1 |
Just my .02c, but it seems like the 64-bit processors come with more |
2 |
hype than benefits. Not that the 64-bit move is a bad thing at all, |
3 |
but I mean it just seems like people tend to expect much more out of |
4 |
them than what they should. |
5 |
|
6 |
It would seem like a more accurate, but oversimplified explaination |
7 |
would be that it simply allows for other improvements within the |
8 |
computer, but it does not improve anything on it's own. For instance, |
9 |
allowing >4GB ram, which in turn gives better performance. From what |
10 |
I've read, there are improvements in certain things that are specific |
11 |
to number crunching, like a database with mathematical formulas. |
12 |
However, for a desktop processor, the difference is going to be barely |
13 |
noticeable, if any, especially since most desktops don't use more than |
14 |
4 gigs of ram. |
15 |
|
16 |
It definitely seems to be a difficult thing to explain though due to |
17 |
the nature of the processor. Most people think simply 'more numbers = |
18 |
more speed', but that's not really case, and surely not the point. |
19 |
Since around the mid 90's, processor speeds have steadily increased, |
20 |
but in the last couple of years, that increase has halted. |
21 |
Supposedly, the speeds have been maxed out for the size of the |
22 |
processors, so that's why the manufacturers are trying different |
23 |
routes, like hyperthreading, dual core, multi-core, and 64-bit. None |
24 |
of these features directly improve performance, but they do increase |
25 |
it's capabilities. More specifically, they allow the computer to do |
26 |
MORE tasks better, instead of focusing on speeding up tasks. That's |
27 |
not a bad thing really, because it's nice to be able to do multiple |
28 |
things simultaneously, like burning a cd while listening to mp3s and |
29 |
playing games on a LAMP server that's running emerge -u world without |
30 |
any degradation in performance in any of the processes. |
31 |
|
32 |
That kind of performance seems to be what is intended with these |
33 |
different avenues that the chip makers are taking. That is not to say |
34 |
that single tasks will perform any better, and I think the lack of |
35 |
discerning the difference is causing a lot of confusion for most |
36 |
people, especially when they aren't familiar with low level |
37 |
programming. |
38 |
|
39 |
On 3/29/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@××××××××××.org> wrote: |
40 |
> On 3/29/06, Lord Sauron <lordsauronthegreat@×××××.com> wrote: |
41 |
> > www.alienware.com I beg to differ. I could have sworn I saw a laptop |
42 |
> > with more than 2G... where was it... wow! You appear to be right! |
43 |
> > Darn.. I could have SWORN I saw something with > 2G... |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Actually, you are right. I neglected the monstrous Clevo laptop. Its |
46 |
> an AMD X2 with capacity for 2 optical drives plus 2 hard drives, up to |
47 |
> 3G of memory, and a 200W power adapter. Weighs 12-15 lbs, _not_ |
48 |
> counting the power adapter! This is acutally a Clevo design, sold by |
49 |
> Sager, AGearnotebooks, and many others. Alienware got it with a |
50 |
> customized case. All of the reviews I read on it basically said |
51 |
> "incredible performance, excellent display, but heavy, noisy, and |
52 |
> really hard to describe how large it really is". |
53 |
> |
54 |
> I was actually considering purchasing this beast...but the noise |
55 |
> factor scared me off. Not really appropriate for a shared office or |
56 |
> conference room. |
57 |
> |
58 |
> > compiler helps with the 64-bit part. It gets a bit technical, but |
59 |
> > there is a big difference between something made from the ground up as |
60 |
> > 64-bit versus something that was made 32-bit and just recompiled |
61 |
> > 64-bit. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> For most applications, this is not true. The vast majority of C/C++ |
64 |
> code that runs on a desktop system couldn't care less whether longs |
65 |
> and pointers are 32-bits or 64-bits in size. It is a compiler |
66 |
> function to deal with that. And it is also a compiler function to |
67 |
> determine whether 64-bit or 32-bit registers should be used for a |
68 |
> particular operation. FYI, gcc has supported non-x86 64-bit CPUs for |
69 |
> a long time, so gcc's 64-bit support is probably more mature than you |
70 |
> think. So are the applications...many open source applications were |
71 |
> ported and adapted (if necessary) to 64-bit sparc and alpha processors |
72 |
> back in the late 90s. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> There are opportunities for some programs to take advantage of special |
75 |
> processor operations through assembly instructions. This is very |
76 |
> similar to how 3Dnow, MMX, SSE, et. al. make programs faster. So |
77 |
> there may be some specific optimizations for some operations that can |
78 |
> be improved over time. |
79 |
> |
80 |
> An example of an application domain that could benefit from 64-bit is |
81 |
> encryption, because for key setups you need to calculate very large |
82 |
> numbers. Such numbers could be calculated about twice as fast with |
83 |
> 64-bit operations vs 32-bit. *BUT*, this does almost nothing for the |
84 |
> actual data encryption itself. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> A good resource on the 64-bit vs 32-bit issues is to look at AMDs |
87 |
> optimization guide for software developers. Chapter 3 is particularly |
88 |
> relevant: |
89 |
> |
90 |
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25112.PDF |
91 |
> |
92 |
> -Richard |
93 |
> |
94 |
> -- |
95 |
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
96 |
> |
97 |
> |
98 |
|
99 |
|
100 |
-- |
101 |
Mike Myers |
102 |
mike@××××.us |
103 |
http://www.yaay.us |
104 |
|
105 |
-- |
106 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |