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."
Apple will come out with a 64-bit OS X sometime in the next year (with the 970). Critics will say "Wow!", and then ignore it. Apple sales won't change a bit and three years later MS will come out with 64-bit computing to universal acclaim and the market will buy it like hotcakes...
99.9% of the population do not use the currently level of computing power available. As a consultant I get the question all the time "Do I need to upgrade to a faster machine" when all the person is doing is a little word processing and surfing the net.
they're counting on $3000 IA-64 chips to preserve their profit margin, but if 64 bit catches on in the mainstream, they're going to have to follow AMD with x86-64 at much lower margins.
I think the problem is that if microsoft don't adopt opteron then AMD will not get the volumes needed to substantially undercut the price of itanium - if it isn't highly price/performance competitive with intel/sparc then your average linux shops simply won't adopt it.
.
:^)
So once again microsoft have the power to crush a fantastic new technology before it even gets off the ground
like a weight looming overhead - have to say i know that feeling
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
take off every sig for great justice
What to tell the pointy-haired boss:
Linux finally has a feature M$ Windows doesn't have, 64 bit support! It's why we need to switch all our servers to Linux!
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
Here's something in German that you might want to run through: http://www.heise.de/ct/03/07/026/
:-)
Yes, go translate it, unless you can read and understand German, or just don't care to read it.
4th paragraph under what babelfish translates as "Imbedding"
"Nevertheless one will not only be able to select to the planned Launch between different 64-Bit-Linuxen. Microsoft announced in the meantime, one day before the planned launching of a vessel, thus on 21 April to bring the Windows-XP-Server-2003-Version out for AMDs 64-Bit-Prozessor officially."
Looks like the story is still up in the air...
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
Just yesterday a few people suggested on apple.slashdot.org that the next release of OS X, code named 'Panther', may include 64-bit support. Apple may think we're ready.
But do we need it? Will the benefits outweigh the cost. I think Apple's offloading of CPU tasks to the graphics board for Quartz Extreme is an example of just one of the alternatives for speeding up machines. Offload more tasks to other intelligent subsystems.
I am ready, since when the 64-bit machines come out I can pick up a 32-bit on the cheap!
My user name was a mistake. Input wasn't restricted, my bad.
"4GB addressable memory ought to be enough for everyone."
The last time we ran this story, Intel said they were "in no hurry". So I'm not surprised they haven't changed their mind exactly one month later ;-)
If this current situation shows anything, it is what happens to companies when they make deals with Microsoft. AMD's Chairman and former CEO Jerry Sanders agreed to testify on Bill G's behalf for the antitrust trial as long as MS ported windows to Opteron and Athlon 64.
As Apple has always been forward thinking to gain market share and attention, I think this will be yet another rush of sales for them, especially if Intel offerings start to have DRM built into the chips and continue to stretch processor pipelines to absurd stage numbers >20.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I've got two 64-bit machines at home, myself - an SGI Indigo2 and a DEC AlphaStation 200. Yeah, they're seriously out of date now, but they're still nice little workstations. *nix has been doing just fine on 64 bits for some time now. I do have to put up with all sorts of 'cast to pointer from integer of different size' warnings when I compile stuff, but I'm able to run 99% of the stuff I'd run on an x86 box on the Alpha.
Microsoft and Intel think we're not ready for 64 bit systems eh? I bet they think we still are doing just fine with that 640 K RAM. :)
You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
I'd be interested to know how many operations on today's computers actually even use up all 32 bits available to them. I'd expect those situations to be rare: Matrix math operations, some addressing.
How about every time you load a memory address or deference a pointer, since in 32-bit protected mode all you use is 32-bit addresses.
And oh, w/64-bit processors come 64-bit pipelines and the ability to use 64-bit instructions and data. The slowdown is nil.
Its really nice to break the two-gig barrier in program buffers. Sun-SPARC and SGI-MIPS have been 64-bit since 1994.
I wanted to find some more information myself about Linux supporting 64-bit processors and this is what I found. Mandrake will have support by early 2003, I'm not sure if it's done now or not but it should be nearly done. Redhat is also offering support for the X86-64, check out the news release. Personally I think this is a great oppertunity for Linux to catch up to MS in market share. I look forward to upgrading...
"I believe in everything in moderation. Including moderation." -Dean DeLeo, Stone Temple Pilots
As I have been MS free since 2000, I really couldn't care less what they do or don't do. As for Intel, here's some news for them, they DO NOT have a monopoly like their special friend. I'll gladly purchase an AMD Opteron to run my shiny new Linux 2.6 kernel sometime this fall while the WinTel boys play their reindeer games. In fact, dare I say it, I'm GLAD this is happening. Hopefully, this will finally show Intel that their future is not tied to MS as it was in the past.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Do I need 64 bits? No.
Do I want competition to the Xeon in 4 way systems? (price and spec them, it is insane! 1.6 Ghz and 1200 a pop). Hell^yeah.
Opteron is not about 64 bits, it is just a nice addition. Opteron is about competition in the low end server/high end desktop market (which is intel dominated btw). The reaosn intel is naysaying 64 bits is because they have no competing thec in this area other than the Xeon which has terrible price/performance numbers.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
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.
The Opteron will still run x86 code fine so a install that will work on any x86 system will still work on the Opteron (although wasting the 64bit capability).
Although there is a reason it's called Wintel.
Your view of 'when are we ready for 64-bits' largely depends A) on how much money you are willing to spend on RAM and B) how soon your OS supports more than 4 GB of RAM on potential 64-bit hardware (PAE hacks notwithstanding).
If you're willing to spend $200 for RAM in your system, then when 4 GB of RAM is cheaper than $200, you'll basically be wanting a 64-bit system (PAE hacks notwithstanding).
With pricewatch.com showing 1 GB of PC133 SDRAM going for as little as $120, I'd guess that another 4x drop in RAM prices would lead to substantial consumer demand for 64-bit hardware.** And that doesn't even include the demand for 4+GB RAM now in database applications. Whatever the case, this would seem to be earlier than 2007. Unless Microsoft doesn't get its act together (they were pretty late with 32-bit 386 support, IIRC)... which wouldn't be such a bad thing, for Linux at least. But I wouldn't count on that.
--LP
** Yes yes, technically you probably need to spend a bit more to get higher density RAM so that you can fill or exceed 4 GB given the limited number of memory slots available in your system.
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
People might say that memory is cheap right now, but that's not the problem; the main limitation is the L2 cache; if the core of the process increases in size sufficiently to be larger than cache sizes, performance will suffer. This is partly why Intel is ramping up the L2 cache on Itanium 2; it needs it to keep performance up. The other reason is that it needs to compete with SPARC, Power-4 and PA-RISC in the server space which all have at least 4MB L2 cache, with 8MB being common. IIRC, newer PA-RISC CPUs have 32MB L2 cache (although they are dual-core, so it's really more like 16MB/CPU).
Fact is, most normal users aren't pushing the envelope of 32-bit computing yet, so consumers don't need 64-bit. It is desperately needed in scientific computing & servers where the 4GB hard limit is becoming a problem, but these are not "normal" users.
Personally, I'll go to 64-bit (well, other than the Ultra 30 I have) when it's a good idea for me to do so, either because I need the extra address space (unlikely in the short term; I'm hardly using my 768MB at the moment) or the price/performance is right.
...the RIAA and MPAA have issued a joint statement that consumers are not ready for the power of file-sharing networks, and should be content with CDs and DVDs for the foreseeable future.
Seen any BadMarketing lately?
Multimedia editing is a desktop app that can make good use of 64 bits. It isn't uncommon to to have uncompressed DV captures 17GB in size. Add effects and a few edits and the address space of a 32-bit machine can start to hurt in a hurry. The end result will have to be compressed as well. Yes there are ways to cope with it but it re-introduces the segment offset nightmares of old school x86 programming. Also memory sizes on end user desktops are increasing. Anything more than 2GB on an x86 box starts getting painful. Yes, I know they can `technically' handle 4GB but kludgery starts setting in at 2GB.
"Mom" is starting to use this "PC Thingy" to make home movies. I see "Mom" needing 64 bits before long.
64 bit server computing has been around for at least a decade. I was using a 64 bit DEC alpha
box back in 1994. Why is it that whenever middle aged or even old technology appears on in the PC
world its suddenly a Big Deal? I realise that Joe Sixpack won't have ever heard of 64bit (or probably even be able to spell it)
but surely the more technologically savvy types who read this site should know better?
Can you please explain to those of us who clearly don't know any better why certain PC applications are "dying" for 64-bit processors? Hint: they won't magically become faster.
Addressable memory. Right now the limit is 4GB. With Windows XP, the OS sets 2GB aside for the OS, so apps only get 2GB, and that's shared across all the apps.
For word processing and surfing the net as it currently is now, none of this matters.
But if you want rich multimedia content, the ability to do serious 3D imaging on the fly (think 3D operating systems) and the like, you're going to need more RAM. The only way to get that is with a 64-bit chip.
The AutoCAD and 3D Studio and Photoshop apps the parent poster mentioned *are* dying for more RAM. I have 3D models that are pushing that 2GB limit.
My journal has hot
Yeah, but we'll see just how long Microsoft ignores Opteron when everyone starts buying low-cost servers based on Linux and Opteron. They will have no choice but to adopt it. Even then, it will be growing on the desktop.
Keep in mind that these processors are going to be *replacements* for the current line of consumer-grade AMD stuff... Not Intel server chips. Not SPARC. As long as AMD continues to beat Intel to the punch in terms of performance and features at a low price, I don't think it will be a problem... And that's exactly what they have in mind.
The 80386 processor introduced more than just 32-bit register addressing. It was also the first processor to support the protected mode interface to the processor and not to mention the ability to "virtualize" memory by paging to another medium. Windows 3.0 took advantage of the new features of the processor while still being a 16-bit operating system.
Nonetheless, I think the basics of 64-bit computing are solid for the server arena, but when you examine the Opteron processor (and the x86-64 architecture), AMD offers alot of simple performance benefits by simply assisting problems associated with register starvation (the more the merrier, right?) When you take this into consideration, any application that works with large chunks of data (be it 32-bit for Opteron's legacy mode, or native 64-bit) - it results in faster processing time. Compiling the Linux kernel should be faster with all those handy dandy general purpose registers that come with the Opteron.
I believe Intel understands what it is talking about, however - Intel has done an extraordinary job in predicting the market and following demand. However, in the case, I think Intel is purposefully leaving out the x86-64 implementation in their consideration. Early Itanium benchmarks (even the Itanium 2) show that the processor isn't up to snuff in most instances, and to compensate, Intel simply throws 2M (or even more) worth of cache to help the little guy out.
AMD, on the other hand, is not waiting for a certain time to flip the big switch for the consumers. By incorporating native support for all legacy 32-bit application code in the processor, mainstream consumers will be adopting 64-bit computing without necessarily utilizing it for what it was intended for, BUT they will enjoying the architectural benefits as a result.
Ayup
Are we ready for 64-bit on the desktop? yes. Do we need it? No, but that isn't the point of a lot of computer hobbyists. Most of us don't really need the latest video card from ATi or nVidia. Mose of us don't need the latest processor from AMD or Intel. But we still buy the latest and the greatest. Why? Could be a matter of manhood, or for the woman, womanhood. Whatever reason it is for this phenomenon, there is no doubt that it happens. Yes, we are ready, and no, we don't need it, but the hobbyist will still buy them if the average computer consumer won't.
---Baseball is not right, a man can not walk with four balls. mike9010
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the PowerPC/G4 based off of the POWER4 architecture... but with all the 64-bit (as well as several other "high-end" features) stripped out?
You're wrong. The G4 is basically a PowerPC G3 with an 'Altivec' vector unit.
Come on guys.... you know I'm right. Unless you're in the scientific fields that use huge numbers and insane gobs of memory, 64-bit data paths will be wasted cpu-real-estate.
And 640K of RAM should be enough for everybody.
What Intel is really saying here is that INTEL isn't ready for mainstream 64-bit computing.
Both AMD (Hammer) & IBM (PPC970) 64-bit processors will run 32-bit applications with no modification, and at more than full speed, unlike Intel's Itanium processors. By the time Intel gets around to a 'mainstream' 64-bit processor, both AMD & IBM will have years of experience with mainstream 64-bit CPUs, and in the CPU game, experience is invaluable. Then again, watching someone else make the mistakes often has an advantage, too, and I doubt Intel is going out of business anytime soon.
Most floating point calculations are already done in 64-bit (double precision) or 80-bit (extended precision). 32-bit (single precision) floating point is of limited usefulness on commodity Intel hardware.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I was ready for 64 bit a while ago, bu sadly, the Nintendo 64 didn't live up to my expectations. I'm sure somebody has already put Linux on it though ;)
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Intel has worked out that their Itantium/Pentium performance/cost manufacturing curves cross in 2007.
Also, asking the question presupposes there's an answer. "Mom, are you ready for 64-bit computing?" "64 what?" Most people don't know or care what their system architecture is, they just want their apps to work.
Which is why 2007 is really too late - we need a 64-bit time_t in production by 2007 so that 30-year mortgages can be properly calculated. (32-bit time_t values run out in 2038) Remember, that's how the Y2K problem was 'discovered'. If Y2K is any gauge, 4 years is about how long people will need to get all the systems fixed, so we ought to be getting started just about now.
Thanks, Apple.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
My wife is an attorney (corporate health care law; if you want to buy an HMO, she's your girl!), and found that to get decent performance with her day-to-day work (given the characteristics of MS -- and adobe! -- bloatware), she needed to go with 1 GB RAM; 512K was not enough.
And for what I do (serious environmental modeling), having to live within the limits of dinky little 2 GB files is ridiculous. And we wind up doing the analysis on desktops instead of directly on the supercomputers... Thank God (or Linux, or Alan...) for Large File Summit support in the recent Linux releases!
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
There's a really interesting article over at Ars Technica that discusses performance issues and what AMD does about them in their x86-64 architecture.
What's this Submit thingy do?
The thing AMD needs to do is put 16 or 32 DIMM slots in the motherboard for their 64-bit processor. As many others have pointed out, RAM is dirt cheap for up to 1GB DIMMs. I could buy a 64-bit processor and motherboard plus 32GB of RAM for a reasonable sum.
That's 32 gigabytes. Just the disk caching speedups alone would be worthwhile. My firm belief is the only reason these huge RAM sizes aren't common is the 4GB physical / 3GB per process limits of current 32 bit OSs.
Garbage Collection
"Real Languages" use garbage collection (ha, just trolling).
Seriously, the ability to use an address space that is gignormous is really worth a lot for garbage collection algorithms. For example, you can allocate into reserved portions of the address space and then the type of an object can be determined by its location. You can also use copying collectors without a big hit. Reserving half your address space for copying sucks at 2GB, it doesn't matter much for 17179869184 GB.
Also the "single address space" operating system concept needs more research. However, to get that research going now would require low cost plentiful hardware.
The fact is, there are tons of useful reasons to have 64 bits, we just don't know what they are because we haven't had 64 bits on a commodity platform.
If you have 64 bit addresses and about 1GB of flash RAM, you can completely avoid all the trouble of traditional filesystems. Have your OS use the disk like one big area of RAM, buffer into the NV RAM, keep all the metadata in NV ram, and use a journaled approach for metadata. Speed and simplicity instead of B-trees and inodes and such.
There are all kinds of reasons for 64 bit.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) http://www.endpointcomputing.com a scientific approach to custom computing.
Convenient that Intel thinks widespread demand for 64-bit won't occur until 2007 since they don't have a 64-bit desktop processor and Itanium tanked. AMD knows better. Check out their Studio64 which has quotes from tech leaders, analysts, press, etc. on when 64-bit will hit big and what this means for you and me: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366_7823 ,00.html