Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Are You Switching to 64-bit Processors?

Posted by Cliff on from the is-64-bit-windows-worth-the-switch dept.

chip_whisperer asks: "I used to be a big time custom desktop builder, making many working boxes per year, but I've been off the bandwagon for about four years now and am trying to get back into it now that Ars Technica has just released their recommendations. The standard seems to be heading towards 64-bit processors, but I'm wondering if it worth it to run a box on XP-64? I've heard that driver support for 64-bit processors can be a hassle. Also, for you fellow Linux geeks, how are current distros (like Suse, Ubuntu, Debian, and others) doing in supporting 64 bit processors?"

3 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why would I? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most programs run at about the same speed, but some programs gain a lot from running in 64 bit mode.

    One example is that bit-board chess engines, including the current top engine Rybka, are much faster. Non bit-board engines gain little or are slower (The extra registers! They do nothing! Or at least not enough to do more than make up for the code bloat).

    Large number arithmetic (e.g. encryption) gains even more because one 64 bit multiply does more that twice the work of a 32 bit multiply.

    --
    a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  2. Re:Why would I? by sowth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but if he doesn't need an upgrade, then it is much cheaper to not buy any hardware at all. ;-)

  3. Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is one of those areas where I feel that AMD was about 2 (3?) years ahead of Intel.

    They came out with a 64bit CPU that, unlike Itanium, performed just as fast on 32bit tasks as the predecessor. Which meant that buying AMD 64bit chips was a no-risk decision. You could get a 64bit chip (future-proof) but without sacrificing performance on existing 32bit workloads. I don't know if it was an engineering or marketing decision, but it was an important one.

    Imagine a world where Intel's Core 2 was the first 64bit chip for x86. It would've pushed the move to 64bit back to 2010 instead of possibly happening as soon as 2007.

    (Not sure when the 64bit Xeon CPUs first hit the market. We've been buying all Opteron systems.)

    --
    Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?