should i get a 64 bit processor?

[calam63]

will we start going towards 64 bit computing? how does it compete with 32 bit processors today?

 

[Markfw]

Intel decided it was the future, so shouldn;t you ?

 

[Algere]

Are we talking total 64-bit CPU or 32/64?

 

[dudeman007]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Intel decided it was the future, so shouldn;t you ?

lol intel is always right.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: calam63
will we start going towards 64 bit computing? how does it compete with 32 bit processors today?

Checkout articles for the A64 and decide whether the performance is worth it. Some people think so, some do not. At this point I wouldn't get a 64-Bit processor just because it is 64-Bit...I would get it for the performance improvement in 32-bit apps.

 

[acebake]

I like them, but I would wait for the 939. I just think it's a good idea for the future. They seem to be pretty speedy....

 

[DaveSimmons]

Read The Friendly Articles. There have been several A64 articles on the AnandTech website.

Is 64-bitness in itself worth paying for? Not really. But since the A64 processors are faster and cost less, they are the best buy right now for most users.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: calam63
will we start going towards 64 bit computing? how does it compete with 32 bit processors today?

Do you need any applications that can take true advantage of a 64-bit environment? If not, I'd wait. At least until the 64-bit version of XP comes out.

Of course, going to an X86-64 processor has its advantages because they're pretty darn fast, but I don't think the 64-bit part of it is important now.

 

[BFG10K]

Even if you forget about 64 bit software and OSes Athlon 64s are excellent because they run 32 bit applications very well plus they're dirt cheap. Go for it - I have one and I love it.

 

[Xionide]

yes

 

[imported_Ahriman]

A 64-bit processor is only going to run a program as fast as the operating system will let it. There isn't really a reason to spend all that money on a 64 bit processor right now because

1) There is no viable 64-bit OS on the market
2) The projected release date for a 64-bit OS isn't until 2007
3) By 2007 a 64-bit processor will be really really cheap


In response to the guy who said that a 64-bit processor runs 32-bit apps faster I can only say one thing... retard. It's called a bottleneck, and there is no getting around it.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Ahriman
A 64-bit processor is only going to run a program as fast as the operating system will let it. There isn't really a reason to spend all that money on a 64 bit processor right now because

1) There is no viable 64-bit OS on the market

There is definately a 64Bit OS on the market, right now.

2 hints:

1. It's not from Microsoft. (not that Windows was every realy "viable", even the 32bit versions)
2. It's free

2) The projected release date for a 64-bit OS isn't until 2007

The OS I am talking about had a release date before the first retail AMD64bit chip came out.

3) By 2007 a 64-bit processor will be really really cheap

Cheapness is relative.

In response to the guy who said that a 64-bit processor runs 32-bit apps faster I can only say one thing... retard. It's called a bottleneck, and there is no getting around it.

64 bit means more memory, bigger files/filing systems, larger register sizes, and higher percision in floating point calculations and some other nice things.

Going 64 bit does not make things much faster in itself, nessicarially. Better chip design does that.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Ahriman
A 64-bit processor is only going to run a program as fast as the operating system will let it. There isn't really a reason to spend all that money on a 64 bit processor right now because

1) There is no viable 64-bit OS on the market
2) The projected release date for a 64-bit OS isn't until 2007
3) By 2007 a 64-bit processor will be really really cheap


In response to the guy who said that a 64-bit processor runs 32-bit apps faster I can only say one thing... retard. It's called a bottleneck, and there is no getting around it.

1)There are numerous 64-bit OSes on the market. Even Windows has a 64-bit release.
2)Unix has been 64-bit capable in different versions for a long time
3)Yes, that's true

Oh, and where did anyone say that a 64-bit processor runs 32-bit programs faster?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Ahriman
A 64-bit processor is only going to run a program as fast as the operating system will let it. There isn't really a reason to spend all that money on a 64 bit processor right now because

1) There is no viable 64-bit OS on the market
2) The projected release date for a 64-bit OS isn't until 2007
3) By 2007 a 64-bit processor will be really really cheap


In response to the guy who said that a 64-bit processor runs 32-bit apps faster I can only say one thing... retard. It's called a bottleneck, and there is no getting around it.

1)There are numerous 64-bit OSes on the market. Even Windows has a 64-bit release.

2)Unix has been 64-bit capable in different versions for a long time
3)Yes, that's true[/quote]

The Alpha NT OS did run on a 64bit chip, but wasn't 64 bit itself. It was still 32 bit.

They were proccess of porting it to 64bit when the w2k/NT alpha project got canned. They had gotten it to boot up in 64bit mode, but that was about it.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: drag
The Alpha NT OS did run on a 64bit chip, but wasn't 64 bit itself. It was still 32 bit.

They were proccess of porting it to 64bit when the w2k/NT alpha project got canned. They had gotten it to boot up in 64bit mode, but that was about it.

I was referring to this

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: drag
The Alpha NT OS did run on a 64bit chip, but wasn't 64 bit itself. It was still 32 bit.

They were proccess of porting it to 64bit when the w2k/NT alpha project got canned. They had gotten it to boot up in 64bit mode, but that was about it.

I was referring to this

Ya I just realised I forgot about ia64 as soon I posted it.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: drag
Ya I just realised I forgot about ia64 as soon I posted it.

It's not all that memorable anyway.

 

[Algere]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Ahriman
A 64-bit processor is only going to run a program as fast as the operating system will let it. There isn't really a reason to spend all that money on a 64 bit processor right now because

1) There is no viable 64-bit OS on the market
2) The projected release date for a 64-bit OS isn't until 2007
3) By 2007 a 64-bit processor will be really really cheap


In response to the guy who said that a 64-bit processor runs 32-bit apps faster I can only say one thing... retard. It's called a bottleneck, and there is no getting around it.

1)There are numerous 64-bit OSes on the market. Even Windows has a 64-bit release.
2)Unix has been 64-bit capable in different versions for a long time
3)Yes, that's true

Oh, and where did anyone say that a 64-bit processor runs 32-bit programs faster?

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Read The Friendly Articles. There have been several A64 articles on the AnandTech website.

Is 64-bitness in itself worth paying for? Not really. But since the A64 processors are faster and cost less, they are the best buy right now for most users.

AFAIK Dave didn't directly say 32-bit but I guess you can assume he might've and I agree with him if that's what he meant. Being the reason why I have a A64 now(see sig).

EDIT: In response to the OP. Calling ppl in a derogatory manner is frowned down upon here.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Algere
AFAIK Dave didn't directly say 32-bit but I guess you can assume he might've and I agree with him if that's what he meant. Being the reason why I have a A64 now(see sig).

I think that Ahriman thinks he meant that the A64 would run 32-bit apps faster because of it's 64-bit capabilities.

 

[manko]

From what I've seen the AMD 64-bit processors have great performance for today's software.

As for future-proofing yourself, I'm of the opinion that by the time 64-bit OSes and native 64-bit applications are mainstream enough to matter, 64-bit chips will be at least a couple generations beyond the current chips (more powerful and cheaper).

I don't think you can go wrong buying a 64-bit machine today, but a 32-bit isn't a bad choice either. By the time you'll really be able to take full advantage of a 64-bit system and software, you'll probably have a new system anyway.