• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Apple using 64 bit cpu true?

Apple using 64 bit cpu true?

Supposedly Apple's G5 processor will have:

1. SOI .13u technology.
2. 400MHz FSB
3. 10 stage pipeline (just like the Athlon).
4. 64-bit memory addressing.

What's the pro and cons of a 64 bit address bus.

What makes 64-bit memory addressing more desirable than the current 32-bit memory addressing is the ability for processors, applications and operating systems to utilize a larger amount of physical memory, in theory up to terabyte levels (although not every application, operating system or processor chip set will support a terabyte of memory).

The benefits of having 64-bit memory addressing on the desktop would come on high-end applications. Various graphics applications, such as Adobe PhotoShop, would see performance improvements from 64-bit memory addressing. As would other applications, such as CAD (computer aided design).

I think there's a very good possibility that 64-bit computing will start to be very popular once Apple's G5 (and later, AMD's Hammer) hits the streets. A lot of people underestimate Apple's influence on the desktop market. Once Apple is able to get a 64-bit processor out the door, they're going to market the hell out of it.
 
Lets be EXTREMELY carefull here and tread lightly as we progress. While Apple may try and spin a 32-bit processor containing a 64-bit memory address function as a 64-bit processor just remember they are not the same thing. Computing with 64 bits at a time is far different from being able to address data stored in 64-bit space. Besides, 64-bit desktop processing has been done already, they were called alpha chips running WinNT 4.0 (533MHz 21064PC alpha chips back in 1997 were 64 bit).

Would you call the PIII coppermine a 256 bit processor just because it transfers data from the L2 cache in 256 bit chunks? Be wary of what part of the processor is XX-bit when companies grab for publicity and decide for yourself which part of the processor is important to be 32-bit vs 64-bit.

-Phil
 


<< Lets be EXTREMELY carefull here and tread lightly as we progress. While Apple may try and spin a 32-bit processor containing a 64-bit memory address function as a 64-bit processor just remember they are not the same thing. Computing with 64 bits at a time is far different from being able to address data stored in 64-bit space. Besides, 64-bit desktop processing has been done already, they were called alpha chips running WinNT 4.0 (533MHz 21064PC alpha chips back in 1997 were 64 bit). >>



The Alpha is not meant for desktop processing. The term "desktop" is commonly referred to systems that, for example, Joe Average will buy at his local CompUSA, or online @ Compaq, Dell, etc. Alpha processors make up very close to 0% of the desktop market.

Would you call the PIII coppermine a 256 bit processor just because it transfers data from the L2 cache in 256 bit chunks? Be wary of what part of the processor is XX-bit when companies grab for publicity and decide for yourself which part of the processor is important to be 32-bit vs 64-bit.

The L2 cache of the PIII does address memory in 256-bit chunks but that doesn't make it a 256-bit processor.
 
I can't wait until 64bit computers.

Far as I'm concerned it will revolutionize the way we work with computers.

Let see we were using dos with 8 and 16bit computers. Than we finally moved to 32bit computers using windows. 64bit and 128bit computers use AI hopefully or something similar.
 


<< The Alpha is not meant for desktop processing. The term "desktop" is commonly referred to systems that, for example, Joe Average will buy at his local CompUSA, or online @ Compaq, Dell, etc. Alpha processors make up very close to 0% of the desktop market. >>



I guess by your rebuttal that you (a) do not believe me that alpha chips were used/sold/marketed specifically for the desktop and (b) believe passionately in this "Apple has a 64 bit processor" gimmick.

All I can say is that the original 64-bit alpha chip 21064 was redesigned specifically for the PC desktop market as the alpha chip 21064PC (notice the PC). It was sold as a desktop in already put together systems. If a chip being sold as a desktop computer but not grabbing a significant portion of the market means it was never sold as a desktop chip then I guess iMac, Mac, and PowerPC platforms were never desktop computers either, 32bit or otherwise.

As I stated before, be extremely carefull here because in a discussion where each participant gets to define what a 64-bit processor is and what a desktop is the discussion is quite fruitless and distracting. The bottom line is Apple is banking on everyone seeing "new 64-bit Apple processor" in the headlines and interpretting that to mean a new Apple chip that processes 64-bits of data at a time like an alpha chip or an Itanium or the proposed x86-64 Hammer platform. Likewise saying it will be the first 64 bit desktop computer, gee if you get to define what you mean by desktop any way you like I wonder what the odds are that your cpu will be the first in some aspect in the desktop market. I here that Via's C3 processor is the bar-none fastest chip you can buy for a desktop computer (if you define desktop computer as a computer containing a Via processor...).



<< The L2 cache of the PIII does address memory in 256-bit chunks but that doesn't make it a 256-bit processor. >>



Ah, my point exactly. Now, take that sentence and substitute G4 for PIII and 64-bit for 256-bit and what do you have? viola the latest mythical 64 bit processor to leap out of Steve Jobs garage...
 
I'm with FYI on this one.

Undoubtedly Apple will try to take something as minor as 64bit memory addressing and try to make it look like a 64bit processor -- which it will not be.


Using that logic, every athlon/duron user can claim they have a 48bit CPU (since k7s use 48bit memory addressing if I remember correctly)




<< The L2 cache of the PIII does address memory in 256-bit chunks but that doesn't make it a 256-bit processor. >>



Yes, he was just illustrating how Apple can nudge the truth to make the CPU seem something it is not.
 
Apple has no reason to sell the G5 as a true 64bit processor for a couple of reasons. One reason is, when Apple does release PM's with G5 processors there going be expensive i.e. $2500+ so there's no reason to marketed then towards Joe Average as "the worlds first 64bit desktop computer" because Joe Average ain't gonna pay $2500 for a computer. The other reason is the true market for a G5 powered PM's is the professorial photo and video editors that are abandoning Apple in droves for more powerfull PC's. They will pay $2500+ for a PM as long as its about equal to a comparble speed PC and they will do the research before they buy. So I don't see Apple lying to the one group that will buy their new computer.
 
That's like people who say that Sony's "128-bit" Emotion Engine is faster than the XBOX's PIII because the XBox is based on a 32-bit design. "Bitness" in itself means nothing.

-Ice
 


<< That's like people who say that Sony's "128-bit" Emotion Engine is faster than the XBOX's PIII because the XBox is based on a 32-bit design. "Bitness" in itself means nothing.

-Ice >>



Not true... register width is important if you are working w/ large data variables esp. in the scientific community and also when you you need high precision where underflow/overflows can occur with floating point numbers... it's not as important as it was during the 8-bit days, but it is still important... it just depends on the application.
 
In which case it still doesn't matter; the Xbox uses a P3 with SSE, which uses 64 bit registers.. I agree with the sentiment that you have to be extremely careful when the "bitness" of a CPU is being compared.

edit: originally stated SSE was 128bit, SSE2 = 128bit registers, SSE = 64bit regs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top