operations to emulate it on-chip.
Being a programmer, I'm sure you'll appreciate that something like displaying the HD size is hardly part of your critical path. It's most likely 1 or 2 operations which would take less than a microseconds to complete, the overall impact on your code from going to a 64-bit MPU would be less than a microsecond improvement. Unless your critical loop consisted of a lot of work done on 64-bit integers, I can't see how a few instances in which 2 or 3 operations involving a BigInteger (sorry, letting my Java background slip through) could matter much.
Itaniums do run legacy x86 code. It's pretty slow but exactly how performance-intensive are your desktop apps? I'd say your position would be a very small minority of the desktop market.
Almost 4 years ago, I had 384MB RAM on a P3 600, now I have 1280MB on an XP1900+ (well, I would have if >1GB RAM didn't make Word crash). That's tripling in about 4 years.
Modern machines come with mostly 512MB RAM, 1GB is not the norm to desktop machines. 4GB won't be necessary for at least probably 1 more product cycle (Prescott successor), so Intel don't need to sweat yet.
Intel is loosing....their problems with Prescott is crippling them......Windows XP 64bit editions is gonna come out in December and Intel will then have no choice....
Yes the CTO says this because he doesn't want/have a 64-bit processor to ship but i already thought this to myself: do we need 64-bit for desktops right now? Or are we gonna start needing it for 2 or 3 years?
And yes you can use that old quotes that 640kb is enough, blah, blah, blah but the reality is just this: if i were Intel CTO should i invest money optimizing 32-bit processors and giving more performance or do a 64-bit processor?
Yes we need 64-bit cpu's before reaching the 4GB barrier but do you really think memory prices and memory space would change so that 4GB is buyable in the next 2 years?
And yes you can use that old quotes that 640kb is enough, blah, blah, blah but the reality is just this: if i were Intel CTO should i invest money optimizing 32-bit processors and giving more performance or do a 64-bit processor?
Yes we need 64-bit cpu's before reaching the 4GB barrier but do you really think memory prices and memory space would change so that 4GB is buyable in the next 2 years?
Its not really an issue of 4GB of memory per system, since P4s and Athlons can address up to 64 GB of memory, its rather that 64 bit helps eliminate the the 2GB/3GB limit per process and allows for >4GB virtual memory. While systems may come with 4GB or more memory in a few years, typical applications and even games I think are still a few years after that from hitting the per process memory limit.
Chumster
Senior member
- Apr 29, 2001
- 496
- 0
- 0
Care to elaborate? The quote, "640k Should Be Enough for Anybody", was made in reference to the standard memory limitations of Gates' first operating system, DOS. Stating that we won't need "64-bits" on the desktop could very likely end up showing the same shortsightedness that has made Gates' phrase famous. On a side note, I recall many in the industry stating the same about the 32-bit architecture around the time of it's introduction. I'll see if I can dig up any quotes.
As for the 3dfx statement, while not directly related to CPUs or memory, also shows how a major company can be "off-the-mark" when it comes to industry trends. Personally, I don't even think that 32-bit is truly necessary for the large majority of PCs out there, but nonetheless, it's available on almost every PC heading out the door today.
Chum
Both of those statements were made in the context of addressing the immediate needs.
Take the 3dfx statement, for example... It was a topic of discussion when nVidia debuted the TNT. While the TNT could run 32bit color, the framerates were so poor that it was essentially useless at the time. Obviously a few years later, 32bit is the standard. But 3dfx never stated that 32bit color would never be a feature... Just that it wasn't immediately effective.
I'm not even sure the Bill Gates 640k statement even happened, but if it is more than an urban legend, I am certain that it wasn't intended to mean "ever." If he did say it, he was probably right... 640k was plenty at the time.
Keep in mind that Bill Gates has proven time and time again that he has excellent vision. You don't get to be that successful without understanding what might be coming.
Take the 3dfx statement, for example... It was a topic of discussion when nVidia debuted the TNT. While the TNT could run 32bit color, the framerates were so poor that it was essentially useless at the time. Obviously a few years later, 32bit is the standard. But 3dfx never stated that 32bit color would never be a feature... Just that it wasn't immediately effective.
I'm not even sure the Bill Gates 640k statement even happened, but if it is more than an urban legend, I am certain that it wasn't intended to mean "ever." If he did say it, he was probably right... 640k was plenty at the time.
Keep in mind that Bill Gates has proven time and time again that he has excellent vision. You don't get to be that successful without understanding what might be coming.
Yamhilll Yamhill Yamhill....
Evidence of Yamhill
Who says Intel isn't prepared? The question is: when will they activate it? What will it take for Intel to activate it?
Evidence of Yamhill
Who says Intel isn't prepared?
The question is: when will they activate it? What will it take for Intel to activate it?Your right, you wont need 64bit for at least several months untill MS winXP 64 comes out. But whats the point of joe schmoe having a 3.2 Ghz proc with 1-2 Gigs of memory and the fastest video card on the west for when all he's doing is MS w o r d ! come on now people, ever heard of penis envy! i see it all the time especally in the AT forums! Look at my rig, ITS SOOOO BIG! AND FAST! LOOK AT THAT THING GO! (and to say they got the best gaming rig!)
look, i am one example, im waiting for a nice dual opteron rig with agp slot and dual memory banks to come out and be more prevelent, because my next right will be:
2 opteron 1.4ghz
2 gigs of memory (maybe more)
ATI 9800 pro OR then next R3x0
WD raptor hdd
and win2003 Numa aware
now do i need that!! he11 no! but i will be able to say that i got the biggest, the fastest, and most out ragous setup for gaming!!!!
now im hoping that HL2 will be able to use Dualies like Quake3 and be compiled for 64bit!!! (im looking to play that bad boy @ 100fps 1280x1024 @75hz)
look, i am one example, im waiting for a nice dual opteron rig with agp slot and dual memory banks to come out and be more prevelent, because my next right will be:
2 opteron 1.4ghz
2 gigs of memory (maybe more)
ATI 9800 pro OR then next R3x0
WD raptor hdd
and win2003 Numa aware
now do i need that!! he11 no! but i will be able to say that i got the biggest, the fastest, and most out ragous setup for gaming!!!!
now im hoping that HL2 will be able to use Dualies like Quake3 and be compiled for 64bit!!! (im looking to play that bad boy @ 100fps 1280x1024 @75hz)
Bill Gates claims that he never said this quote and that its nothing more than an urban legend. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was, since I've never seen any citation for this quote.
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter