I normally wouldn't open this topic but I heard people talking about even 128 bit ( gash
). Just tell me, why do we need it.Do we need 64 bit?
-
Cemre
Do we need 64 bit?
Do we need 64 bit? ??? what does it provide us that 32 bit doesn't. Does it speed us up? ( I don't think so ). I mean isn't the CPI ( clocks per instruction ) more effective on the speed? Memory management, paging, TLBs and whole other things are more difficult to handle in 64 bits ( not just for software but also for hardware ) It's not only the speed, do we have ANY system which has more memory than 4GB? ( Even virtually we wouldn't need that much )
I normally wouldn't open this topic but I heard people talking about even 128 bit ( gash ). Just tell me, why do we need it.
I normally wouldn't open this topic but I heard people talking about even 128 bit ( gash
). Just tell me, why do we need it.-
distantvoices
- Member
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Vienna/Austria
- Contact:
Re:Do we need 64 bit?
If I could afford it, I'd provide myself with a Apple dual G5 2ghz, which offers 64 bit - just because it is *cool* to have a 64 bit dual processor Apple machine at home - to do some tinkering with it, but mosta time to have a stable work horse for daily programming and designing. To say it short - I'd like it for the *geek* value but not due to technical reasons like growing short of cpu power.
IN fact, Otto-Normal-User - solars famous Joe Average - will not experience such a need from the technical point of view. 32 bits will serve him well for the next ten, twenty years, thou the bigsters will do heavy marketing to convince Otto-Normal-User of his urgent need for 64 bits - well, and he will obey, thats as sure as a snail bears its house - for he canna tell for sure, what his longings really are in that area. And because it looks shiny and fine and like a thing one must have in his nest.
Some of course might tell otherwise, but I just say: If folks *let* it happen, it *will* happen. In the end, this is, why the biggies happen to be big and others remain small.
Stay safe. It is not a question of *need*, it is a question of *wanting to have* - hm and affordability.
IN fact, Otto-Normal-User - solars famous Joe Average - will not experience such a need from the technical point of view. 32 bits will serve him well for the next ten, twenty years, thou the bigsters will do heavy marketing to convince Otto-Normal-User of his urgent need for 64 bits - well, and he will obey, thats as sure as a snail bears its house - for he canna tell for sure, what his longings really are in that area. And because it looks shiny and fine and like a thing one must have in his nest.
Some of course might tell otherwise, but I just say: If folks *let* it happen, it *will* happen. In the end, this is, why the biggies happen to be big and others remain small.
Stay safe. It is not a question of *need*, it is a question of *wanting to have* - hm and affordability.
... the osdever formerly known as beyond infinity ...
BlueillusionOS iso image
BlueillusionOS iso image
Re:Do we need 64 bit?
I take a bit different standpoint than beyond infinity here:
The application is a heavy-duty data distribution service. We repeatedly have had issues when caches grew too large for the 3.5 GB address space, bringing the whole app to a grinding halt (performance wise).
64 bit might not interest you so much if your applications are Quake 3 and Word. They do interest you if your apps are databases - and, in the corporate world, what isn't a database?
There might be some years to come that will still see 32bit desktops, but anything that has "server" written on it is likely to be all-64-bit rather soon.
Not too long ago, people considered the limitation of 2 GByte files or 128 GByte hard drives to be basically non-issues. Same with the 32 bit of today's Intels.
Larger address space, mainly, and don't underestimate that.Cemre wrote: What does it provide us that 32 bit doesn't.
Uhm... why?Memory management, paging, TLBs and whole other things are more difficult to handle in 64 bits ( not just for software but also for hardware ).
I am right now coding on a Sun E10k that has ~20 GByte RAM, which - unfortunately and due to limitations in the architecture - is splitted into 4 GB segments, which means no single process can grow larger than 3.5 GB (since 0.5 GB are kernel space).It's not only the speed, do we have ANY system which has more memory than 4GB? ( Even virtually we wouldn't need that much )
The application is a heavy-duty data distribution service. We repeatedly have had issues when caches grew too large for the 3.5 GB address space, bringing the whole app to a grinding halt (performance wise).
64 bit might not interest you so much if your applications are Quake 3 and Word. They do interest you if your apps are databases - and, in the corporate world, what isn't a database?
There might be some years to come that will still see 32bit desktops, but anything that has "server" written on it is likely to be all-64-bit rather soon.
Not too long ago, people considered the limitation of 2 GByte files or 128 GByte hard drives to be basically non-issues. Same with the 32 bit of today's Intels.
Every good solution is obvious once you've found it.
-
Pype.Clicker
- Member
- Posts: 5964
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:31 am
- Location: In a galaxy, far, far away
- Contact:
Re:Do we need 64 bit?
in a more pragmatic way, with 64 bits of address space, you no longer need to worry about shared libraries: give each library a 32bits UID which will define in which chunk of 2^n bytes it will reside, same address everywhere, no relocation/position-independent code required. neat and nice.
Same for threads stack. You potentially have room for 4.000.000.000 objects of 4GB each! No worry how many threads you'll have to fork and how much stack space each thread could require ... just give 4GB of (virtual) stack space to each thread ...
Same for threads stack. You potentially have room for 4.000.000.000 objects of 4GB each! No worry how many threads you'll have to fork and how much stack space each thread could require ... just give 4GB of (virtual) stack space to each thread ...
-
kataklinger
- Member
- Posts: 381
- Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:00 am
- Location: Serbia
Re:Do we need 64 bit?
Yes, we'll need 64 bits! But, when? I don't know for desktop computers, but for heavy databases it would be good to have 64 bits CPU.Cemre wrote: Do we need 64 bit?
Much more address space.what does it provide us that 32 bit doesn't.
Does it speed us up? ( I don't think so ). I mean isn't the CPI ( clocks per instruction ) more effective on the speed?
It depends on architecture of cpu
Lets just say: EARTH SIMULATOR.It's not only the speed, do we have ANY system which has more memory than 4GB? ( Even virtually we wouldn't need that much )