Don't forget too that with both the Athlon 64 and x64 Windows, we are
talking about 32bit with 64bit extensions, not a true 64bit OS or CPU. The
Itanium is the only true 64bit CPU which is windows compatible. So really,
the primary benefit of x64 isn't directly about processing data in 64bit
instructions, because it doesn't. It's about using a 64bit memory model and
making it available to what are still just slightly modified 32-bit
applications.

"JW" wrote in message
...
If a 64 bit CPU can transfer data in 64 bit blocks instead of 32 bit
blocks I would certainly expect that any application such as the OD itself
that moves blocks data around to perform faster since it is the OS that
moves the data normally and not the application and therefore itg can be
done with 1/2 of the number of move instructions being executed. Or
course you would only see this gain with applications or OS functions that
move a lot of date which certainly is not a lot of them.
"Phillip Pi" wrote in message
...
Ah. I thought the bits were for speeds. Nevermind then!


On 12/28/2006 3:48 PM PT, Robert Moir wrote:

Phillip Pi wrote:
Are you saying if I had a dual core Athlon 64 939/AM2 setup, I would
notice the performance differences on the same box?

I'm not sure _why_ you expect to see a performance difference in the
first place.

Think of 64 bit as increasing the ability to carry heavier loads over
longer distances rather than increasing the ability to sprint for 100
metres.

I see VM's as the single most likely place where home enthusiasts will
likely wish they had more than 4GB available to them in the next couple of
years. If you take the plunge into x64 today, you will have to deal with a
lot of incompatibilities in the beginning but will save yourself a new
install later.

Of course if your mobo supports 2GB or less, it's more likely you'll be
reinstalling before benefiting anyway.

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
So... gotta ask that stupid question... if'n I run VM's... and I do...
LOL... am I going to benefit from x64 with it's higher RAM ceiling in
which I could possibly run more VM's, even if the app is 32bit?

Lang

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
...
A 64bit cpu us more efficient in running both x86 and x64 operating
systems than a 32bit cpu is. An x64 OS is more efficient where heavy
memory requirements come into play and you have added memory above what an
x86 OS can support. But it is the greater number of registers, larger
caches, and other architectual advances of the 64bit cpu's that matters,
not so much the code. That is not to say that code written to run 64bits
natively won't perform better than 32bit code; it will. You can see
performance gains, but not because the code is running faster.

"Phillip Pi" wrote in message
...
Differences between 32-bit and 64-bit on the same 64-bit machine. I was
expecting 64-bit to be a bit smoother and faster.

You're confused. Although they're called 64 bit extension,
the CPU does in fact function as a true 64-bit processor
when in that mode. The reason they're called 64-bit
extension is because AMD extended the capability of the x86
architecture from 32-bit processing to 64-bit processing.
Now the addressing is not full 64-bit, I think it's either
40-bit or 48-bit.

LaRoux wrote:
Don't forget too that with both the Athlon 64 and x64 Windows, we are
talking about 32bit with 64bit extensions, not a true 64bit OS or CPU. The
Itanium is the only true 64bit CPU which is windows compatible. So really,
the primary benefit of x64 isn't directly about processing data in 64bit
instructions, because it doesn't. It's about using a 64bit memory model and
making it available to what are still just slightly modified 32-bit
applications.

"JW" wrote in message
...
If a 64 bit CPU can transfer data in 64 bit blocks instead of 32 bit
blocks I would certainly expect that any application such as the OD itself
that moves blocks data around to perform faster since it is the OS that
moves the data normally and not the application and therefore itg can be
done with 1/2 of the number of move instructions being executed. Or
course you would only see this gain with applications or OS functions that
move a lot of date which certainly is not a lot of them.
"Phillip Pi" wrote in message
...
Ah. I thought the bits were for speeds. Nevermind then!


On 12/28/2006 3:48 PM PT, Robert Moir wrote:

Phillip Pi wrote:
Are you saying if I had a dual core Athlon 64 939/AM2 setup, I would
notice the performance differences on the same box?
I'm not sure _why_ you expect to see a performance difference in the
first place.

Think of 64 bit as increasing the ability to carry heavier loads over
longer distances rather than increasing the ability to sprint for 100
metres.

Here's a couple of links to read about 64-bit extensions and
enhance your knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

This one is 10 pages:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1...s/index.x?pg=1



LaRoux wrote:
Don't forget too that with both the Athlon 64 and x64 Windows, we are
talking about 32bit with 64bit extensions, not a true 64bit OS or CPU. The
Itanium is the only true 64bit CPU which is windows compatible. So really,
the primary benefit of x64 isn't directly about processing data in 64bit
instructions, because it doesn't. It's about using a 64bit memory model and
making it available to what are still just slightly modified 32-bit
applications.

"JW" wrote in message
...
If a 64 bit CPU can transfer data in 64 bit blocks instead of 32 bit
blocks I would certainly expect that any application such as the OD itself
that moves blocks data around to perform faster since it is the OS that
moves the data normally and not the application and therefore itg can be
done with 1/2 of the number of move instructions being executed. Or
course you would only see this gain with applications or OS functions that
move a lot of date which certainly is not a lot of them.
"Phillip Pi" wrote in message
...
Ah. I thought the bits were for speeds. Nevermind then!


On 12/28/2006 3:48 PM PT, Robert Moir wrote:

Phillip Pi wrote:
Are you saying if I had a dual core Athlon 64 939/AM2 setup, I would
notice the performance differences on the same box?
I'm not sure _why_ you expect to see a performance difference in the
first place.

Think of 64 bit as increasing the ability to carry heavier loads over
longer distances rather than increasing the ability to sprint for 100
metres.

Well... like I said... t'was a dumb question... but not having dabbled in
x64 at all, I wasn't sure.

So... for me, this seems like a great reason to use x64 if'n one's into
running multiple VM's concurrently.

Thanks,

Lang

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
...
Of course. VPC and the memory mangager will handle it fine. The ram
allocation is a block of the host's memory but the 16bit or 32bit OS in
the vm has sees its own address space starting at zero.

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
So... gotta ask that stupid question... if'n I run VM's... and I do...
LOL... am I going to benefit from x64 with it's higher RAM ceiling in
which I could possibly run more VM's, even if the app is 32bit?

Lang

Yeah, the more the better... and it's really on 3GB's on x86...

Lang

"LaRoux" wrote in message
...
I see VM's as the single most likely place where home enthusiasts will
likely wish they had more than 4GB available to them in the next couple of
years. If you take the plunge into x64 today, you will have to deal with a
lot of incompatibilities in the beginning but will save yourself a new
install later.

Of course if your mobo supports 2GB or less, it's more likely you'll be
reinstalling before benefiting anyway.

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
So... gotta ask that stupid question... if'n I run VM's... and I do...
LOL... am I going to benefit from x64 with it's higher RAM ceiling in
which I could possibly run more VM's, even if the app is 32bit?

Lang

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
...
A 64bit cpu us more efficient in running both x86 and x64 operating
systems than a 32bit cpu is. An x64 OS is more efficient where heavy
memory requirements come into play and you have added memory above what
an x86 OS can support. But it is the greater number of registers, larger
caches, and other architectual advances of the 64bit cpu's that matters,
not so much the code. That is not to say that code written to run 64bits
natively won't perform better than 32bit code; it will. You can see
performance gains, but not because the code is running faster.

"Phillip Pi" wrote in message
...
Differences between 32-bit and 64-bit on the same 64-bit machine. I was
expecting 64-bit to be a bit smoother and faster.

I replied yesterday... but apparently my reply must've gone into the bit
bucket because I don't see it out in the root of this NG as a " yadda
yadda yadda" which I see sometimes...

Anyway... sounds like x64 is a great platform for VM's... lots of RAM to
play with.

Lang

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
...
Of course. VPC and the memory mangager will handle it fine. The ram
allocation is a block of the host's memory but the 16bit or 32bit OS in
the vm has sees its own address space starting at zero.

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
So... gotta ask that stupid question... if'n I run VM's... and I do...
LOL... am I going to benefit from x64 with it's higher RAM ceiling in
which I could possibly run more VM's, even if the app is 32bit?

Lang

Wow... the reply from yesterday just showed up... what's up with the major
delay in posting, I wonder?

Lang

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
...
Of course. VPC and the memory mangager will handle it fine. The ram
allocation is a block of the host's memory but the 16bit or 32bit OS in
the vm has sees its own address space starting at zero.

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
So... gotta ask that stupid question... if'n I run VM's... and I do...
LOL... am I going to benefit from x64 with it's higher RAM ceiling in
which I could possibly run more VM's, even if the app is 32bit?

Lang

Also, except for Core Duo, all the cpu's that support virtualization in
hardware are 64bit, so you might as well run a 64bit host OS on such a
system.

btw, Vista may be the last Windows client version that even has a 32bit
edition. For sure, Longhorn Server will be the last 32bit server. The
projection for Longhorn Server R2 is that it will be 64bit only (2009?).

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
I replied yesterday... but apparently my reply must've gone into the bit
bucket because I don't see it out in the root of this NG as a " yadda
yadda yadda" which I see sometimes...

Anyway... sounds like x64 is a great platform for VM's... lots of RAM to
play with.

Lang

yeah... not too "with it" on hw virtualization... guess I will be soon
enough...

Lang

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
...
Also, except for Core Duo, all the cpu's that support virtualzation in
hardware are 64bit, so you might as well run a 64bit host OS on such a
system.

btw, Vista may be the last Windows client version that even has a 32bit
edition. For sure, Longhorn Server will be the last 32bit server. The
projection for Longhorn Server R2 is that it will be 64bit only (2009?).

"Lang Murphy" wrote in message
...
I replied yesterday... but apparently my reply must've gone into the bit
bucket because I don't see it out in the root of this NG as a " yadda
yadda yadda" which I see sometimes...

Anyway... sounds like x64 is a great platform for VM's... lots of RAM to
play with.

Lang