Best Processor?

[David Lindon]

64 Bit code is slower than 32 bit code and 64 bit code eats up cache memory twice as fast as 32 bit therefore and 32 bit version of a program will be measureably faster that its 64 bit parent because it is more efficient at memory usage.
I see Intel have take the safe ( and faster route) again

 

[Iowa]

64 Bit code is slower than 32 bit code and 64 bit code eats up cache memory twice as fast as 32 bit therefore and 32 bit version of a program will be measureably faster that its 64 bit parent because it is more efficient at memory usage.
I see Intel have take the safe ( and faster route) again

Please, surely Cache memory capabilities on computers would have at least doubled by the time Intel decide to come out with the 64 Bit processor with there computers ... computers will by then to handle a 64 Bit with no trouble at all, and thus handle the better capabilities of the 64 Bit.

 

[David Lindon]

Why? If 32 bit words are more effiecient then they will make best use of the larger cache sizes developed later? We already have up to 2MB (L3) on some xeons.

 

[Iowa]

I doubt that Intel wont make the 64 Bit ... i know for a fact they will - because they have to keep up with the competition - while AMD are making better processors and computers with there 64Bit (cmon, Computers have grown so much over the years, imagine what they'll be like in 10 years from now). They'll have better HDD space, better processor speed, etc, all capable of the worthy 64 Bit - then there will be little old Intel still straggling along with the 32 Bit? I doubt very much that'll happen - Intel are NOT gonna just let AMD advance in technology and walk all over them.

 

[David Lindon]

But 32Bit still come out slower in benchmarks. Have you seen intels new 'Extreme' line anyway?

 

[XtremeWarrior]

well for a home processor the Athlon XP is very good, the P4 isn't that bad but I think AMD offer more performance for less money, but if I had the choice I would go for the Athlon 64.

VIA are mainly low energy CPUs so quite good for portables but not as performant as Intel or AMD.

Transmeta are usually for mobile devices and that.

And the G5 is probably one of the most powerfull processors in relation to it's frequency and it seems pretty good but it's for a Mac and they're not cheap.

 

[XtremeWarrior]

btw Intel already make 64bit CPUs - the Itanium - but they are expensive, designed for servers and will not work with a 32bit OS.

here are a few advantages of 64bit:
-can support more memory.
-more performance when you add/subtract/multiply/etc 64bit numbers cos you can do it in less instructions.

 

[Kalthorn]

I only recently brought the AMD Athlon 64 for a new computer as mine is still a 1.4! I have not used it yet as I am being forced into not using it until Christmas. I have been wondering - in the power of the 3.2 HT Intel Processor whether the 64-Bit (the only reason I brought an AMD) was worth it? Money wise it was anyway, but the 3.2 for less money has outperformed the 64 at every benchmark practically.

I'm hoping everything will become 64-Bit and therefore the 64 will pay for itself in the future, as there are no 64 Bit Benchmarks other than Windows XP 64 Bit - which I shall try my very best to swindle from somewhere.

 

[Reiken1]

I personally don't know much about the internal workings of a CPU, I would be interested to read some articles if anyones got links. I have always been with Intel, had no reason to go anywhere else, so I can't really compare, other then to say that Intel have worked well for me.

I have read a bit about HT and 64bit, personally I think they are going to eventually merge the two technologies and disband 32bit, and the likelyhood is that it won't stop at 64bit. I don't know how long it will take, but I expect it's going to go up again sometime in the next few years, considering the 'expotential' advances being made by hardware manufacteuers.

Although, some predict that the focus of CPU specifications will not be on operating frequency but in bit capacity and in what technologies it supports (like HT).

Either-way, in terms of future proofing and planning, it's not going to be hardware that the general home consumer is squabling about, it's going to be software.

RC

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Touchet!

I have always hated AMD, and always loved Intel, and was planning to get the 3.2 HT until I got to PC World and saw the 64 Bit. I knew at the time that I needed to get it even if it is AMD: because if I got a HT, although it would be physically faster I would need a brand new computer within a year to do anything like what I want to do - I need to go to College AVCE ICT to get into Computer Science at Uni and get a 1.1 and therefore work at Microsoft: my aim at least! ALso I was planning on getting a Longhorn Beta - and that will, I would bet on need a 64 bit processor just to start up!