| 1 |
On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 3/29/06, michael@×××××××××××××.com <michael@×××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > How soon do you think we'll see laptops with the Dual Core Turion64? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Summer. Got to have them out in time for back-to-school purchasing, right? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Elsewhere (perhaps on this list on a different topic) someone |
| 9 |
> > recommended not buying anything except for 64 bits (either AMD or Intel) |
| 10 |
> > from now on. Do you agree, in particular regarding laptops? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> No, but others are going to disagree with me! |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Nobody is currently producing laptops that can have over 4G of memory |
| 15 |
> (in fact, 2G is the max today in a laptop). And for my AMD desktop at |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
www.alienware.com I beg to differ. I could have sworn I saw a laptop |
| 18 |
with more than 2G... where was it... wow! You appear to be right! |
| 19 |
Darn.. I could have SWORN I saw something with > 2G... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> home, I don't see much difference between 64 and 32-bit programs. The |
| 22 |
> programs I am most interested in running fast are compression, |
| 23 |
> encryption, media encoding, and the like...standard desktop type uses. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There is a big difference. You most likely aren't running with |
| 26 |
software compiled for 64-bit, or software that wasn't designed to take |
| 27 |
advantage of 64-bit, rather targeting 32-bit and just praying the |
| 28 |
compiler helps with the 64-bit part. It gets a bit technical, but |
| 29 |
there is a big difference between something made from the ground up as |
| 30 |
64-bit versus something that was made 32-bit and just recompiled |
| 31 |
64-bit. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Some things are slightly faster in 32-bit, some things are slightly |
| 34 |
> faster in 64-bit, but neither mode seems to have a definitive |
| 35 |
> advantage. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Yes, with the unfairness of the compiler, that is true. It's a lot |
| 38 |
like if you had a car that could go 200MPH. Your driver may only hit |
| 39 |
80MPH (the 32-bit code on a 64-bit chip), but then you get a driver |
| 40 |
trained for 200MPH driving, and then he actually hits 200MPH (the |
| 41 |
64-bit code). |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
It's like the good data in good data out / bad data in bad data out theory. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> So unless and until you require more memory or specific applications, |
| 46 |
> I don't think you need to worry about 64-bit. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Well, I think we must include bragging rights into our deliberation. |
| 49 |
That's a major part of it, too. Even though some people may never use |
| 50 |
more than a whole MHz of their PC, they still like to brag ; ) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
PS: I'm not one of them. If there were a law against computer abuse, |
| 53 |
I'd be locked up for life - It pains me to see a CPU idling. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> -Richard |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> -- |
| 58 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
========== GCv3.12 ========== |
| 65 |
GCS d-(++) s+: a? C++ UL+>++++ P+ |
| 66 |
L++ E--- W+(+++) N++ o? K? w--- O? M+ |
| 67 |
V? PS- PE+ Y-(--) PGP- t+++ 5? X R tv-- b+ |
| 68 |
DI+++ D+ G e* h- !r !y |
| 69 |
========= END GCv3.12 ======== |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives