questions about 64-bit processor

[quantumspirit]

less than a week ago, I bought a new computer, with an Athlon 64, so I could play games better. I was told it was the best bet for gaming. I've noticed that I've had trouble with multimedia (online movies and soundbites), and have had to use the 32 bit emulation of Internet Explorer for those sites. I was wondering if the 64-bit version of Explorer would be better for security, that 32-bit viruses might run into trouble with a 64-bit system, because I do my banking online.

 

[somedude]

Let me make something clear: AMD64 is not faster because it is 64bit. In fact, it makes no difference unless you have 64bit applications. It is due to the superior architecture in comparison to Intel's (mostly) slow and overheated Pentium 4 (anti)technology.

If you have an AMD64, you shouldn't have any problems with media, since AMD's 64bit architecture is backwards-compatible with 32bit software. I believe your problem is that you are probably using Windows XP x64 edition.

I have trialled this version of Windows XP and it was total fiasco. It needs(not easily found) special drivers, and many applications are not compatible. Also, there are no noticeable perfomance gains. The only reason to have Windows XP 64bit is because it is the fist Windows version for x86_64. If you have the chance, use Windows XP 32bit(the normal version).

IMPORTANT: Just because Windows XP x64 edition sucked, not all 64 bit OSes suck! I am living happily with Gentoo x86_64.

 

[raphink]

Let me make something clear: AMD64 is not faster because it is 64bit. In fact, it makes no difference unless you have 64bit applications. It is due to the superior architecture in comparison to Intel's (mostly) slow and overheated Pentium 4 (anti)technology.

If you have an AMD64, you shouldn't have any problems with media, since AMD's 64bit architecture is backwards-compatible with 32bit software. I believe your problem is that you are probably using Windows XP x64 edition.

I have trialled this version of Windows XP and it was total fiasco. It needs(not easily found) special drivers, and many applications are not compatible. Also, there are no noticeable perfomance gains. The only reason to have Windows XP 64bit is because it is the fist Windows version for x86_64. If you have the chance, use Windows XP 32bit(the normal version).

IMPORTANT: Just because Windows XP x64 edition sucked, not all 64 bit OSes suck! I am living happily with Gentoo x86_64.

Same reaction here : if you bought a 64bits proc only to have it run on windows XP it's a waste of money and it's not going to be faster...

 

[Niz]

i'm getting my AMD 64 socket 939 3700+ today

 

[FatBurger]

AMD's 64-bit processors aren't really 64-bit, they're just 32-bit processors with 64-bit extentions, so you can rule out the processor as the source of any compatability issues. It also wouldn't make you any secure.

 

[somedude]

AMD's 64bit processors ARE 64 bit processors. The fact that all it does is implement 64bit extensions doesn't mean that it is still 32bit. AMD64 are able to go into legacy mode and also go into compatibility mode. That is, they can run 64bit and 32bit code (simultaneously!). Just because AMD didn't implement Intel's IA-64 doesn't make it any less 64bit.

 

[Analog]

Yeah mate, the Athlon64 processor is a processor that thinks using 64 bits of data at a time. When it runs 32 bit appz I believe it actually switches to a specialised 32 bit processing mode (as apposed to processing with the 1/2 of the bits zeroed/nulled out).

If you install a 16 bit OS like DOS, i bet your 64 bit processor will even handle that just fine too From memory all processes need to be compatable with the 80386 aritecture (thats 2 generations below the pentium 1) for the them to work correctly.


The problems the OP was talking about seem more software then hardware. A CPU bug is more likely to crash the entire system at seemingly random times. As for encryption it really doesnt make a difference. IE explorer has security issues, I highly doubt microsoft would of fixed those issues when recompling for 64bit without incorporating those security fixes into the 32bit version. If your worried about security use firefox. It has less secuity issues than IE.

 

[quantumspirit]

I have heard that another reason the Athlon 64 is better than the Pentium IV is because it has a wider front side bus

 

[FatBurger]

The fact that all it does is implement 64bit extensions doesn't mean that it is still 32bit.

Yes, actually that's exactly what it means. And who said anything about IA64?

AMD's processor is good, don't get me wrong. We've got a couple of servers here with AMD64 processors. But it's not a true, native 64-bit processor.

 

[Psalms34]

Yes, it's physically a 64bit processor. I hear some are 64/32bit mixed and call them 64-bit processors. 8 octets wide with 64bit data bus is a 64-bit processor though. If it can deal with 64bit chunks of data internally and externally than it is a true 64-bit processor. But yes, some CPU's are not quite true 64-bit processors as so claimed. Some have 64bit internal but only 32bit extensions.

It's true, you need the application/OS support to take advantage of the CPU. For now, Linux is a good product for 64-bit support and maybe someday M$ will slap us with an OS that takes full advantage of it as well... or is so bloated that you will need a 64-bit just to run it.

 

[simplicity]

I do all my banking and investing online. I've never been too concerned myself about security. Genuine backwards compatibility I guess means the 32-bit viruses are still compatible with your system, ha-ha. Thank goodness for that.

I don't expect to migrate to 64-bit unless there is a specific need. Gaming would be one of those needs if I played games. Because that's the sort of application that might take full advantage of the additional bits. I think 32-bit is already kind of inefficient. I'm usually casting down my 32-bit integers to 8-bit bytes. It's a real hassle and waste of resources. I would prefer variable-bit encoding myself. Or some might say I probably live on a different planet. Maybe someday the bitsize will vary according to personal need. 64-bit processing is way too large for almost all my needs.

 

[Psalms34]

As far as I know, it has nothing to do with security as like a 128-bit encryption web browser does. Not really directly related to video proccesses such as an old 8 bit Nintendo console compared to a 16 bit super Nintendo, but there are architectural similarities in this.

Simply, a 32 bit CPU has additional data paths that can carry data. Each byte of information consists of 8 bits of data which makes up the byte. Now with a 32bit processor you are able to process and distribute 256 bits of information per each hertz of the process. So if a processor is a 200mhrz (per second) you could theoretically process 51200000000 bits of information per second. Now if you tack on an additional 32 bit to that processor making it 64bit core and data path output you essentially double its potential processing power.

Sounds pretty straight forward and simple but of course the thing that has been holding such technology back is its heat transference. I'm sure the debates still rage concerning the limits if silicon and just how far such units can be developed until they reach the melting point. At some point, I'm sure, we will... grow biological computer systems.

 

[monkeysclub]

Use Firefox.