Where is the 64bit software?

[taltamir]

http://www.pcstats.com/article...?articleid=1665&page=8

See that there, 100-300+% boost in performance on math heavy calculations in 64bit... 329% on the best one there using the exact same processor, comparing 32bit to 64bit vista...

The absolute worst improvement was a mere 2%... putting vista64 on par with XP... (with vista32 being the only looser)

Which is why I gotta ask, where are the applications?
How come I still don't have a 64bit file compression tool that is 4 times faster then before? How come I still don't have a codec that is 64bit only and 4 times faster then every other codec? How come I don't see more games that are relying heavily on 64bit code making them 4 times faster on 64bit mode?

Heck IE7 opens and propagates pages in what feels like 5 times faster to me... but they STILL don't have 64bit flash support meaning it is unuseable for most websites! (which is lucky for firefox since they refuse to get their shit together and get on the 64bit wagon.... there is a 3rd party FF 64bit port, its an incomplete alpha but DAMN it is fast!)

Yea sure, there is this whole "backwards compatibility" thing to consider... but 4x the performance on the EXACT SAME HARDWARE is worth dropping backwards compatibility... most hardware changes dropping backwards compatibility (AGP to PCIE, socket 939 to AM2, etc) were for less then 10% improvement in performance, sometimes less then 1% with "future improvements" cited... So why not software?

If you know of any software that is unique in its field by being the only one to properly utilize 64bit and get phenomenal performance out of it, please share. I would like to use it. (and finally justify using vista... since vista is a necessary evil for that delicious 64bit support).

PS. you know, this makes me think... I gotta go look to see if I can find a 64bit beta of flash... maybe I can use 64bit IE after all.

Let me start a list here, I will add things as people tell me about them:


Known 64bit applications with great speed benefits:
7zip - http://www.7-zip.org/ - I noticed a 19% speed boost
IE7 - several times faster.
Firefox - http://www.mozilla-x86-64.com/ - several times faster.
RealVNC - www.realvnc.com - several times faster


Known 64bit applications with unknown speed benefits:
Smart FTP - www.smartftp.com
NOD32 antivirus (best antivirus out there) - www.eset.com
Daemon Tools

 

[AmberClad]

In some cases, the way a certain app is programmed will make assumptions about the size (in bytes) of memory pointers and datatypes. For example in a 32-bit environment, you have 4 byte pointers and long integers, whereas in 64-bit, you'd have 8 byte pointers and long ints. You'll see code where the assumed size of those types are hardcoded in (making porting to 64-bit harder), instead of using the sizeof function which dynamically determines the sizes.

Anyways, this gets to be a problem where you're copying data between different datatypes, and the sizes of those types aren't what you originally assumed.

That's my sense of the potential problem anyways...I haven't actually been asked to code anything specifically for 64-bit. I guess my company just doesn't see the need at this point .

 

[mruffin75]

For a start...you'll never get "4x" performance increase just by moving to 64-bit in general applications... so you can forget about that (heck even a 2x increase would be highly unlikely).

Also, that article was written in 2004... with Windows XP...not Vista..

Codec's will never be "4x" faster...they also rely on HDD's etc..

Please taltamir...please use your brain before posting this rubbish..

 

[taltamir]

Reread it... it is windows XP, windows vista 32bit, and windows vista 64bit...
And I don't expect EVERY application to see this kind of benefit. But there are plenty of applications who WILL. And I want to know where those are at.
Encoding has yet to be hard drive limited. In fact with new formats like x264 they become more and more CPU dependant all the time. With codecs I would think you could do things that are completely impossible with 32bits... But I am not 100% certain so I haven't mentioned it yet. so yea, I have thought about it.
Personal insults are uncalled for.

@AmberClad: Yea I think thats the crux of the matter, companies aren't interested in programming for a smaller market, despite there being huge advantes.. This makes me think of MTron... its a new company dedicated to ONLY making solid state drives. They are currently in the lead in making those because they focus on them ONLY. They realize thats where the future is at, and hope to create enough of a technical gap so that when mainstream companies join the fray they would be competitive.

64bit firefox alpha for those who want it: http://www.mozilla-x86-64.com/

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Reread it... it is windows XP, windows vista 32bit, and windows vista 64bit...
And I don't expect EVERY application to see this kind of benefit. But there are plenty of applications who WILL. And I want to know where those are at.
Encoding has yet to be hard drive limited. In fact with new formats like x264 they become more and more CPU dependant all the time. With codecs I would think you could do things that are completely impossible with 32bits... But I am not 100% certain so I haven't mentioned it yet. so yea, I have thought about it.
Personal insults are uncalled for.

@AmberClad: Yea I think thats the crux of the matter, companies aren't interested in programming for a smaller market, despite there being huge advantes.. This makes me think of MTron... its a new company dedicated to ONLY making solid state drives. They are currently in the lead in making those because they focus on them ONLY. They realize thats where the future is at, and hope to create enough of a technical gap so that when mainstream companies join the fray they would be competitive.

64bit firefox alpha for those who want it: http://www.mozilla-x86-64.com/

does the 64bit firefox work with flash and the other plugins? IE x64 won't work on flash sites because Adobe Flash player doesn't work.

 

[taltamir]

there is no flash 64bit, adobe has yet to make it...

IE7 64bit simply cannot install flash. Firefox 64bit will install the 32bit version of flash... but it doesn't seem to be working.
(I just tested both on newgrounds.com)

All other extensions will work fine assuming they list their comptability for firefox 3.0... you can also manually tell them they are compatible, and then they also work


7zip is available in 64bit, but unlike firefox it doesn't experience THAT great of an improvement to speed... I just tested a file and it was going at 2500KB/s on 64bit mode and 2100KB/s on 32bit mode: http://www.7-zip.org/

 

[mruffin75]

I didn't have to reread the page you linked to... it has no mention of Vista at all... (hell even do a search for vista on the page..nada)..

The OS's they are comparing are: Windows XP Pro w/SP1 (32-bit) and Windows XP 64.. (eg. *not* Vista)..

Plus the article was posted way back in 2004...Vista wasn't even out then!

 

[taltamir]

well I'll be... you are right.. its XP64bit running a 32 and 64bit version of the same application...

My point still stands... The reason I moved to vista64bit from XP64bit is that XP64bit has no drivers whatsoever... vista64bit has drivers for practically everything.

And 2004... back in 2004 they already had applications that could get a 329% performance boost from 64bit... running on the exact same hardware... AND STILL we are stuck with a supreme lack of such applications...
Firefox 64bit took a tremendous leap forward recently... it is now completely useable and is SO FAST. I am enjoying it very much compared to the sluggish performance 32bit FF has.

 

[mruffin75]

Originally posted by: taltamir
well I'll be... you are right.. its XP64bit running a 32 and 64bit version of the same application...

Yes I was right But my harshness was a bit overdone...for that I apologize..

My point still stands... The reason I moved to vista64bit from XP64bit is that XP64bit has no drivers whatsoever... vista64bit has drivers for practically everything.

That was the point? If so.. too true! That's the main reason why I never upgraded to WinXP 64-bit.. lack of drivers was a problem, and no one seemed too interested in resolving it as Vista was on it's way..

And 2004... back in 2004 they already had applications that could get a 329% performance boost from 64bit... running on the exact same hardware... AND STILL we are stuck with a supreme lack of such applications...

I agree that *certain* applications would benefit greatly from becoming 64-bit, however not all applications will see that type of increase..
The huge increases that you see with the RSA benchmarks are probably not representative of what we'll see with other 64-bit optimizations with other applications.

Applications such as ray-tracing, modeling, encryption etc. where there are a lot of calculations will definitely benefit. However I doubt applications such as web browsing, word processing etc. would benefit at all (except for maybe the smoother transition to using more memory at once...however I'd probably wish that they didn't...sloppy!)

The reason why I didn't like that 2004 article was that ...well..it was written in 2004... about the same time that Windows XP 64-bit had just arrived I believe...so the whole "Yeah 64-bit apps are going to rock!!" feeling was around... now 3-4 years later...we've seen that it hasn't really turned out that way (except for a few specialized applications which do benefit).

Firefox 64bit took a tremendous leap forward recently... it is now completely useable and is SO FAST. I am enjoying it very much compared to the sluggish performance 32bit FF has.

I think Firefox is just sluggish period Don't get me wrong..it's my browser of choice... however it does have some memory usage issues, so I'd say moving to a 64-bit app for just that alone would probably benefit..

 

[GundamF91]

It's all because of the OS. Software companies are selling to the masses, not the elite. I'd say a large majority of average PC users in US and rest of world still running Windows 2000, ME, XP on their Athlons, Pentiums and Celerons. No one will make 64bit unless there's mass appeal. They software makers are in there for the $$$, not to blaze a trail for advancement of computing speed.

Until Windows Vista 64bit becomes mainstream (which it's still the butt of joke for Mac and computing industry), you're not going to see much 64bit use. The OS will ultimately determine the timing. You'll see more 64bit as Windows XP fades away from average home user desktop, which probably won't happen for at least couple of years.

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: mruffin75
Codec's will never be "4x" faster...they also rely on HDD's etc..

Please taltamir...please use your brain before posting this rubbish..

Then you should use yours. Video encoding is all CPU dependent and has nothing to do with the hard drive in regards to a bottleneck.

 

[SickBeast]

I tried Firefox 64-bit and it's fast...BUT:

- AT loads in under a second in Opera for me
- Opera can zoom the internet, which I find necessary at 1920x1200 resolution
- half a second isn't much

I'm not sure we'll EVER see widespread x86-64 apps. They're not exactly catching on at the moment, and we've had the hardware for years.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: mruffin75

Firefox 64bit took a tremendous leap forward recently... it is now completely useable and is SO FAST. I am enjoying it very much compared to the sluggish performance 32bit FF has.

I think Firefox is just sluggish period Don't get me wrong..it's my browser of choice... however it does have some memory usage issues, so I'd say moving to a 64-bit app for just that alone would probably benefit..

I totally agree there, I remember how avidly people denounced me for claiming there was a memory leak in firefox 2.0
Then I saw the firefox 3.0 beta release notes... "over 300 individual memory leaks plugged".

I guess I was very wrong, it wasn't -A- memory leak....

Anyways with v3.0b1 32bit closing the session takes about 10 seconds with several tabs (it disappears, but firefox.exe is still showing in processess and doing calculations, and running it again gives an error about it currently closing) Using the v3.0a8 64bit (a few weeks earlier then the b1 code) it takes a fraction of a second to close. Also opening is similar in this regards. And loading pages is a LOT faster...

I think the things you will see very LITTLE benefit from are:
1. Games
2. Office programs, etc

The things it shows the most benefit to have 64bit are:
1. Encoding/Decoding
2. Compression/Decompression
3. Hash calculating
4. Firefox (its in a class of sluggishness of its own ).

But those are the most CPU intensive, and time consuming applications anyways. I don't care much for my excel speed, it has always been adequate, I do care how long it takes FF to open, how many hours it take for emule to recalculate the hash table on my 40gb share. How long it takes winrar to convert 6000 archives to max compression level. How long it takes me to reencode a DVD from 9GB to 4.5GB (dual layer to single layer)... because those are the things that take hours...

7z is ~20% faster in 64bit, great for compresion decompression... firefox is several times faster... Hash calculation... I don't know if emule uses 64bit hash checking, but I KNOW for sure that quickpar does NOT... I would like to see a par2 program that is 64bit.

Encoding and decoding... there is a biggie.. I wonder when nero and the like will start using 64bit... and when we will have 64bit only codecs which result in much better compression the 32bit codecs.

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I tried Firefox 64-bit and it's fast...BUT:

- AT loads in under a second in Opera for me
- Opera can zoom the internet, which I find necessary at 1920x1200 resolution
- half a second isn't much

I'm not sure we'll EVER see widespread x86-64 apps. They're not exactly catching on at the moment, and we've had the hardware for years.

AT is just one page... when I do a session save or restore with firefox it might have 10 tabs open at once... it adds up.
The zoom in function I didnt know about, and it IS badly needed for me at 1920x1200.

How many years did it take for 32bit applications to arrive? you could install a 32bit runtime on windows 3.11... Windows 95 was able to run 16 and 32bit software out of the box... I remember when windows XP dropped support for 16bit applications, it was a pain as so many applications were still 16bit only... MORE than 5 years after its introduction.

 

[zach0624]

opera ftw!
this looks cool though I'll have to try it out and also check out the broadband otimization thingy

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: GundamF91
Until Windows Vista 64bit becomes mainstream (which it's still the butt of joke for Mac and computing industry), you're not going to see much 64bit use.

Ultimately the joke is on the Mac in this case. Leopard is a hybrid 32/64 bit operating system where the kernel and the drivers are all still 32 bit. The Mac is not capable of taking full advantage of 64 bit computing as a pure 64 bit operating system like Vista x64 is. Microsoft did not have the luxury of going the route because those few 64 bit applications available for it need every advantage a pure 64 bit operating system provides.

 

[Slugbait]

This is just history repeating itself. For example, back in 1985 IBM commissioned Microsoft to write an operating system that could take full advantage of the new 32-bit processors. But it cost waaaaay over $200. Few people bought it, so few software companies wrote applications for it. 20 years later, IBM finally pulled the support plug for OS/2.

Microsoft wrote their own 32-bit OS, but again, no applications. Plus, it cost waaaay over $200. The world was content with a 16-bit OS that only cost around $60 to upgrade, and a 16-bit GUI shell (Windows) that only cost about $75 to upgrade. I knew a few people who "borrowed" some floppies...

A "springboard" operating system was released by Microsoft in August of 1995. Windows 95 consisted of a 16-bit OS core (MS-DOS 7.0) with a 32-bit GUI shell. One of the big selling points was that you could continue working in Windows applications as a document was printing. Another selling point was that the tens of thousands of DOS apps out there would still be compatible. YaY.

The goals of Windows 95 was to get people used to that kind of 32-bit freedom, and many tech articles stated Microsoft was "betting the farm" on NT5. The reason was the death of codename Nashville, which was originally bantered around as either Windows 96 or Windows 97 (depending on ship date). Nashville was scuttled when Bill Gates "got" the Internet, and instituted a massive company-wide re-org. The codename of Nashville was curiously resurrected for IE3 (maybe nobody could come up with a new name, who knows). The PUM for Win95, Brad Silverberg, formed the IPTD (Internet Platform and Tools Division). The corporate focus then for the OS was to migrate customers to a true 32-bit platform: NT5. The hybrid OS was canceled.

Then NT5 slipped. A lot. By two years (is this starting to sound eeeeerily familiar?). President Ballmer asked Brian Valentine for a "favor"...leave Exchange, clean up the mess and ship NT5.

Unfortunately, the kernel was already set. The core designs were already decided. NT5 wouldn't be ready for the latest tech upon release in 2000, such as USB...actually, it would be LATE to that game. The hybrid OS was reborn: codename Memphis (Win98).

The world continued living with an OS that was, at it's core, 16-bit. And it was a somewhat huge success with customers (it was pretty, and you could have a picture as your desktop...cool!). There was some adoption by software companies, but it took awhile to get companies like Adobe on board.

Let's back up a bit, to 1995 again: The most telling and destructive omission that could potentially doom 32-bit Windows (or the hybrids) was games and multimedia. Windows was the worst platform for gaming, and nobody wrote 32-bit games. For example, years after Win95 released, you could still see new DOS games appearing on store shelves. Thus was born DirectX, led by Alex St. John.

The first couple of DX releases didn't do so well. Only a few games were written for it (the Doom port was the first game for DX...but did anyone play it, or did you all stick with DOS?). Alex had a major competitor that was killing DX hopes: Glide. But his hands were somewhat tied by internal power struggles. DirectX wasn't even considered by the company to be something that should be included with the OS. Talisman was the final straw: Alex sent an email to President Ballmer, CEO Gates and numerous other big wigs, stating in part that Microsoft would be "fucking up 3-D". Security soon showed up at his office on the Pebble Beach campus and escorted him out of the building. As a contributing writer for boot Magazine, Alex said he didn't even know whether or not Gates had read the email. Just the same, be thankful Talisman was killed. Very thankful. Anyway, DX5 was where gaming really started taking shape and being widely adopted. Now we play the majority of our games on a 32-bit OS.

And gaming is the one single thing that drives hardware advancement.

Boy, this was long. The point is: it's going to take awhile for 64-bit to be fully adopted. Hell, it took well over 10 years for 32-bit to be fully adopted...relax.

 

[GundamF91]

Good write up SLugbait. 1 page of history is worth a volume of logic. Clearly it just takes time, especially since HW support for 64bit came to be 2 yrs ago, and 64bit OS support has only been a year. It'll be at least couple of years until we see some useful 64bit products. Now if they were to write games in 64bit that'll help to push this along. Maybe I'll just wait for 128bit to come.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: GundamF91
Clearly it just takes time, especially since HW support for 64bit came to be 2 yrs ago, and 64bit OS support has only been a year.

Umm, we've had hardware support for more than 4.5 years, and OS support exactly 2 years later. But yeah, I agree that it's still a bit too early. It will happen, as soon as all of you guy's grandmothers own a 64-bit-capable processor, though.

 

[Slugbait]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: GundamF91
Clearly it just takes time, especially since HW support for 64bit came to be 2 yrs ago, and 64bit OS support has only been a year.

Umm, we've had hardware support for more than 4.5 years, and OS support exactly 2 years later. But yeah, I agree that it's still a bit too early. It will happen, as soon as all of you guy's grandmothers own a 64-bit-capable processor, though.

This will knock your socks off...there was actually a hard push for W2K-64 (which later became a gentle shove, then a fading memory...).

 

[GundamF91]

I was thinking mainstream 64bit implementation for HW and SW. Most of the user base is firmly on the 32bit side, until that changes, 64bit simply isn't viable unless it has a ported 32bit version.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Slugbait
This will knock your socks off...there was actually a hard push for W2K-64 (which later became a gentle shove, then a fading memory...).

Wow, I don't remember that. Of course, it makes sense, since W2K was mostly used by businesses.

Originally posted by: GundamF91
I was thinking mainstream 64bit implementation for HW and SW. Most of the user base is firmly on the 32bit side, until that changes, 64bit simply isn't viable unless it has a ported 32bit version.

Well, in that case, it's going to be a very long time, I'm willing to bet, since the majority of Windows Vista installs are on newer pre-built computers, and I've never heard of any of them coming with the 64-bit version (although I'm sure you could order it through Dell). Unless you didn't mean OS, when you said software. Of course, the software guys will never write 64-bit code, as long as people keep buying their 32-bit software, I would think. And as long as we're all still using 32-bit Windows, and even Linux, we don't have any use for 64-bit software to begin with.

 

[taltamir]

wow slugbait, that was AWESOME.

anyways, yea. 32bit took a long way comming... 64bit seems to be getting adopted much faster.

@Myocardia... I didn't personally know a single person who used Me, instead every one of them was using windows 2000... well, it kinda helped that me and my friends pushed them towards using it over Me....

 

[Mana]

Originally posted by: GundamF91
I was thinking mainstream 64bit implementation for HW and SW. Most of the user base is firmly on the 32bit side, until that changes, 64bit simply isn't viable unless it has a ported 32bit version.

Sortof, 32-bit software in a 64-bit environment isn't a problem with x86-64. To put it simply, the processor just switches to 32-bit compatibility mode when dealing with 32-bit programs. Heck, the way memory is mapped, 32-bit programs can be located at addresses higher than 2^32 under a 64-bit OS. However, 32-bit programs are still limited to a 2 GB block of memory.

The problem is drivers, which have to be 64-bit, and it doesn't help that a lot of driver writers got lazy over time, so writing a 64-bit driver is typically more than just updating all of the pointers to be 64-bit. My knowledge on why making 64-bit drivers is a bit sketchy, but that's the gist of it. I'm sure someone here with more knowledge can elaborate/correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: mruffin75

Originally posted by: taltamir
well I'll be... you are right.. its XP64bit running a 32 and 64bit version of the same application...

Yes I was right But my harshness was a bit overdone...for that I apologize..

My point still stands... The reason I moved to vista64bit from XP64bit is that XP64bit has no drivers whatsoever... vista64bit has drivers for practically everything.

That was the point? If so.. too true! That's the main reason why I never upgraded to WinXP 64-bit.. lack of drivers was a problem, and no one seemed too interested in resolving it as Vista was on it's way..

And 2004... back in 2004 they already had applications that could get a 329% performance boost from 64bit... running on the exact same hardware... AND STILL we are stuck with a supreme lack of such applications...

I agree that *certain* applications would benefit greatly from becoming 64-bit, however not all applications will see that type of increase..
The huge increases that you see with the RSA benchmarks are probably not representative of what we'll see with other 64-bit optimizations with other applications.

Applications such as ray-tracing, modeling, encryption etc. where there are a lot of calculations will definitely benefit. However I doubt applications such as web browsing, word processing etc. would benefit at all (except for maybe the smoother transition to using more memory at once...however I'd probably wish that they didn't...sloppy!)

The reason why I didn't like that 2004 article was that ...well..it was written in 2004... about the same time that Windows XP 64-bit had just arrived I believe...so the whole "Yeah 64-bit apps are going to rock!!" feeling was around... now 3-4 years later...we've seen that it hasn't really turned out that way (except for a few specialized applications which do benefit).

Firefox 64bit took a tremendous leap forward recently... it is now completely useable and is SO FAST. I am enjoying it very much compared to the sluggish performance 32bit FF has.

I think Firefox is just sluggish period Don't get me wrong..it's my browser of choice... however it does have some memory usage issues, so I'd say moving to a 64-bit app for just that alone would probably benefit..

if you turn on pipelining FF x86 isn't slow.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I tried Firefox 64-bit and it's fast...BUT:

- AT loads in under a second in Opera for me
- Opera can zoom the internet, which I find necessary at 1920x1200 resolution
- half a second isn't much

I'm not sure we'll EVER see widespread x86-64 apps. They're not exactly catching on at the moment, and we've had the hardware for years.

Opera wasn't as easy to use and there are firefox plugins I can't live without.

Firefox users should enable Pipelining anyhow which will load faster than Opera.