• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Hatching Eggs . . .

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Thespis377

Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Location
Starkville, MS
Hatching Eggs . . . "
Ed Stroligo - 2/1/06
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00910/

While Ed does have a point that the Windows market for x86-64 hasn't been that spectactular, he's missing another point. 64 bit OS's have been around for years. Solaris has a PC version that's been 64 bit for a long time. There are many flavors of linux that are also 64 bit. I'm currently running a dual opteron with Suse 9.4 in the 64 bit version. Just because Microsoft is taking their sweet time to develop a viable x86-64 system, doesn't mean that x86-64 wasn't a good buy back in the day.
 

Richard

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
I believe Ed was asking a rhetorical question, "What has x86-64 done for you lately"? People that ran out and bought an x86-64 CPU with the idea that 64 bit was somehow going to justify their purchase were fooling themselves. Possibly still fooling themselves. What exactly has a 64 bit CPU done to improve your computing life? The average newegg shopper doesn't buy a dual opteron, slap linux on it, and start some highly specialized application. It's going to take Windows and some application that can make use of that extra address space to make an impact on most people's computing lives. Running 64 bit MS Word isn't it, btw. 64 bit (on the desktop) has turned out to be like MMX. Lots of hype. Little payoff.
 
OP
Thespis377

Thespis377

Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Location
Starkville, MS
Good point. I guess I don't think in terms of strictly desktops. Guess it just comes with my job of taking care of *nix servers.
 

speed bump

Member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Location
Montana tech Butte mt.
Really the problem is that no one really has that much incentive to code in 64 bit yet. Its expensive to take advatage of it in man hours and not very many people in the RW actually use it so why bother.
 

PingSpike

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2003
Location
Vermont, USA
AMD 64 served its purpose. Athlon 64s are good chips....buts its a lot easier to say to your average layman "This chip is better because its 64 bit instead of 32 bit" instead of "This chip is better because the ondie memory controller signifigantly increases the processors ability to do more work"

One is just appealing to the simple "more is better" marketing thats worked so well in everything from SUV sales to Intels own P4. The other is a more tangible but harder to define concept.

I'm not saying 64bitness is bad...I just think intel was correct when they said no one needed it right now. To bad for them no one really knows what they need right now!
 

cV

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2003
Location
Arizona
Yeah, I agree with the whole user thing. The vast majority of people probably think AMD's chips being better is a result of 64-bit, instead of an on-die memory controller and more efficient core architecture.

It's easier to sell chips that way.

The rest of us get 64-bit capable sempron 1.6s and pump them through the roof.
 

damarble

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Location
Spokane, WA
I think the argument is pointless. Who here has chosen AMD over Intel based only on 64 bit? Not me. It never even crossed my mind. I bought AMD because I got more performance than an Intel that cost $100 more. I could care less that AMD had 64 bit before Intel, because they still were better without even using it.
 

dropadrop

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Location
Finland
There are benefits to be reaped from 64bit, even on the desktop. I don't know if it's due to a differant compiler or what, but I definatly felt a differance in general snappiness under 64bit windows.

In my opinion Amd did well in starting the transition, as it will take a long time (due to other parties).

So no direct gain for now (ditched 64bit windows after 2-3 months due to lousy driver support).
 

MasterG

Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Location
Dallas, TX
damarble said:
I think the argument is pointless. Who here has chosen AMD over Intel based only on 64 bit? Not me. It never even crossed my mind. I bought AMD because I got more performance than an Intel that cost $100 more. I could care less that AMD had 64 bit before Intel, because they still were better without even using it.

Totally agree. 64-bit was the least of my concerns too. However, I did start out with the 64-bit Windows and eventually dropped that too. I wasn't able to run hardly anything on it. It just became a huge pain and wasn't worth it. I'm still happy with my X2 though regardless of 64-bit capabilities. More than anything it was THG's AMD vs. Intel stress test (here) that finally won me over for AMD. After seeing the results of that there was no doubt that AMD was the better choice.