64bit, really all that?

[HuMHeM]

Hello everybody,
I have been wondering something and i hope you guys can help me understand better. I hear alot of the AMD 64 processors and all the hype with it. All i really want to know is whether or not i should be as excited about the windows 64 and 64 bit games as everyone? I have been wanting to buy a new system soon but with all they hype of 64 bit, i was thinking i should wait. Also I am an Intel man but from what i hear, it wont be anytime soon for a 64 bit intel release. So really what im asking is if the 64 bit applications will just blow me away or just the average tech upgrade. Thanks!

 

[biofear]

Well my opinion....and again this is just my opinion. I'm going to wait till Windows Long Horn comes out in 2006 to get a 64bit cpu. They make a windows xp 64bit right now but I don't think games are 64bit yet.
If you think about it...there's a reason intel is waiting to release 64bit cpu's.

 

[BrokenArrow64FX]

i agree with biofear here. I am planning to build a 64bit rig but it would be better to wait till Longhorn and 64bit games come out to see what 64bit can really do.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I think that 64-bit computing is going to be awesome when it becomes the standard. If you check the Anandtech preview, you can see that Windows XP running in 64-bit is already 10-15% faster in beta stage - that is extremely impressive IMO.

With that said, however, I wouldn't buy an Athlon 64 right now just because it supports 64-bit while Intel doesn't yet (on their mainstream chips). I will probably upgrade 2 times before 2005/2006 anyway, when Longhorn comes out. And Windows XP 64-bit doesn't seem like it will ever be the optimal gaming platform. It should rock for database applications, though.


That doesn't mean that Athlon 64 isn't a great chip - for gaming it's the king and it's a very powerful platform. In terms of overal 'speed' A64 is faster than the P4 C and E series right now.

Personally, though, I'm sticking with Intel until AMD gets hyperthreading on their chips. I love HT, and need it on a continual basis for multitasking. For most users (especially heavy gamers), though, I'd say go with either one - if you game a lot, A64 will be the faster solution.

 

[imported_oralpain]

Athlon 64s are very fast 32-bit chips. Why even concern yourself with the 64-bit part, its a non factor and will remain so for quite a while. I'm on my 3rd athlon64 and I never intended to keep them long enough for 64-bit to catch on. I would have bought them if they where 32-bit only.

I highly doubt AMD will ever put hyperthreading on thier chips. AMDs dual core cpus are only a year away and 2 real cores/cpus is deffinatly better than 1 with hyperthreading.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: oralpain
Athlon 64s are very fast 32-bit chips. Why even concern yourself with the 64-bit part, its a non factor and will remain so for quite a while. I'm on my 3rd athlon64 and I never intended to keep them long enough for 64-bit to catch on. I would have bought them if they where 32-bit only.

I highly doubt AMD will ever put hyperthreading on thier chips. AMDs dual core cpus are only a year away and 2 real cores/cpus is deffinatly better than 1 with hyperthreading.

Dual Core will completely negate the need for Hyperthreading - that is true. Until that time, however, I like having multithreading on my P4. To each his own.

Also, I assume that the dual core Athlons will be quite expensive to start off with. We'll see.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Well, I've been on skt754 6months already and I'm glad I didn't wait. That's all I have to say about that

 

[LTC8K6]

As long as AMD continues to produce new 32bit chips, I am not very worried about whther I should be running 64bit or not.

 

[Nemesis2038]

Yes its all that and then some.

64 bit OS with 32 bit apps.
Perform near to slightly slower to about 10% faster than a 32bit app on 32 bit OS. This is amazing when you consider its running through translation (WOW64). Its basically saying when runing a 32bit os emulator on a 64 bit cpu its faster than 32bit apps on a 32 bit processor.

64bit OS with 64bit apps.
10%-300% faster than the 32 bit equivilents. Remeber this is still beta so more improvements and enhancements are to come. Video encoding, Compression, MP3 conversion on AMD64 smokes any Intel P4/Athlon XP combo out there hands down. And again its still beta. To put it smoothly unless you can overclock an AMD/INTEL to 4-6ghz your not going to be able to beat some of the things 64 bit will offer. There are a few that are running slightly slower but using perfmon I can see its something in the beta code tha needs to be worked out as the CPU isnt the problem.

Sorry no gaming tests yet because well I dont have any 64 bit games yet. If I had to guess I would say expect approx 30% speed improvement with the 64 bit version over the 32 bit version.

 

[ichief]

Hyperthreading is only around because Intel was using such a large pipeline (20 and now 30) and there were so many wasted cycles as a result. The Athlon 64 does not need such a feature because it was designed from the start to be extremely efficient, thus explaining why a 2.4 GHz Athlon 64 pretty much beats the 3.4 GHz Pentium 4's. Hyperthreading is only allowing Intel to actually take advantage of the larger clock speeds, keeping up and occasionally beating the Athlon 64 in benchmarks. If AMD decides to increase the number of stages in their pipeline, it may be a nice feature to add.

 

[LTC8K6]

Can you back any of that up, Nemesis2038?

 

[imported_zenwhen]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Can you back any of that up, Nemesis2038?

He's running around making all sorts of silly claims today.

 

[tylerhskate]

i just read in pc mag that longhorn isnt going to be released until at least 2007 LOL :/

 

[hifisoftware]

I do not think that anybody can tell you how much 64 bit will help in general. It all depends on the code. If code is using 64 bit integers (or larger) then it will get faster, when it's recoded/recompiled. Windows usually does not uses 64 bit integers, so I have no idea why it would be faster.
64 bit should allow you to use more then 4Gb of memory.

Best bet is to ignore 64bitnnes for now and just look at 32 bit performance.

 

[Jeff7181]

To decide if 64-bit computing is "really all that" you have to understand what it is.

64-bit computing by itself ONLY means that the General Purpose Registers are 64-bits wide. That means increased dynamic range. Using the binary number system, a 2-bit processor gives you 4 possible values, a 3-bit gives you 8, 4-bit gives you 16... and a 32-bit processor gives you 4,294,967,296 possible values. (sounds kinda close to the 4 GB RAM limit of 32-bit processors doesn't it? ) That is it's dynamic range. A 64-bit processor's dynamic range is approximately 4.3 billion times greater than a 32-bit processor... which simply means, it can work with much larger numbers. Why is that important? It's not really to you or I at this point... but it is in applications like weather simulators and such.

64-bit computing also allows for more RAM than a 32-bit processor because of it's increased dynamic range. Because as I just figured, a 32-bit processor can only handle about 4.3 billion values, which translates to about 4 GB of memory. A 64-bit processor has an upper limit of about 18 million terabytes... (32-bit = 0.0043 terabytes... 64-bit = 18,000,000 terabytes).

That's speaking ONLY in terms of 64-bits vs. 32-bit... that has nothing to do with the architecture of the specific processors. AMD changed some more things when they designed the Athlon-64.

First, they used a 40-bit memory address rather than 64-bit since we're not going to need 18 million terabytes of memory anytime soon... the 40-bit address allows up to 1 terabyte of memory.

Second, they doubled the amount of General Purpose Registers so there's 16 now rather than 8. So not only are they twice as big, there's twice as many. But they can only be used by 64-bit software, so the benefit of extra registers isn't realized with 32-bit software.

Third, they lengthened the pipeline by a few stages. What that boils down to is basically higher clock speeds are easier to reach.

Fourth, they built the memory controller into the core, which eliminates almost all latency issues with the memory controller. Basically the memory is now just connected to the CPU by wires, whereas with the Athlon XP and Pentium 4 for example, the CPU was connected to the northbridge chipset on the motherboard, and so was the RAM. So the northbridge chipset sat between the RAM and the CPU.

Fifth, they added support for SSE2, so applications designed to take advantage of Intel's SSE2 instructions can now also take advantage of those instructions on an Athlon-64.

Sixth, they're using SOI, which in a nutshell, reduces current leakage within the processor, which allows the millions of transistors to switch on and off as fast, or faster with less voltage, which means faster speeds and less power consumption.

They've made other changes as well... but those six are the main ones that will effect performance.


So is 64-bits "really all that?" That depends on what you consider to be "all that." It's important to remember that all Athlon 64's are 64-bit processors... but not all 64-bit processors are Athlon 64's. So when you ask a question like this, you have to be specific... are you talking about 64-bit computing in general? Or are you talking about currently available 64-bit desktop processors (Athlon 64's)? If you're talking about 64-bit computing in general then no, it's not that big a deal because we're not really pushing the limits of a 32-bit processor's dynamic range other than in large servers that need lots of memory, but Intel has found a way around that without increasing the dynamic range that allows them to address more than 4 GB of memory.

So to answer your question... IMHO, yes... 64-bit (more specifically, x86-64) is "really all that" ... and a bag of chips, lol. Mainly because of the larger amount of memory it's able to address natively, and also because of the way currently available 64-bit processors are designed, with twice as many GPR's and an on die memory controller. The benefit of most of these features remain to be seen as of right now... although we have a pretty good idea from the beta software that's being played with and reported on.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Excellent post Jeff!!!!

He did bring out a good point though. 64 Bit computing has been around for a long time. Intel has had it in their Itanium processors for ages. What made AMD so special is they extended the x86 michroarchitecture. Instead of using EPIC (Explicitly Parallel Instructio Computing), they extended the X86 core, which eliminated the need for everyone in the world to restart everything from scratch.

Also people think 64bit...WOW!!! Some ignore the fact that there are processors that are 256bit. (Lol cant remember the name). Computing still has a long way to advance beyond 64bit. Were only at the beginning.

-Kevin

 

[HuMHeM]

Well, the reason i was so concerned about getting a 64 bit processor is because I'm the kind of person that buys a computer every 3-4 years but when i do buy one, I get the top of the line. So in that said, i wanted to be somewhat ready for the future, even though i know thats not possible. I dont want to buy a new computer and then 6months later everything start to change to 64 bit and i have to replace a motherboard and cpu. Anybody even know if ANYONE is even talking about making 64 bit games? Thanks fro the replies everyone

 

[Gamingphreek]

There is supposed to be a patch out for far cry to allow 64bit and SM3.0 (but we wont get into that )

3-4 years eh... wellits really up to you... i would get the athlon 64 if you plan on it being that long, however keep in mind, the change is not going to be sudden its going to be extremely gradual. I think in the next 3-4 years 64bit processors might have the majority.

-Kevin

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: HuMHeM
Well, the reason i was so concerned about getting a 64 bit processor is because I'm the kind of person that buys a computer every 3-4 years but when i do buy one, I get the top of the line. So in that said, i wanted to be somewhat ready for the future, even though i know thats not possible. I dont want to buy a new computer and then 6months later everything start to change to 64 bit and i have to replace a motherboard and cpu. Anybody even know if ANYONE is even talking about making 64 bit games? Thanks fro the replies everyone

Unreal Tournament 2004 is supposed to have a 64-bit version probably as soon as there's a 64-bit version of Windows.

Far Cry will have a 64-bit version.

You can bet Half Life 2 will have a 64-bit version... although that might be delayed another year past when the 32-bit version is finally released.

You can also bet Doom 3 will have a 64-bit version... and I believe they've been saying one of the benefits of 64-bit processing and the increased dynamic range is with lighting and shadowing effects... hmmmm... I wonder if that'll do anything to help nVidia's HDR crap that they were showing off at one of those conferences, and then more recently with those screen shots from Far Cry. I imagine MOST of that is done by the GPU in either the pixel or vertex shaders... and the GPU in current video cards is 128-bit (I think... isn't it?).

 

[LTC8K6]

AMD's intro of new 32 bit processors has made the decision for me. I'll be waiting for a while. I am taking that as a sign.

 

[Nemesis2038]

I dont have any games to test my theory on the 30%. But I would say its going to be close.

Given that a Game written in 32bit running on a 64bit OS has to go through translation WOW64 and winds up running 10% faster in some instances than on a 32 bit machine running 32bit os with a 32 bit program tells me that 30% may be an understatement.

I only have 3 programs that are 64 bit beta code.
1 is a video encoder and its a screamer compared its 32 bit partner.
1 is a Compression program and its easily twice as fast on a 64 bit platform than a 32 bit.
Then I have a decryption program that is around 3 times faster than my p4 3.3 machine.

Its ALL BETA 64 stuff and CPU intensive 64 bit programs so far are much much faster.

For a comparison we should dig back and compare the 286 to the 386. 16bit vs 32bit. This will give you an idea what I am talking about. Yup that wonderfull 32bit code is based upon the old 386 cpu. Its time to upgrade to 64 bits instead of thinking the 386 base was all you would ever need.

If you have a problem with AMD64 just wait for Intel's Xeons with 64 bit extensions. I dont have time or patience to deal with an AMD vs INTEL war. Im just talking 64 bit performance and how great its going to be. Right now I can only get an AMD with 64 bits. And intel's 64 x86 chips should be here around the time Microsoft finalizes XP64.

 

[LTC8K6]

Okay, but all of the benches I have seen have not been that impressive. There was one bench that showed a huge increase, but I believe that turned out to be incorrect.

There isn't really a question of whether I will be going to a 64bit processor. The questions are who's and when?

If AMD is going to be all gung ho on the 64bit bandwagon, then they need to ditch 32bit chips, not introduce new ones. I can just hear salesmen now........lol

 

[Nemesis2038]

I personally say hold off on going to 64 bit if you can. Most people are windows users and will never use Linux for whatever reason you choose. I am glad to have the few 64 bit programs I have now and would love nothing more than to have a few more but that isnt going to happen until Microsoft gets on the ball with the 64 bit OS. Which it would appear Bill Gates is just doing what Intel tells him to do. Delay Windows until Intel releases their x86 64 bit cpu. That whole Wintel Alliance thing goes pretty deep. So that really bites for those of us with 64 bit CPU's. Luckily we can get by very well with 32 bit applications. I would also assume the games wont be finalized until several months after launch as well. Being that the games with be written for both AMD64 and I64.

Is 64 bit all that. Yes. However try finding 64 bit apps to run is another story.

If you can wait by all means at least until around September when Microsoft 64 is out or proabably delayed again until 2005. Then Intel's 64 bit chips might be out as well and you can expect prices to drop and faster chips to be released possibly on 90 micron from both manufacturers.

It wont kill you not having a 64 bit cpu today. Partially its just bragging rights for now.

If I didnt do what I do I would be prefectly fine with a p4 w.4c overclocked or an Athlon 2400mobile overclocked. They both Rock.

 

[Zebo]

Considering even in 32 bit apps the chip is 80% faster than intels best offering at same speeds and 25% faster than A-XP at same speeds I'd say so.

 

[Nemesis2038]

Im not an Intel or AMD fan yes the opteron is faster in most applications than my P4.
Now let me state a few things about what good is a few percent that so many of you fight over.

IN 32 BIT WORLD.
Quake 3 doesnt look or act any better on anything I own claiming to be 3300+ AMD or INTEL.
In fact none of my games look any better or perform and better on my 3 top machines. Both 32bit and 64. As well as QUAKE 3 IS ANCIENT HISTORY. I stopped playing that ages ago. Why anyone still uses it as a benchmark is beyond me. FAR CRY and UT2004 are the only games I am interested in as of late. Even then they all play perfectly well on most CPU's you just need a better video card. 300 vs 350FPS means nothing since you cant see 300FPS unless you were on speed and cocain and your eyes were replaced with Bionicle ones. If it does 60FPS at whatever resolution you want to play at then by all means its not junk compared to another machine doing it at 300FPS. I bet you cant tell the difference between one running at 300FPS vs 60FPS. They are both kick arse and dont prevent you from playing the game.

I dont do PhotoShop, 3D Studio, POV Tracing, Or any of those other fancy applications. You dont either but why someone cares about these is beyond me. To me I figure 99.9% of the people out there dont use these either so to me its really stupid benchmarking to see benchmarks on applications I have no desire to use. And for those who touch up photos with PS is a second or two worth it? Lets be real.

Mp3 Encoding maybe 3 times a year if that? So to me the 1 minute difference a PC will make being it AMD or Intel is just silly. I have a minute to spare and I trust most people out there dont rip Mp3's all day. I certainly dont have all the money in world to buy every CD I ever heard not to mention I havent heard many songs in the last year worth buying. Where have all the Led Zepplins gone?

Video Encoding. I bet this is well under 1% of the people out there too. Like I said in other threads I set it to do encoding and hope its done by morning. The differences are minimal. P4 Wins here but the differences of 10 hours vs 10.5 or even 11 is simple. Im not going to sit next to my PC waiting for it to be done.

--------------------------------------------

64 BIT WORLD.

I can only attest to a few apps because there really isnt much out there. And I mean I can count everything on one hand. Thats not a reason to rush out and get a 64 bit CPU.

It doesnt make any of my games look any better yet. Granted I can proably run far cry in a higher resolution but I am running around so fast I dont have time to take in teh scenery. When I do stop its looks the same to me because both video cards have the same amount of eye candy. If you think 300FPS will make you a better gamer then I have bridge from NY to JAPAN to sell you.

---------------------------------------------

What I hope to see from 64 bit computing that I will not get from 32 bit.

Photo Realistic Gaming in very good frame rates. You can get close in 32 bit but 64 will be mind blowing. Hence the reason NVIDIA went with 64bit accuracy over 32 or 48? NVIDIA gets it. Depsite me owning an ATI card.

HDTV Video Management Im talking TS files and WMV9 or WMV-HD level quality Video. This brings any 32 bit CPU to its knees. Not your silly DIVX 320x240 videos. Im talking 1080P and 720P. Look at the specs of 1080P and it begins at 3.2Ghz CPU just to play it. Try encoding with it or downsampling.

Do I care who I get this from. NO absolutely not. Do I care if one CPU will do it 5% faster than another. Barely.

So is AMD or INTEL better. NO But without one another to push the limits we all lose out.

We get cheaper prices and them constantly trying to one up each other which again makes for cheaper prices and better technology. We win. Long Live AMD and Long Live Intel. I just wish there were a few more to give challenge in x86 architecture.

As for the AMD and Intel cheerleaders what gives? Why do any of you care so much about who is faster by a few percent?