Slashdot Mirror


Are We Not Ready For 64-Bit?

Q3vi1 writes "The Inquirer posted an intriguing article about how Intel doesn't think that we'll be ready for mainstream 64-bit computing until 2007. Coupled with the fact that MS isn't supporting the Opteron yet for their Windows 2003 Server, we may see a delay in consumer applications for 64-bit computing. However, as this article states, some people don't really care and will just go for Linux and AMD as a nice marriage."

2 of 451 comments (clear)

  1. 64bit Game Server by aliens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they're cheap enough, 64bit will help gaming in a big way. The counter-strike team reported a ~30% increase in performance just by recompiling. Granted CS doesn't need a cray to run, but Battlefield 1942 has had some 64 player servers which I believe needed dual Athlons. 64 people is fun, but how bout 128?

    Not only that, but with an (relatively)inexpensive 64bit chip out there I could see more servers popping up to play on. More servers hosting large games would be great! Feed my addiction please.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
  2. Re:Why would I want to move to 64 bit computing? by molarmass192 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's not exactly true. You're forgetting that the entire bus architecture would be 64 bit. There wouldn't be any slowdown since there's no basis for comparison. The upside is that really big (ie. > 4G) file operations and double integer ops should be much faster. Think video and databases for apps that would benefit greatly. I agree that for mom sending email and surfing the web, there's no real incentive to invest in this kind of hardware. However, for data mining, this is a big deal. It'll be interesting to see if a peripheral market develops around the 64 bit arch. Should prove interesting!

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato