Conroe has limitation on 64 Bit Mode

[RichUK]

First of all i never said EMT64 was bad, nor did I say it didn?t work. I simply said that EMT64 is a tech that allows Intel?s processors to utilise 64bit addressing in a 64bit OS environment. Which would require of course 64bit core processing be it physical or a somewhat emulated, from what i can remember it has to use some sort of hardware layer to emulate 64bit processing, that?s about as far as i know or can remember. I read that this resulted in its poor 64bit performance.

If your saying the front end and the back end isn?t effected by the addressing width, then this obviously doesn?t determine whether it is a 32bit or 64bit processor, so surely this would be with regards to the width of the registers be it 32 or 64bit?

Basically i dont think it is pathetic, i think Intel just chucked in 64 next to its chip name as a marketing ploy to combat AMD64, so to disillusion people to think it would be an equivalent. Where as the average jo would not know EMT stood for Extended Memory Technology, meaning its only purpose was to support >4GB of physical addressing.

Basically this all stems from your original disagreement with my definition or interpretation of a ?true? 64bit processor.

I can?t be bothered to argue anymore because this is just going round in circles.

 

[jose]

Agreed, Intel slaped the 64bit addressing on to enable vendors to bids on contracts.

They didn't care how good/bad it was, just enough not to be left out of large gov. contracts.

Regards,
Jose

 

[Lord Banshee]

to me 64-bit CPU is one with 64-Bit General Purpose Registers and ability to use them effectively

Are we trying to say that Conroe does not have 64-bit Registers? As i think they DO have 64-Bit registers.

 

[zsdersw]

Agreed, Intel slaped the 64bit addressing on to enable vendors to bids on contracts.

Um.. nothing just gets "slapped on". It was probably built in to Prescott.. and simply turned on at some point.

 

[Gabriel51]

Hello,

I am running x64 and have been for 2 years. First on a a64 3200+ and then a FX 57@ 3gigs and now a Conroe 6400 @ 3.3gigs. There is
No comparison between the FX 57 and the Conroe. When I first went to 64 bit I had to lower my overclock a small amount which I understand is common. Once you move and commit to 64bit you will never return!

 

[imported_RedStar]

Originally posted by: Gabriel51
Hello,

I am running x64 and have been for 2 years. First on a a64 3200+ and then a FX 57@ 3gigs and now a Conroe 6400 @ 3.3gigs. There is
No comparison between the FX 57 and the Conroe. When I first went to 64 bit I had to lower my overclock a small amount which I understand is common. Once you move and commit to 64bit you will never return!

There you go, actual conroe/a64 experience proves the spurious 64bit conroe performance comments unfounded.

Case closed. move along people

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: jose
So it looks like Conroe has the same pathetic 64bit implementation that plagued Intel's prior chips.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=16879

I'd say 100% of the Server Market is affected. Most real servers require more than 4 gigs of memory.

This is really to bad, since I was looking to upgrade some of my A64 3500+ systems.(RedHat 64bit OS) But now I'll think I'll pass..

There is really no excuse for Intel not to fix their 64bit extensions, they knew it was broken 2 years ago.

Regards,
Jose

IOMMU cannot be supported in hardware without an integrated memory controller.. which won't come until CSI. Labelling Intel's implementation of x86-64 as "pathetic" is quite.

Slight correction there Z...a hardware IOMMU can and is used in chipsets (SGI used one for example), and doesn't require an integrated mem-controller.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I've looked at so many Conroe benchmarks recently that I can't remember which sight did what, but one of the sites did the benchmarks with both 32 bit and 64 bit software. There was a small difference, but not enough to change the outcome. Conroe was still the best at 64 bits.

www.planetx64.com reviewed Conroe in both WinXP and WinXP64, the conclusion is the same, Conroe beats A64 in both.

www.tech-report.com benchmarked Conroe using both 32bit and 64bit versions of UT2004, Conroe gains the same amount as A64, in fact would you believe it, the P4 gains the most performance by going to 64bit UT2004, however it's still the slowest by far of all the chips.

Oh, and I agree with Duvie, when A64 was released everyone was getting excited thinking all apps and games will turn to 64bit overnight.

3 years down the track and we're still waiting for some meaningful 64 bit apps, and apart from UT2004, 64bit games.

I think you'll find that the difference can't be seen until system memory hits 4GB or more.

 

[Kyanzes]

By the time I move to 64bit my current CPU will have been long sold.