Bay Trail-T Is A 64 Bit Part

[Arachnotronic]

 

[Exophase]

Well that's good. Hope Merrifield gets the same treatment.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well that's good. Hope Merrifield gets the same treatment.

I'm excited for BYT-T, and I too hope that Merrifield is a 64 bit part.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm not really sure who would ever want to run a 32-bit OS on a PC these days anyways. I would HOPE that Intel would make all of their x86-compatible CPUs also 64-bit compatible going forward. AMD has been doing that since, well, since they first introduced 64-bit x86 computing, for the most part.

 

[beginner99]

But didn't another slide state that it's limited to 4 GB of RAM anyway? So whats the point of 64-bit then?

 

[ShintaiDK]

But didn't another slide state that it's limited to 4 GB of RAM anyway? So whats the point of 64-bit then?

64bit is still very usefull besides the memory limit. And for I simply dont think you can get that memory in higher densities yet. Samsung just barely started 3GB LPDDR3 for example.

 

[NTMBK]

But didn't another slide state that it's limited to 4 GB of RAM anyway? So whats the point of 64-bit then?

AMD64 gives you a load of extra registers that you don't get in basic x86, and you are guaranteed that all AMD64 chips have a minimum of SSE2 which makes targeting optimized software more straightforward.

Of course, the increased size of the pointers has some negative impact on performance, but overall it is a performance improvement.

 

[seitur]

I do hope that ALL Bay-Trail CPUs are 64 bit. Seriously every single x86 should be 64x by now. 32 bit need to die, it hampered software progress for long enough already.

 

[Nothingness]

I do hope that ALL Bay-Trail CPUs are 64 bit. Seriously every single x86 should be 64x by now. 32 bit need to die, it hampered software progress for long enough already.

And every chip should have AVX2, TSX. Oh wait...

Joke aside I wonder if anyone has benchmarks that show how much faster 64-bit is over 32-bit (except of course cases where 64-bit quantities are needed). As an example some of SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks are compiled with 32-bit as it's faster (450.soplex as per E3-1270v3 results). I guess 64-bit will be faster most of the time, but the gain probably is quite small in most cases, so having 64-bit enabled while your IMC limits you to 4 GB looks strange (note I specifically say "enabled"; as far as I know all Atom have had 64-bit, it was just fused off in most parts).

 

[seitur]

And every chip should have AVX2, TSX. Oh wait...

Joke aside I wonder if anyone has benchmarks that show how much faster 64-bit is over 32-bit (except of course cases where 64-bit quantities are needed). As an example some of SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks are compiled with 32-bit as it's faster (450.soplex as per E3-1270v3 results). I guess 64-bit will be faster most of the time, but the gain probably is quite small in most cases, so having 64-bit enabled while your IMC limits you to 4 GB looks strange (note I specifically say "enabled"; as far as I know all Atom have had 64-bit, it was just fused off in most parts).

Speed is not most important. Developing software in dual 32&64 version is a waste. Same with resources. 32 bit is constrained by 2GB per process, (LAA is not a viable solution, since some users will not use it).

32-bit is like a metal ball chained to leg in some kinds of software.

Damn 16-bit to 32-bit was much faster and hassle-free comparatively.

 

[NTMBK]

I guess 64-bit will be faster most of the time, but the gain probably is quite small in most cases, so having 64-bit enabled while your IMC limits you to 4 GB looks strange (note I specifically say "enabled"; as far as I know all Atom have had 64-bit, it was just fused off in most parts).

If Intel are still shipping 32-bit only parts in 2013, then software developers have incentive to keep producing 32-bit software instead of focusing their efforts on 64 bit. You then end up with messes like Skyrim only supporting ~3GB of RAM on a 16GB machine. (Although I believe this did get patched later.)

 

[seitur]

If Intel are still shipping 32-bit only parts in 2013, then software developers have incentive to keep producing 32-bit software instead of focusing their efforts on 64 bit. You then end up with messes like Skyrim only supporting ~3GB of RAM on a 16GB machine. (Although I believe this did get patched later.)

It did not. I mean you can to try force Skyrim to use more than that (there is option in config file for that), but once you go over three point something GB, you will be experiencing lot of crashes. This is unsolvable either - engine was created around 32 and it's limitations and there is no way around that (other than rewriting lot of Skyrim engine which will not happen obviously).

Games themself and games engines are not only piece of software that suffer from it. There are others as well.

 

[ShintaiDK]

They could just ship 32 and 64bit. But even then, you still sit on a huge legacy chunk that needs to be serviced via 32bit.

The blame is actually on MS that cant seem to drop 32bit. Windows 8.1 still ships as both 32 and 64bit.

But else I fully agree as such. The last 32bit CPU should have shipped in 2006. And the last 32bit OS should have stopped not long after.

 

[mikk]

x264 x64 can be 5-10% faster than the 32bit version of x264. It's not a typically tablet usage case though.

 

[sm625]

Damn 16-bit to 32-bit was much faster and hassle-free comparatively.

Are you kidding? How old are you?

 

[beginner99]

The blame is actually on MS that cant seem to drop 32bit. Windows 8.1 still ships as both 32 and 64bit.

Becasue there is demand for this like in companies with incompetent IT-Departments. And hence I have to cope with 32-bit windows 7 and 4 GB (or 3 actually) of RAM at work.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Becasue there is demand for this like in companies with incompetent IT-Departments. And hence I have to cope with 32-bit windows 7 and 4 GB (or 3 actually) of RAM at work.

Let me guess, 16bit programs? That one is a classic. (16bit support is removed in 64bit windows.)

 

[jpiniero]

64-bit seems like it would be more useful for 2014 products, to allow for more time for low power memory to get dense enough. Does Android's x86 port even support 64-bit at this point?

 

[beginner99]

Let me guess, 16bit programs? That one is a classic. (16bit support is removed in 64bit windows.)

Exactly. But one would think it's easy to have both versions? I mean I'm talking about several thousands of employes. if there were like 100 or less I would understand it.

 

[lamedude]

Are you kidding? How old are you?

You didn't have to switch to DOS x32 to run Doom or worry if you're 486SX was 16bit.