64 bit computing

[signeti]

hi , i cant really find a definitive answer on this one...
but i would like a semi future proof laptop and was thinking of buying an AMD 64 laptop , theres afew on the market but every manufacturer makes only 1 64 bit laptop for every 10 32 bit intel ones , so if 64 bit willl become the standard , why arnt people buying these .it seems like the way forward to me , its performance will only get better when MS longhorn is released

whats the catch???
cheers

[Saab Dastard]

The catch is that there are very, very, very few applications written to take advantage of 64-bit processing.

The reason that Itanium was such a flop was that it ran 32-bit apps slower than a 32-bit processor.

For the average personal PC user, there is no real benefit from 64-bit processing. Where they are useful tends to be in memory-intensive, compute-intensive applications.

As and when games can demonstrably take advantage of 64-bit computing, there will be a surge in take-up. Historically, games have been a significant driving force behind PC (as opposed to server) development - I believe the same will be true again.

I figure that there's a couple of years where 32-bit systems will continue to get faster, but will be forced to sell cheaper so that 64-bit systems can be priced competitively. I'd go for a fast 32 at a fraction of the cost of the 64.

SD

[FunkyMunky]

Despite the lack of native 64-bit apps (they are emerging however, have a look here (http://www.planetamd64.com) and there's even a 64-bit version of the game Far Cry), 64-Bit processors are the way to go at the moment. The Intel and AMD medium/high end processors all include 64-Bit technology (except presumably the Pentium-M), and even without 64-bit software, they're still at the cutting edge of 32-bit performance as well. Whilst not supported by all hardware manufacturers yet, and stuffy about some legacy software, the 64-Bit edition of Windows XP actually offers a performance increase in many applications, even if it is just because the operating system behind those apps is running more efficiently, rather than the applications themselves. If you are faced with an AMD64 laptop over an Intel Pentium based system, check to see if it's a Turion based system or just a desktop Athlon 64 crammed into a laptop shell. Battery life and mobility will be greatly increased with a Turion based system, and those "extra bits" will give you a bit of forwards compatibility with the likes of Longhorn (sorry, I mean "Vista" :p ). Similiarly, if battery life and connectivity are important on the Intel side, you'll want a Centrino/Pentium-M system, but I'm not sure if these feature 64-Bit yet.



Itanium was a flop with regards to 32-bit applications, but the same cannot be said of the Athlon 64 lines or the new Intel EMT64 lines. The fastest 32bit systems nowadays are 64-bit anyways, so there's really no reason not to have one.

[Saab Dastard]

Here's a quote from PC Magazine on Vista beta:

"The most significant element of Microsoft's performance story is that 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista are being built concurrently, so that users with computationally demanding or particularly memory-intensive applications should be able to choose a 64-bit version of Vista from day one, provided they have a 64-bit processor to run it on. (The other potential roadblock for running 64-bit versions of Windows is the availability of device drivers, so Microsoft is leaning on independent hardware vendors (IHVs) to provide 64-bit versions of their device drivers.) Microsoft has said that its preliminary performance testing shows that existing 32-bit applications often run faster under 64-bit Windows."

My view on performance is that you can get a 10% performance boost over 32-bit, but pay a 40% premium over 32-bit. And what will the performance increase be used for in Vista?

I am saddened to discover that Vista's new interface (Aero) will require beefy 3D graphics accelerators and use the OS to implement "Glass" display effects. I very much doubt that "glass" effects will increase my productivity one iota.

I'm not a luddite and anti-progress - I work in IT - but there is a great deal that is done because it is possible, not because it is necessary.

A question I frequently ask is "why does a dog lick his b*****s? Because he can.

It is a question that should be asked frequently in IT. ;)

So my thinking is that for the best bang per buck, 32-bit will offer superior value for the next couple of years. If you have loads of money and have to have the newest and whizziest - MS and intel shareholders just love you!

[Conan the Librarian]

Whilst 64 bit may be - is- the way to go, consider the following.

By the time mainstream 64 bit apps and operating systems are there, your premium 64 bit machine will probably be obsolete.

Whilst agreeing that heaven lies in that direction, I would also suggest that there are some very good bargains to be had in the interim as a result. (After all, the first fully functional Win 95 was Win 98 SE)

What lifespan do you expect from a PC? I remember when we all thrilled at a Pentium 75...

Don't pay a premium!


Conan

[FunkyMunky]

I can't argue against the fact that you may get more "bang per buck" with 32-Bit only systems, but you have to realise how much "bang" you need, and current 32-Bit only systems (AMD Sempron, Low end Pentium 4/Celerons) do not offer enough to run even the most demanding 32-Bit applications, never mind 64-Bit ones.

If you need high performance 32-Bit processing, then it's a truth that the fastest (and even the mid-range) processors in this field happen to be 64-Bit as well. The exception to this would appear to be the Pentium-M systems, which are a niche market and come at a steep premium, even on the desktop motherboards (which are practically non-existant).

Any system is going to be obsolete soon after you buy it. If all you need is casual web browsing, word processing and office tasks like such, then a 32-bit only processor is going to be fine. But these processors are almost obsolete already. 64-Bit processors offer the best of both sides, with high performance 32-bit processing now, and even if you buy a "bottom of the range" 64-Bit processor, at least some ability to prolong your investment as 64-Bit becomes more mainstream.

[Mac the Knife]

I don't know how well Longhorn/Vista will run on anything but a high-end laptop platform (expensive++).

As other people have said, only heavy-duty games (actually more dependent on the GPU) and major number-crunching apps strain the 32-bit platform.

The absence of drivers is a worry (likely to be even worse than for Linux for the forseeable future).

Much as I like AMD, I'd go for a Pentium M solution (probably the 745 with 2MB L2 cache at 1.80 GHz and 400 MHz FSB) with 1GB of memory and a decent GPU - there must be some good bargains out there at half the price of a 64-bit solution.

[egbt]

As Conan implied you probably can't future proof a PC let alone a laptop, unless you have a particular application in mind I suggest you stay with 32 bit technology, either buy cheap and throw away or go close, but not at the top end (avoiding that premium), for a longer life.

Also remember memory and a good graphics processor are as, if not more, important than very high end processor speed.