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?"

2 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why would I? by Burdell · · Score: 0, Redundant

    IIRC, the processing power can increase if you run 64 bit apps, because the 64 bit extensions include more registers (which means fewer loads and stores to RAM). 32 vs. 64 bit doesn't affect how much hard drive space you can address, as modern OSes all address >32 bit files already (unless you are still running FAT32).

    Also, for the most part, 32 bit structures do NOT take up 64 bits on a 64 bit arch. An int is still 32 bits, and I believe both AMD and Intel can handle (without extra overhead) 32 bit aligned reads of 32 bit data (so no padding is required). Pointers of course are larger, but they do carry more information (with a larger virtual address space, arranging different things in RAM is easier).

  2. Re:Windows user by Kraeloc · · Score: 1, Redundant

    That's not a pitchfork; the Daemon wields a trident.

    It's a common mistake. Just remember: four tines, it's a pitchfork; three prongs, it's a trident.