Dual-core and 64-bit

[JDArt]

Here is some information I've gleaned about the new 64-bit and dual-core technologies that you might be tempted to buy.

64-bit computers
The computer industry has been gearing up for 64-bit computers for a few years now. It's only now that manufacturers are beginning to release PCs based on 64-bit processors. HP and other major computer makers now offer 64-bit PCs in their lineups geared toward consumers.

Right now, however, 64-bit computing is a mixed bag. In theory 64-bit computers can handle more memory and larger data files. Today's 32-bit Intel-based computers, for instance, can address only 4 gigabytes (GB) of memory, and that 4 GB is split between the operating system and applications.

64-bit computers, by contrast, can theoretically address up to 16 exabytes of memory. That's over 16 billion gigabytes. Practical limits will be much lower. Still, the extra usable memory will allow developers of memory-intensive applications such as games, video applications, and photo programs to offer features not currently possible due to memory restrictions. Game developers, for instance, can introduce fans to levels of virtual reality not possible with today's systems.

But 64-bit computers require 64-bit operating systems - and 64-bit applications - to be of any use. Currently, there's a just-released Windows Server x64 Edition from Microsoft. It's geared primarily toward businesses that require databases to be able to access large amounts of memory. Trying to run typical 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system is a hit or miss affair. Either they run or they don't.

The migration to 64-bit should and will come gradually for most of us. Don't be lured in by the 64-bit hype today. Most consumer applications on the market haven't yet been ported to perform on a 64-bit platform, so the extra memory and resources addressable by a 64-bit computer will go wasted.

Dual-core processors
The computer industry has created quite a buzz around dual core processors, which sandwich the brains of two processors onto one chip . Prices for PCs based on these new dual core processors are running several hundred dollars above machines based on what are now traditional single-core designs.

The benefits of a dual core system are often stated thus: You can* play games or watch videos while burning a DVD or CD in the background, all without noticing so much as a hiccup from your PC.

Dual-core machines do indeed perform better while multitasking, but the performance difference isn't as stark as the advertising would lead you to believe. First of all, today's dual-core processors run at clock speeds slower than today's top single-core processors. When running single applications without a great deal of multitasking, a high-end single-core processor will outrun a dual-core chip.

Even those for whom multitasking is a large part of their day should ask themselves how much time is actually lost waiting for a process to finish in the background while working on something in the foreground. If the answer is "very little" or "none," ignore the dual-core hype. Rest assured that the actual amount of time saved by using today's fastest processors and the fastest processors from two years ago is still measured in seconds, if not milliseconds.

It makes much more sense to focus on what are more significant performance bottlenecks in most computers today: the speed of the hard disk and the amount of memory installed.

[Worm324]

Great info here JDart, Thanks That explains why my single core AMD desktop gaming machine is way faster than my dual core Laptop.

Jay

[jfrancho]

While running scrips and actions, or just converting a large batch of raw files, Dual Core allows me to do other things, and the difference is remarkable. Most things, like web surfing, editing a document, reading email, etc. don't require a lot of processor, so they work as fast as if nothing was running in the background. For me, Dual Core processors is a huge advantage in both efficiency and price, given the price of multi processor machines.

[jfrancho]

BTW, this looks like a snip of another post on another forum

[jfrancho]

Oh, and I've been using a 3.4 GHz Dual Core for two years now. Still the fastest machine I've used, even compared to what Dell touts as a "high speed gaming system."

[Worm324]

Yeah, in certain applications as you said it is much better. Rendering a scene in Cinema 4D or 3d Studio max goes twice as fast with my dual core, but each core is only 2.8. With both CPU's at 100% when rendering my computer is still useless. With 1 core it goes to 100% and the computer is useless. In both these computers when rendering the PC is maxed out.

So depending on the application it is certainly way better. In other applications it is not as fast only because the individual cores are slower

Bottom line for me is more ram!! 2gig is not near enough, I need at least 4, but with windows XP only recognizing 3 it's borderline pointless to spend the money to upgrade. Hopefully Vista will support more ram on my next machine. Between Lightroom and PS I'm always running at a minimum of 1.5gig or ram. It's brutal!!

Maybe I'll get a G5 next lol

Jay

[golfer]

Worm, could you expand on XP recognizes only 3 gig of ram. I installed 4 with XP, is one useless?

[jfrancho]

Memory Support and Windows Operating Systems

XP Pro supports 4GB RAM. XP Home supports 3GB. One reason some use Server is for multi processor support and even more RAM capability. Another thing to keep in mind is that some applications can access more RAM than the OS limitation. At work, we used a knowledge base app that could do this.

[Worm324]

Interesting read. Actually it confused me a bit. I was under then impression that windows XP proffesional can recongnize 4 gig, but it can only utilize 3 gig due to some hubub with the kernal.

"This switch allows applications to address 1 GB of additional virtual address space above 2 GB."

I've never heard of this switch, but this is what lead me to beloiev windows xp Pro can only utilize 3 gig.

In any event I wish I could have 4 gig of strait-up working ram I do only have xp home on my Laptop though

Jay

[nyschulte]

AFAIK
the hardware sees 4 GB. But some address space is required for mapping the PCI, PCI-e extension cards into the 4 GB memory space.

Depending on the configuration of the PC the amount of usable memory for XP varies.
Factors are:
motherboard (decides how the resources are mapped)
number, type and model of extension cards
...


This reply is written on a machine with physical 4 GB (4 x 1 GB)
which is recognized with hardware diag software like PC Wizard
The properties of XP and the taskmanager show 3.5 GB usable/available memory

Depending on the brand the usable memory can be as low as 3 GB

Nicolas

[golfer]

OK, you guys have a deep conversation going now. The next question to hit my pea sized brain is; how do you free up as much ram as possible for other uses. My XP pro is a ram hog [or the programs are]. Do all these programs need to be loaded into ram and how do you get them out if you don't want/need them there?

[jfrancho]

That's tricky. It takes some research to determine whether a process is valuable, questionable, or downright useless. Whenever I see a process in the Task Manager I don't recognize, I do a search on the web to educate myself as to what it is, and put in one the three categories listed above.

[blumesan]

I am in the process of rebuilding my computer now. Minimum new motherboard, CPU and memory. I have no wish to install Vista at this stage; I am happy with XP. Question: what do I need to look for in new MB & CPU that will allow me to run in 64 bit mode when (and if) reliable OS and applications are offered?

[felix.reichardt]

Originally Posted by nyschulte

AFAIK
the hardware sees 4 GB. But some address space is required for mapping the PCI, PCI-e extension cards into the 4 GB memory space.

Depending on the configuration of the PC the amount of usable memory for XP varies.
Factors are:
motherboard (decides how the resources are mapped)
number, type and model of extension cards
...


This reply is written on a machine with physical 4 GB (4 x 1 GB)
which is recognized with hardware diag software like PC Wizard
The properties of XP and the taskmanager show 3.5 GB usable/available memory

Depending on the brand the usable memory can be as low as 3 GB

Nicolas

I read in some whitepaper that it also depends on the amount of memory on your graphics card. The addressable room in Vista (dont know about xp but guess its the same) does comprise the RAM of the graphics card.

I have 4GB RAM and a Asus 8800GTS graphics card with 328 MB RAM . According to the Windows System Info I have 3327MB Ram availabe.

I tried Vista 64 for a while until I discovered that my Canon Scanner and Logitech webcam refused to work. No drivers available, so I returned to Vista 32 .

There is a switch to allow Vista to use more RAM but it's just a workaround and MS does not really recommend it.

[SgtDisturbed]

Originally Posted by JDArt

Here is some information I've gleaned about the new 64-bit and dual-core technologies that you might be tempted to buy.

64-bit computers
The computer industry has been gearing up for 64-bit computers for a few years now. It's only now that manufacturers are beginning to release PCs based on 64-bit processors. HP and other major computer makers now offer 64-bit PCs in their lineups geared toward consumers.

Right now, however, 64-bit computing is a mixed bag. In theory 64-bit computers can handle more memory and larger data files. Today's 32-bit Intel-based computers, for instance, can address only 4 gigabytes (GB) of memory, and that 4 GB is split between the operating system and applications.

64-bit computers, by contrast, can theoretically address up to 16 exabytes of memory. That's over 16 billion gigabytes. Practical limits will be much lower. Still, the extra usable memory will allow developers of memory-intensive applications such as games, video applications, and photo programs to offer features not currently possible due to memory restrictions. Game developers, for instance, can introduce fans to levels of virtual reality not possible with today's systems.

But 64-bit computers require 64-bit operating systems - and 64-bit applications - to be of any use. Currently, there's a just-released Windows Server x64 Edition from Microsoft. It's geared primarily toward businesses that require databases to be able to access large amounts of memory. Trying to run typical 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system is a hit or miss affair. Either they run or they don't.

The migration to 64-bit should and will come gradually for most of us. Don't be lured in by the 64-bit hype today. Most consumer applications on the market haven't yet been ported to perform on a 64-bit platform, so the extra memory and resources addressable by a 64-bit computer will go wasted.

Dual-core processors
The computer industry has created quite a buzz around dual core processors, which sandwich the brains of two processors onto one chip . Prices for PCs based on these new dual core processors are running several hundred dollars above machines based on what are now traditional single-core designs.

The benefits of a dual core system are often stated thus: You can* play games or watch videos while burning a DVD or CD in the background, all without noticing so much as a hiccup from your PC.

Dual-core machines do indeed perform better while multitasking, but the performance difference isn't as stark as the advertising would lead you to believe. First of all, today's dual-core processors run at clock speeds slower than today's top single-core processors. When running single applications without a great deal of multitasking, a high-end single-core processor will outrun a dual-core chip.

Even those for whom multitasking is a large part of their day should ask themselves how much time is actually lost waiting for a process to finish in the background while working on something in the foreground. If the answer is "very little" or "none," ignore the dual-core hype. Rest assured that the actual amount of time saved by using today's fastest processors and the fastest processors from two years ago is still measured in seconds, if not milliseconds.

It makes much more sense to focus on what are more significant performance bottlenecks in most computers today: the speed of the hard disk and the amount of memory installed.

You have forgotten the importance of 65 Nanometer transistors vs the old 90 Nanometer transistors on the dies. Smaller transistors = less power required, less heat, but at the same time you are processing information faster and overclocking is easier. The 65nm architecture of today's dual-core processors is what creates such a dramatic improvement in speed, not dual-core itself. Look at the old Pentium D (pre-915). That is a 90nm dual-core, running at anywhere from 2.6 to 3.2 GHz. It runs hot and much slower than the newer 65nm Pentium Ds and Core 2 Duos. Although it is still processing info at 3.2 GHz, it is still handling the info on a smaller scale because of the limitations of the architecture. My E6300 running at 2.4 GHz will kill a Pentium D 90nm running at 3.2 GHz without breaking a sweat.

Dual-core itself does give better performance, since it does allow you to do what I do often: play a graphics-intensive game, then control+alt+delete out of the game to hop online to maybe check email, download a new patch, or maybe make some purchases. When you switch out it doesn't miss a beat, it just goes straight out and you don't slow down at all. You could also take a screenshot int he game, switch out and open Photoshop CS3 and paste it, edit it and save it, and have it run just as fast as if you didn't even have the game running.

Hype? I call that a benefit that thousands of people are enjoying this very second.