Bits

[ed84c]

I here all this talk about bits (binary digits) and these new 64 bit processors compared to the old 32bit ones.

 

But what is a 64 bit processor (prosumably its 2^64 somethings) like most other computer systems for bits?

 

How are the new processors different?

 

How is windows x64 different?

 

What will be the difference in proportion?

 

 

Cheers, Ed

[5614]

Windows x64 is I assume the name of the version of XP which can handle a 64 bit processor -- it is almost identical to XP. I believe XP SP2 can handle 64 bit processors anyway.

 

Basically a 64 bit processor will be able to handle more complex or longer instructions, which is good for things like rendering and gaming, and everything, but things like rendering and gaming which use a lot of system resources are generally what benefit from upgrades.

 

Also 32bit can only handle up to 4GB of RAM, where as 64bit can handle 1TB or 1000GB of RAM

 

For example:

 

Storing two 64 bit numbers or integers on a 32bit processor would require 4 32 bit registries and 4 load insturctions, where as on a 64 bit processor it would only require 2 registries and 2 loads (same goes for storing/saving).

 

Basically a 64 bit processor can handle, load, work with data twice as fast as a 32 bit as well as being able to use more RAM.

[neo007]

Will a 64bit version of windows actually "feel" any quicker than the computers with fastest clock speeds available today?

[5614]

Well if by "the computers with fastest clock speeds" you mean a modern day superconductor being overclocked and being cooled by liquid nitrogen then almost certainly not!

 

However if you upgraded from your computer to a 64 bit processor you would notice the difference for rendering, gaming or other high resource using programs (even if you did keep everything else the same, ie. just changed 32 --> 64, kept the same RAM etc.)

 

At the same time I have never used one to know.

[psikeyhackr]

In some applications a 64-bit processor can be more than twice as fast as a 32-bit processor. The 64-bit machine should have a 64-bit Arithmetic Logic Unit, so it should be able to do a 64-bit multiply in one step. If each letter represents 32 bits then the 64-bit chip should work like this:

 

AB * CD = XXXX

 

The 32-bit chip would have to break the numbers up and manipulate the pieces like this:

 

(D*B+D*A) + (C*B+C*A) = XXXX

 

But how many applications need to do this kind of thing and how much? A lot of the word processing I see people do isn't any faster than what was done on 8 MHz 286's but the software uses lots of graphics that would choke a 286. I've seen WYSIWYG and realtime spell check force typists to slow down on a 486/66. Software can be created to waste CPU power. But more bits may not always make for better use. I used to keep a Pentium/90 running Windows 3.1 next to my Pentium/250 running Windows 2000 because the 16-bit Telnet worked a lot better than the 32-bit Telnet which would shift characters around and not line up columns correctly. I needed this to manage a Hewlett-Packard UNIX minicomputer. I don't know if it couldn't handle tabs properly or what.

 

They will make money selling 64-bits largely because plenty of people will buy it to say they have it, not because they need it.

[5614]

Only professionals who use graphics will need it. Gamers may want it. Rendering would be a lot faser.

[neo007]

while we're on the topic of games...apart from SLi based cards are X800 based graphics cards the best at the moment?

the reason for asking this is that...well i have a GeForce 2 ...enough said

[5614]

To be honest, if you're going from the GeForce 2 there's no point in going for the very best upgrade.

 

GeForce2 use PCI or AGP ports on the motherboard.

 

The best ones now use PCI-express.... there's no point spending a lot of money getting an almost top of the range PCI or AGP gfx card when it'll already be out of date to the PCI-express.

 

Unless you are getting a new motherboard and everything you may as well get as good a gfx card you can for say less than £100... that'll be a massive improve without spending a large amount on something already out of date.

[neo007]

yea...i was considering getting a new motherboard too...and processor...and RAM...basically i'm building a whole computer

[5614]

Cool.

 

The x800 is quite good, incidentally it supports AGP or PCI Express... IMO you can get a graphics card which will be almost as good for a bit less money. And remember that the screen makes a big difference too.

 

I've seen people with a really cool graphics card and a standard monitor and it just doesn't have the effect expected when you know what gfx card is in the machine. The gfx card supplies the output, the monitor is the output... making the monitor (within reason) more important.

[neo007]

so...would a larger size monitor necessarily mean a better monitor, or does response time and other specs play an important role?

when it comes to TFTs anything larger than 20" just seems to be overpriced for no apparent reason.

[Callipygous]

But what is a 64 bit processor (prosumably its 2^64 somethings) like most other computer systems for bits?

 

think along the lines of lanes on a highway. 64 bit processors have 64 lanes, 32 bit processors have 32 lanes.

 

the frequency your processor runs at is the speed limit. at 2 ghz a certain amount of data gets processed through your 32 lanes. if you have 64 lanes at 2 ghz...

 

 

however, 64 bit processors are not twice as fast as their modern 32 bit counterparts. they are faster, due to their bandwidth advantage, but as with all new technology, it is currently eneficient. we arent using it to its full potential. it will get better as more kinks get worked out.

[5614]

so...would a larger size monitor necessarily mean a better monitor' date=' or does response time and other specs play an important role?

when it comes to TFTs anything larger than 20" just seems to be overpriced for no apparent reason.[/quote']

 

The 3 mains things are:

 

size,

resolution,

refresh rate

 

The bigger it is the lower resolution, although you won't notice it. Think of it this way, an image displayed on your screen, now zoom in, it will become more pixal-y. If you have 1024 x 768 resolution screen which is 17" and another 19" one, the 19" will appear to have less quality, when in fact it doesn't it's just that the same quality is stretched over a large area.

 

Resolution, the higher the better basically! 2048 x something like 1024 or something seems to be the standard best (as in if you pay £1M you can always get better)

 

Refresh rate is how many times the screen updates every second. Remember old flickery screens, that was caused by low refersh rates. Not sure what's good or bad. Although as my monitor can do 75Hz I'd suggest taking that as a minimum, although look around before you take that to heart!

 

Oh yeah, and all this "ultra sharp" does seem to make a noticeable difference. I got my monitor, my friends brough the "ultra" version of it... you can see the difference.

[Silencer]

if you want a qualitiy monitor get a flat screen CRT. You get the crispness of a CRT without the round edges.

 

Also, you will want to run at the highest resolution possible (that you can still read text) to get the best viewing.

[neo007]

flat screen CRT? sounds expensive.

but surely it would be more practical to get a TFT; the main reason for saying this is that they take up a considerably less amount of space.

[5614]

I tend to agree... it is more practical to get a TFT and they're fine as far as quality goes.

[neo007]

I tend to agree... it is more practical to get a TFT and they're fine as far as quality goes.

 

On the other hand i've heard that TFTs tend to develop "black dots" or dead pixels, and probably at the most inconvenient times: just when the warranty runs out.

[5614]

No... that can happen very rarely on cheap TFTs after a few years. It's very rare, I've never seen it and I've seen TFTs after several years -- just don't go for really cheap ones.

[Dave]

No... that can happen very rarely on cheap TFTs after a few years. It's very rare, I've never seen it and I've seen TFTs after several years -- just don't go for really cheap ones.

 

It's not that rare really. Mainly I think they're due to manufacturing defects when you buy the monitor. Happened to me, but it's hardly noticable at all. If they're right in the middle, then it gets rather annoying, but otherwise you should be okay.

[Silencer]

My 19" flat CRT was just over $100. It's the best desktop monitor I've seen, save my brother's 21" model.

[Dak]

Windows x64 is I assume the name of the version of XP which can handle a 64 bit processor -- it is almost identical to XP. I believe XP SP2 can handle 64 bit processors anyway.

would system32 not need upgrading to system64, or am i misunderstanding its function?