1. What good would it do to install a 64bit operating system? Besides being able to have more memory. Is it faster? Would all applications run or do they have to be 64bit too? 2. Is a CPU with 2 cores faster than one with the same 'speed' but only one? Like, there's an AMD 4000+ and an X2 4000 (I have the latter). Is there any difference? And how do the Operons, FX', Core2s etc. fare? I'm completely confused by the naming conventions those guys have. It's worse than with graphics cards Just askin' because I've played with 3D animation a little and my is box gets forced on its knees by it. Like, rendering a 3200 frame scene in POSER taking 36 hours. Never thought that it would be so much worse than rendering video.
Al Gore encourages you to run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit processor --recycle the extra 32 bits, IMO!
Okay, since I've played around with all this, here's the deal to the extent of my knowledge. A 64 bit OS is supposed to run faster on a 64 bit chip, and so long as it was compiled efficiently, that is the case. However, that means nothing if the application isn't also 64 bit. If it isn't, and most are not, then the app actually ends up running slower. The other problem with 64bit OS like windows Xp 64, is the complete lack of 64 bit drivers for lots of hardware. Multi cores: Multi cores are useful if your OS and your application is multi-threaded - in other words is designed to use more than one core at the same time. Vista is designed to utilize multi-cores. Some games are multi-threaded, such as Half life 2. Some apps, such as Adobe Premiere. This speeds things up a lot so long as you have enough memory installed to really take advantage of it. If you app/game is not multi-threaded, then just one core is used, you won't see a speed increase over your previous system, and the second core will be sitting there not doing much. However, all is not lost, it means you can run more apps at once without your system complaining too much.
64 bit OS allows for more memory. Currently the limit is UNDER 4gb. Install 4GB of memory and your OS will only allow you to get about 3.5GB... even tho there are 4 billion locations provided by 32 bits of addressing ( 2^32 ), certain areas are part of the "memory hole" that is used to map locations like your video memory, some bios functions, pci cards etc. I should be more clear and state that this isn't a limitation of any OS... its a limitation of x86 hardware. The smart thing to do is get 3GB of memory rather than 4GB since certain areas of the ~3.5GB you actually get to use are not able to be used in many situations. In order to preserve dual-channel speeds, get a pair of 1GB sticks and a pair of 512MB sticks. 64-bit addressing allows for about 2 exabytes of memory. The progression is (multiplied by 1024 each time): giga, tera, peta, exa So most likely, 64 bit addressing will have us covered for quite a long time. 64-bit drivers can be a pain to get. The average application won't work any faster. I would not recommend getting a 64 bit OS at this time. Don't worry about the naming conventions too much. You can GENERALLY (not always) assume that a higher number from the same manufacturer is faster than a lower number. Comparing numbers from 1 companies product to another is like comparing apples to oranges. Best bet when you are in doubt is to look for benchmarks online at a place like anandtech.com or tomshardware.com. As for the part about dual-core vs single core... A dual core chip is generally not any faster than it's single core counterpart. Some applications, however, are multithreaded and will run much faster on a multi-core system than on a single core system. However, most applications are not multithreaded, so one core does the work while the other core sits around and does nothing. Another area for performance gain is obviously multitasking. Cores can split the work when you are running multiple programs. However you still only have 1 method for grabbing from the hard drive and you still only have one way to get things from memory, so the speed isn't always a quantum leap over single core when multitasking. That said, I'd recommend dual core when building a new machine. Intel Core 2 Duo are the best consumer procs, not only for the money but also in terms of pure speed. I used to be all about AMD but they really aren't up to snuff here. They do a bit better in floating-point-heavy applications but in 80-90% of applications, the Core 2 Duo chips clean up.
This was debunked. It is, in fact, a limitation of any OS that supports the DOS memory map for legacy reasons, and not of any other, eg Linux and OS X. I saw an Apple DTK (Developer Transition Kit - thus plain old NetBurst x86) with 4GB of RAM installed. It shows up there as 4 GB, not 3.5.
Ive heard from a mate who knows about these things that 64bit XP is in fact, not XP. Its windows server 2003 with some added XPness. He looked into it quite deep and it it looks like 64bit XP is just another cobbled together mess like win ME
DOS compatibility memory area is only about 1MB... The rest is used (well not usually used, but reserved for) other components. What you probably saw is a machine using PAE, physical addresss extension. This is a feature of x86 that is available, and generally supports up to 64GB of memory. You can set XP to take advantage of PAE but you only get to to go 4GB of memory (odds are your motherboard won't do any more than that anyway). Not sure what the cap is on Vista 32-bit, probably 4GB as well. You see, you not only need hardware support in your cpu, you also need it in your motherboard, and you need the software support in your OS, otherwise it isn't gonna work. Different versions of windows server can support 8GB, 32GB, 64GB, or 128GB using PAE. How can you support 128GB of physical memory when you have only ~64GB of addresses? Well You can only manage that with mutli-socket systems where each chip has its own set of memory to work with. Using PAE mode can cause driver compatibility issues... which is why it is almost never suggested.
Dont go 64bit, most apps dont support it anyway. Get a dual cpu mobo with 2 dual core chips on it like a mate of mine has. Its super fast
If you have Poser 7 then the good news is it's multi-threaded with up to 4 threads. So what you do is get your credit card out and buy one of the new Quad Core Duo Extremes (4 cores, one for each thread), have a ton of memory, and watch that puppy fly. (Intel Duo chips currently wipe the floor with AMD)
Meaning I'd need a new mainboard and new memory too (yes, I have read up!) How big is the difference? Can that be measured somehow? Don't think that my setup is too shabby so how much faster would it be in real life, given that I'd never buy that Quad core things for €900* but rather something in the €200 range? * I'm doing this for fun and nothing else.
It can be measured. Here's a page that compares dual to quad core. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000655.html As the writer of the article concludes, quad cores are primarily great for rendering and encoding where you get a significant speed boost. Aside from that there's no real gain. The suggestion above might be better. Get a new main board that can take 2 dual cores, and upgrade to a second cpu when you can afford it.
To be more precise, I should have said the DOS memory mapping scheme. That could be the case, though that would make Windows the only OS to disable PAE by default. However I doubt that's even necessarily the case, because I know, for example, PCI device memory is addressed indirectly on *nix systems. Which would mean that the FSB has some translating of its own to do, but when you're talking about a component that's 4-30x slower than the device which is doing the translation... well, you'll forgive me for not caring about the 2 cycles of latency internal to the Northbridge and preferring the ability to address all 4 GB I've got installed. I don't deny that PAE may be necessary on 32-bit machines (Northbridge-wise) with 64-bit processors running a 64-bit OS, but it simply shouldn't be needed otherwise, unless it's working around a software design flaw.
It's not necessary with 64-bit proc/OS machines... this problem only occurs under x86 hardware actually using x86 mode. Intel/AMD procs running in 64 bit mode are using x64 (or as intell calls it EM64T). That's probably where your confusion is coming from... modern processors are only using x86 ISA when running a 32-bit OS. People might ask why in the world you need such a big memory hole for I/O Devices... keep in mind we have video cards with 768MB of memory already.
What a waste. Sounds like the AMD 4x4, which is quite frankly not even as fast as a Core2Duo single socket chip. Cass, you want an Intel Core2Duo and new motherboard which supports it. They are bloody fast and make most AMDs look like a Pentium2. Don't worry about a motherboard with two sockets, unless you want to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for it and get no real bonus. By the time you're ready to upgrade, something new will be out which uses a different socket anyway.
So, I have looked into that and decided that I learn the stuff first and upgrade when I actually do something. I have an idea but I'll have to learn a lot. This is frankly completely new to me. Worked with CGI before but that was on a get-it-done basis. Doing it yourself vs. outlining what you want to see is ... different. Those Core2s are better it seems. But AMD will probably come out with something too I guess. Which doesn't really matter because thanks to the goddamn socket fetish these people have I'll need a new motherboard anyway Could also use some cheapo box that does nothing but rendering. Wouldn't really matter now, would it. If we ignore the electricity bill. Can't see rendering a whole 30 minute movie anyway, it'll have to be in little chunks and cut traditionally.
Regarding 64-bit OS's, I'd definitely say that you should wait. I installed XP x64 on my new PC because my friend could give me a legitimate key for that one, and I can't even get my printer to work without using VMWare to run a virtual machine because they don't make x64 drivers for it. Just last night I spent 2 hours searching for custom 64 bit drivers for my new wi-fi adapter because the ones that came with it didn't work.
Don't count on it. Seems like AMD is really playing catch up and will be for a while. Intel is about to move to a 45nm process, and might even be there before AMD gets down to 65nm... great innovations might change the game but it is tough to overcome a die shrink, more cache, more features, more cores, faster speed, lower heat, lower power consumption. Anyway this is an amazingly great proc: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...CMP=KNC-GoogleAdwords&ATT=Top Seller 19115003 If that is too pricy for you, this is a solid alternative: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115005 Waiting generally doesn't help things. No matter how long you wait, better stuff is always going to be "around the corner". You'll wait forever.
^ Yes, I'm looking at the 6600s. Of course I'm too greedy to buy as long as I don't have any deadlines - after all, I've tried a lot and often just didn't follow up on it. As I said, I have an idea for something and if that ever comes to fruition I'll go shopping. Indeed. But then that 3D stuff is the only thing my box doesn't do well. Don't want to spend a lot of money again when I just bought something nice last year. So, I'll learn first and then buy this time
It's for hardware compatibility reasons... windows supports way more hardware, and a VERY VERY tiny % of users, especially users who buy machines, get 4GB of memory. Why introduce a chance for problems when almost nobody uses 4GB anyway? As for linux... maybe some distros have it enabled by default but some do not. I've read install guides where you have to change settings during the install to have it enabled... so windows is not the only OS not to enable it by default. And, if a vendor is selling the OS, it isn't very difficult for them to enable PAE if the user chooses 4GB of ram or more now is it? Is this supposed to be some sort of troll? Because it really doesn't make sense.
Cass, There's a new and very thorough CPU comparison at Tom's Hardware. This is a link direct to the conclusion: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/26/the_gigahertz_battle/page15.html
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=39105 Hmmmmm... might go shopping for an E6700. It's around €450 now, for 250 I'd buy one and a motherboard.
