64-bit and Intel

By Steve Pitzel (Intel) (31 posts) on September 20, 2006 at 7:06 pm

A few days ago an OEM asked whether or not Intel had 64-bit... It was kind of funny, kind of sad - and, of course, the OEM should know we do...but, then again, I have to admit we've done a pretty lousy job to date of letting folks know about our 64-bit offerings - while AMD has even included 64 proudly in some of their product names. Okay, if you're into Roman numerals, I guess the 64 isn't exactly hidden in Viiv, but that's another story... You probably know about Itanium, which has been a 64-bit architecture since its inception. But the truth is our Xeon line has supported 64-bit for over a year and everything out there you'll find with a "D," as in Pentium? D, or Celeron? D (yes, even Celeron? D supports 64-bit), and all the new Intel? Core2 Duo processors as well. Intel? 64 is alive and well. And...your 32-bit OS and apps will run just fine on them too :).

Categories: Intel® Software Network 2.0, Parallel Programming

Comments (159)

September 21, 2006 4:01 PM PDT


denise.latscha@intel.com		 Actually our Xeon processors have supported 64 bits for over two years now, and our desktop processors starting shipping with 64-bit computing support over a year ago (around the time the supporting Windows OS released). By the end of 2005 the vast majority of our desktop processor shipments supported Intel® 64.

As you say, all processors based on the new Intel® Core™ architecture support 64-bit computing as well, including mobile processors.

Note that Itanium, wihch is a 64-bit architecture targeted for the most demanding compute environments, released in 2001.
September 25, 2006 10:46 PM PDT


jim.mccartney@crypkey.com		 been on your site waaay too long, still can't find out for cetatin if T2700 is a 64 bit processor. Even this article is vague - "supports 64 bit" - what the hell does that mean? Emulates 64 bit? Doesn't crash if it sees 64 bit code?
Either it is a 64 bit processor or not, and it if it is it should say so. Can you say "Celeron® D _IS_ a 64 bit processor"? The fact that you don't is making people run, not walk, to AMD, where the is no obfuscation of this issue.
You would do well to put a list of processors that _ARE_ 64 bit on your front Web page, and just put an end to it - the confusion is uncharacteristically unprofessional.
September 26, 2006 12:41 AM PDT


Steve Lionel		 The T2700 is a "Core Duo" processor and does not supprt 64-bit. The T7200 is a "Core 2 Duo" and does support it. These processors can run in either 32 or 64 bit mode depending on which OS you boot. So if you boot Windows XP on a T7200, that's 32 bit and it won't execute 64-bit code. If you run XP Professional x64, then that's 64-bit and you can run both 64 and 32-bit code. With Linux, you have to have a distro's "x86_64" variant to run 64-bits. It's no different with AMD - some of their processors support 64-bit, some don't, and those that do can run either way.

It would be just as confusing to say that the processor is "64-bit" for someone who wants to run a 32-bit OS.
September 28, 2006 12:28 AM PDT


rp_tomj@hotmail.com		 i still cannot understand any of this. Here is the OEM order code for the T7200: LF80537GF0414M. As you can see there is no "D" in it. I can find no spec that tells whether a processor runs 64 bit o/s anywhere. How can a mere mortal decode this web site?
September 28, 2006 12:31 PM PDT


bmozmuzik@yahoo.com		 HERE"S MY TAKE ON IT EVERYONE! About 4 months ago I was looking into buying a laptop. Now, i am a very thorough buyer and investigate things. The new core duo was just being released. All the sales people at the stores (like Best Buy etc) all told me that this processor was 64 bit. And they explained it had to be because the Pentium D was also. But, I couldn't seem to verify this on this website. I fully agree that Intel needs to make this fact clear on this website, because in my opinion 64 bit is the future, and people buying computers these days want to think about the future especially when a paradigm shift to a completely different bit level like this is being made. Now, finally, PC's will have graphics capabilities like Mac's. Which brings me to why I can conclude Intel is making it difficult to distinguish why the first Core Duo was not 64 bit. After researching the first Core Duo intensely for about 2 weeks I finally found out that it was only 32 bit and was released in a rush for the new Mac line of Intel computers. But Intel was always planning on releasing the Core 2 Duo later when it was ready. I know this email sounds rushed, but you see the research I found suggested that intel made a mistake by not meeting a certain deadline for the Mac computer contracts it had and had to release the 32 bit version right away. The worst part of all this is that I called the Intel cus support line multiple times and most the reps were not even aware that the first version was only 32 bit! I spoke to maybe 2 that were aware and I eventually found the whole story on Computer review forums. But, anyway, that is the past and it now seems that the new Core 2 Duo is here and it is 64 bit? Right? Not that this website would say!! Good thing Steve Pitzel wrote this little comment otherwise who would know right? Ridiculous.
October 1, 2006 2:55 AM PDT


fractalzone@gmail.com		 What currently shipping Intel desktop and laptop CPUs are 64-bit *AND* dual core?

That is a major question in my mind, for two reasons:

1) I sell computers at retail and recommend them as a consultant.

2) I earn the bulk of my living as a software developer and sometimes need to write low-level code...x64 (actually AMD64) is what I prefer, given the generally kludgey architecture of the whole x86/x64 series. Performance matters to me. Marketing hype does not.

I am really looking for a dual-core, 64-bit chip uProc. AMD's Athlon X2 has been my choice for my next machine, but I'm open to suggestion. Bandwidth to memory is important. What I need is a decent technical, side-by side comparison of all of Intel's and AMD's CPUs. It is suspicious that Intel isn't making those sorts of specifications readily available. Maybe AMD is making the more advanced uProcs for the money?

Mr. Wizard
(former Intel stockholder)
October 1, 2006 11:29 AM PDT


bmozmuzik@yahoo.com		 I recently started looking at this website again and still find it ABSOLUTELY vague, misleading, and suspicious!!! Check this out. I wrote tech support with the following question:

I feel ill when I browse this web site. What are you guys hiding from us? My head is spinning. i am looking for a laptop, and didn't buy one months ago because after 2 weeks of mind spinning research and inept sales people in stores and even your own cus support reps, found that the core duo was not 64 bit. You know the only thing that is clearly 64 bit on your web site is your server processors. I just spent over 2 hours spinning on your web site to see if the new core 2 duo is 64 bit and I still don't really know. Is it just enableing 64 bit- What is the deal? What processors are REALLY and FULLY TRULY 64 bit that you guys offer? Why is it that AMD seems to have no problem expressing this to their customers.

Here is the response from tech support:

Thank you for contacting Intel® Technical Support.

I understand you want to know if the new Intel® Core™2 Duo Desktop Processor supports Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology.

This processor has Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology, meaning, it will run 64 bit applications.

For further information on the features and characteristics for the Intel® Core™2 Duo Desktop Processor, please check the following website: http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=8843.....ture=en-US

Additionally, for further information on the Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology, you can visit the following website:
http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/

For your information, the only real 64 bit processor is the Intel® Itanium® Processor.

Did you catch the last part. Itanium is currently the only REAL 64 bit processor. So, the game of mystery goes on. This brings more questions to my mind. 1, are AMD REAL 64 bit processors? Intel's website says that the advantage of 64 bit comes in being able to access more than 4 Gigs of cache memory. AMD's website says nothing about this. 2, Should we all be buying Itanium processors for our own consumer computers? and 3, What about quad core? AMD is introducing this shortly. This is craziness. Wouldn't it be nice if this info was just cut and clear. Who is the key master to this drama of hidden facts? Are we all just supposed to prod the tech support people of various companies to find out what they are really trying to sell us?
October 1, 2006 6:39 PM PDT


thatdummie@aol.com		 Pitzel says:
(yes, even Celeron® D supports 64-bit), and all the new Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processors as well.

What's in a name? (thatdummie) ok I read this whole page and it seems to me 64 bit is alive and well in somethings with 2 duo core, but not available in "any" laptops. Did I miss something or do I need to postpone my purchase of a laptop for a while longer?
October 2, 2006 10:34 PM PDT


davehewlett@msn.com		 URL of all the Intel processors and what they support. Note Viiv, Pentium D, Core 2 Duo all support the 64 bit need. Note that the other supporting hardware and bios are needed. As said before the core duo is a 32 it CPU only. It seems the 64 bit answer was always there but not easy to find.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/proc_info_table.pdf

Try this list.
October 3, 2006 4:12 AM PDT


husseindilawer@hotmail.com		 I have had the same problem with intel, now i just build computers with AMD processors because they sell better and outperform any comparable intel chip. Intel has been poor with marketing their processors correctly, where as on the other hand AMD flaunts their 64 bit chips with pride.
October 3, 2006 11:59 PM PDT


bmozmuzik@yahoo.com		 OK everybody, it seems there are still comments being made as to what is 64 bit. My post a few days ago should clarify exactly what is reality here. Various chips from Intle "support 64 bit" For the desktop, P-D, Cel-D, and both server processors, Xeon, and Itanium. For laptops ONLY Core 2 Duo. Core Duo 1 never supported it and I explained this about a week ago, it was a premature manufactr for a deadline set by Macintosh. So all these processors support 64 bit. But ONLY ITANIUM is a true 64 bit architecture. So, in reality this is the only true 64 bit processor!!!!! I unfortuneately don't know if the AMD processors are true 64 bit architecture either, but I would venture to say they are. I recently sent another message to Intel tech support to clarify this and they chose not to respond.

All I know is that I will probably never buy an Intel chip again, and will move to AMD (HP is a great supporter of their chips). Intel is way too deceptive and concealing of VITAL information about their chips. They are not giving us the real deal on the website, through their tech support, or the sales people out in the stores that sell their products. This is not the type of company I feel comfortable doing bizness with!!!!
October 4, 2006 7:05 AM PDT


jrumble@comcast.net		 I have a pent D and it sure wont run 64 bit windows..
a gateway 835gm to be exact.. the only computer i ever bought in one piece..
October 6, 2006 3:02 PM PDT


andy_jp@hotmail.com		 I'm no processor expert, but here's my understanding of what's going on:

Both AMD and Intel use very similar technologies in making their processors "64-bit". However, these are simply extensions to the x86 architecture, meaning that these processors are not true 64-bit chips (I'm talking about any Intel processors with "EMT64" or AMD processors with "AMD64").

Unlike AMD, Intel seem reluctant to market these chips as 64-bit, which may make Intel the more honest of the two companies. However, I could be completely wrong...
October 6, 2006 7:52 PM PDT


andy_jp@hotmail.com		 Sorry, "EM64T". It's been bugging me all day...
October 6, 2006 10:12 PM PDT


jzmcfire@hotmail.com		 Why doesn't Steve Pitzel, who began this, or anyone from Intel who can speak with authority jump in and clarify: is the Core 2 duo capable of accessing more than 4GB of memory? If not, why not? And if not what exactly does "supports 64-bit" mean?

Failure to jump in and clarify would support intimations made here of a kind of dishonesty more often seen in used car sales.
October 6, 2006 10:22 PM PDT


jzmcfire@hotmail.com		 Oh ... 1 terabyte:

"Intel® 64 architecture (formerly known as Intel® Extended Memory 64 Technology, or Intel® EM64T) enables 64-bit computing on server, workstation, desktop and mobile platforms when combined with supporting software.¹ Intel 64 architecture improves performance by allowing systems to address more than 4 gigabytes (GB) of both virtual and physical memory. Today, all Intel® processors for server and workstation platforms support 64-bit computing. And with the introduction of Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processors in the second half of 2006, most Intel desktop and mobile processors are also 64-bit capable. Intel 64 provides support for:

* 64-bit flat virtual address space
* 64-bit pointers
* 64-bit wide general purpose registers
* 64-bit integer support
* Up to one terabyte (TB) of platform address space" at http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm

Sorry for doubting, Intel gents.
October 6, 2006 11:19 PM PDT


anhedral@gmail.com		 Hi There,

I had my nice shiny new dell inspiron 9400 delivered in February of this year. I purchased it on the premise the Duo was 64 bit, so I had an upgrade path available to me (especially as I was switching from Desktop to Laptop).

So I look in to uprgading to Windows 64bit, and I find that the Duo is in fact only 32 bit, and that if I wanted 64-bit, I should have purchased a laptop with a Duo "2" inside it, which was released shortly after???

I feel cheated and upset.
October 7, 2006 10:40 PM PDT


Razer336@hotmail.com		 I wish Intel would get its act together and put 64 on all of their 64 bit processors, as you cannot put a patent on a number ( as Intel found out with their 286, 386 & 486 processors) they would not have any comeback from AMD. I have recently bought a Core 2 Duo and find it very fast and stable and it runs multiple application with no problems (an area where my AMD processor would often freeze) it would just be nice to know if I purchased a 64 bit OS it would work and I wouldn't be wasting my money.
October 10, 2006 4:42 PM PDT


todd_gibson@hotmail.com		 I agree, why has Intel not responded to this thread? I see answers, thoughts, and facts from many people that are outside of Intel. I just purchased a MacBook Pro which the salesperson told me that it was a 64-bit processor (T2700).
October 10, 2006 7:54 PM PDT


denise.latscha@intel.com		 To answer some of the questions that have surfaced from my confusing answer above as well as on the other blog thread on this site:

1. Folks outside our companies use x86 to refer to both AMD64 and Intel® 64 architectures (the latter was earlier named Intel® EM64T and we have recently renamed it to reduce confusion - which hopefully it will do eventually).
2. Intel 64 architecture supports both 64bit and 32bit computing. You can install either a 32bit or 64bit Operating System on the hardware, and if you install a 64bit OS you can run either 32bit or 64bit apps on it (your drivers will need to be all 64bit - see your Operating System vendor for details).
3. The Intel® Core™ Duo processors support only 32bit computing. Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processors support both 64bit and 32bit computing. The former released early this year and the latter recently on laptop platforms.
4. Yes to Razer336 above - you should be able to install a 64bit OS on your system and it would work. Again you need to consult your platform or OS vendor for details on how to get it.
5. We had 64bit support in the desktop hardware well before the Intel Core 2 Duo processor was released - the vast majority of Q4'05 desktop processor shipments by Intel supported 64bit computing (we released desktop shipments for 64bits the quarter before the Windows OS starting supporting it).
6. Mobile support for 64bit computing started with the new Intel® Core™ 2 Duo microarchitecture, which released recently.
7. AMD64 and Intel 64 architectures are not identical but are similar enough to allow the same Operating Systems and applications to run on them with few changes. If one is a "real" 64bit processor, the other is as well. The Intel Itanium processor also is a 64bit processor, but with a very different architecture targeting high end servers.
8. Not sure what to say about your sales guy, Todd. That processor supports only 32bit computing.
October 10, 2006 8:35 PM PDT

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Thanks, Denise! And thanks everybody for the questions, the answers, and even the baiting and bashing! Keep it comin'! It's the only way we get better. As I said, we didn't do a great job of letting folks know about Intel and 64bit (outside of Itanium). Truthfully, even though we liked the idea of 64 bit and lots of memory, we didn't exactly have people tearing down the walls to go 64bit at first -- except for my side of the world in Digital Content Creation -- even there, adoption was slow at first. Our friends at Cakewalk really got the ball rolling there -- Cakewalk ported their entire Sonar app to 64bit in about a month. Then they helped us move the entire audio ecosystem of plug-in vendors over to 64bit. Hat's off to those guys!
BTW, jzmcfire deserves a laurel, and hardy handshake ;) for including our 64bit info link http://www.intel.com/intel64/index.htm (in case you missed it). Thanks, again!
- Pitz
October 10, 2006 9:15 PM PDT


denise.latscha@intel.com		 Here is more info from the Intel website that was recently updated:

http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm

enjoy!
October 11, 2006 8:41 PM PDT


tim@franksinc.com		 It took me 20 minutes to find this thread concerning the support of x64 in Intel processors. I am so glad I am not the only one befuddled by Intel's lack of ability in communicating this seemingly simply bit of vital information concerning their products.
October 11, 2006 10:10 PM PDT


todd_gibson@hotmail.com		 Thanks Denise for the response. I called Apple's Technical Support yesterday and they told me that the Intel Core Duo was a 64bit platform. I asked them for a link but they could not find any data and then referred me to an Apple Store. I talked to 3 separate laptop sales reps at Frys and they told me the same thing - 64bit. Now I have purchased a laptop on the basis that it was a 64bit platform and now realize that I have been duped. Being a significant decision maker with 7+ figure budgets, it is good to see that the Intel market/products is as confusing for the OEM as it is for the sales reps. Maybe I should pursue AMD products since they are quite clear on their 64bit support.
October 12, 2006 3:03 PM PDT


mailrsm@gmail.com		 The Intel Itanium is also "a 64bit processor". Can I use that statement with a CoreDuo2? Not "support" 64bit architecture, but is. The Intel CoreDuo 2 IS "a 64bit processor"?
October 13, 2006 1:52 AM PDT


ctanner@cox.net		 I think one thing that was not mentioned that probably should be and may clear up the comment about the Itanium processor being the only true 64bit processor.

Itanium was never designed to be backward compatible with support for 32bit instructions. Because of this, they could effectively wipe the slate clean and develop a 64bit processor architecture that truly only handles 64bit instructions. I think that is the only reason for stating Itanium as a true 64bit processor vs. the other 64bit Intel offerings which were designed to support both 64bit and 32bit instructions (a hybrid).

It is not clear to me if AMD has a similar processor as the Itanium in their inventory?

I personally think this is not that difficult to figure out but I do agree that a distinct common market name change would have been preferred for these hybrids 64bit processors by Intel.
October 14, 2006 5:22 PM PDT


r-neveds@excite.com		 I would like to buy a top of the line Dell with a 64 bit chip/system. They are limited to a max RAM of 4 Gigs. This is not support of 64 bit.
October 14, 2006 11:14 PM PDT


markchm@msn.com		 It looks to me as if both AMD and Intel are hiding behind the "can run a 64bit OS" story. (of course, they can run commodore 64 progs in emulation, too! LOL) EM64T/64Bit Architecture, or whatever euphemism you prefer - none have 64bit wide bus/data/IO structure. They just rely on translations via the system BIOS to allow the development of 64 bit operating systems to function on a semi-crippled chip until people can afford what everyone is referring to as REAL 64 bit throughout this thread.
October 15, 2006 11:47 PM PDT


ed_valentine@hotmail.com		 I am still confused... I understand that Merom supports 64 bit processing. However, Business Week quotes "But because of limitations in supporting chips, which were designed for older processors, it is limited to 32-bit operation" (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2006/tc200.....technology).

So is the combination of Merom with the current Intel® 945GM chipset still 64bit capable? Will they be able to take advantage of the new software that maximizes the 64 bit capabilities?
October 19, 2006 12:18 AM PDT

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Hi Ed,
Thanks for the catch on the Businessweek article - Merom itself does support 64bit and will run a 64bit OS - laptops built to hold more than 4GB of memory are still somewhat hard to find. That brings up another issue r-neveds and Todd Gibson brought up earlier about Dell and Apple. The truth is although we make the processors and chipsets, we don't build the entire system. We can't speak for our OEMs who take those components and create their own configurations. it's always best to go diirectly to them for info on their product lines.
- Pitz
October 21, 2006 7:51 PM PDT


sguin_programmer@hotmail.com		 I see on many vendor sites the tern 64EM technology and the terms you use like "supports 64-bit". Given Intel's record on marketing _schemes_, frankly it worries me. Remember the 386sx? It was "32-bit capable". More digging on the subject revealed that it was 32-bit addressing in 16-bit data chunks.

So let's get to my main question. Looking at the Core 2 Duo, the Pentium D, and the Celeron D, are they 64-bit addressing *and* 64-bit data? If so, why not just *say* that?

Once I find out for sure I'm rushing to my favorite vendor to purchase one. But my first PC was a 386sx... so fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice -- and it's AMD. ;)
October 22, 2006 10:04 PM PDT


modem1123@hotmail.com		 Yes, reading thru these posts has not answered the question whether Intel Core 2 Duo is a 64 bit processor. I went to Best Buy and Circuit City and all the reps there told me that Intel's Core 2 Duo is a 32 bit processor. They said Intel is coming out w/ a 64 bit processor in scheduled in December. They also said that AMD 64 is a 64 bit processor. Yes, Core 2 Duo will support 64 bit apps but it is NOT a 64 bit processor. I don't know why Intel's reps can't answer a simple question.
October 23, 2006 8:02 PM PDT


prezweezy@gmail.com		 Alright I'm getting tired of people getting mad about this when all of the answers are right there above. Let's recap. Both the Athlon x64 and the Core x64 technologies are, by and large, the same. The calls themselves are a bit different, but in reality the bus structure, the support abilities, and the main architecture are close enough that they support the same apps and OS's. Neither is an "x64 bit processor" in the truest sense. The Itanium is an x64 bit processor. It is only an x64 bit processor. It's also outlandishly expensive for the average consumer, because it's not made for the average consumer. In order to have an "x64 bit processor" it would be required that the OS, the apps, the drivers, 100% of the computer, be 64 bit. If that's what you want, you can run XP Pro 64, and I think there is an open office x64 distro as well. But if you want to use any software that isn't x64, about 95% of the software out there, then you're just SOL. So if that's what you want, tell Intel and I'm sure they would be happy to put one out for you. However, if you actually want to use your computer, you'll need x86 support as well, which is 32 bit. Therefor, you have a non-x64 bit proc. To clear up the rest, Pentium D, Celeron D, and Pentium D EE all have EM64T. Core Duo, ie the x4000 series chips, are x86 based, no x64 bit. The Core 2 Duo, x6000 series, ARE 64 bit. The Merom x5000 series is the same as the x4000 desktops, and are 32 bit. While the x2000 series does not support 64 bit, the x5000 and x7000 do. Just to stress it one more time, for all of you who have had the wool pulled over your eyes by AMD, they don't have a "true" x64 processor either. And the reason that Intel can't answer a "simple" question, is that if they did, they would have all kinds of legal issues to deal with. And you have the idiots who like to sue for every little thing to thank for that. Also, in case I missed something here, and you're not sure if a processor supports 64 bit, just go to newegg and look it up. It says right at the top "64 bit support: yes or no."
October 23, 2006 10:14 PM PDT


bret.toll@intel.com		 I'm an architect working on Intel® 64 architecture so let's see if I can clear up a few things.

Markchm, the external data bus has been 64-bits wide since at least the mid 90's, but the external data bus width is not what is meant by a "64-bit processor" or by Intel® 64 architecture. A 64-bit processor is defined as one whose basic, internal arithmetic/logic unit (ALU) is 64-bits wide so it can process 64-bit wide data as a fundamental arithmetic size. Intel® 64 architecture does this and the Merom processor family architecture supports this native instruction width as did earlier Intel® Xeon® and Pentium® processor generations (with Intel® 64 architecture) on the desktop, workstation and server.

I believe another point of confusion here is virtual addressing vs. physical addressing. Virtual addresses are what applications use to refer to memory locations. The OS manages the translation of these virtual addresses into physical addresses (which correspond to the physical memory in the system) and this provides great flexibility in application management. While the Intel® 64 processors can support significantly greater than 4G of RAM, not all platforms will support greater than 4G of RAM.
October 24, 2006 5:18 PM PDT


martin.p.kemp@gmail.com		 "Here's what you need to use Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

Important: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition cannot be successfully installed on x86 (32-bit) systems or 64-bit Intel Itanium"“based systems. 32-bit device drivers are not supported on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.

"¢ Computer with a supported processor: AMD Athlon 64, AMD Opteron, Intel Xeon with Intel EM64T support, Intel Pentium 4 with Intel EM64T support"

from Microsoft Website - why doesn't the only "true" 64bit processor support Win XP 64?
October 25, 2006 2:24 AM PDT


modem1123@hotmail.com		 Thank you, Bret from Intel, for putting everything is precise terms. I will now go w/ the Intel Core 2 Duo instead of the AMD x2. I didn't have a preference but just wanted to find the answer. From reviews that I've seen, the C2D seems to do what I need.
October 25, 2006 9:23 PM PDT


marksch		 Wow this is certainly an interesting debate. As the "demogod" from Softimage (thanks Steve) who has done considerable testing of x64 running on a variety of processors I think I can add a little bit information for you all.

First, the formerly named EM64T processors are, as far as im concerned 64 bit. I dont care if the CPU is a "real" 64 bit part or not, what I care about is that I can install XP 64, drop 8 or 16 gigs of RAM in the machine and actually use it with one app. While at first Intel didnt make a lot of noise about which procs did or did not include EM64T I was pleasantly surprised when I found my P4 (Prescott rev E core) was 64 bit- months after I bought it. So as any good nerd would do I dual booted to Win64 and went "Ok that works, now what" I only had 2 gigs of RAM in the machine so my experiment quickly turned back to using the x32 partition... that is until...

So about a year and a half ago I was invited to go to WinHEC in Seattle and show off Softimage XSI's brand new 64bit native version...and Intel was kind enough to send me a bad-ass 840EE with 8 gigs in it. x64 was installed, XSI 64 bit was installed and holy cow if i didnt suddenly have a 3D scene with 500,000,000 triangles in it occupying over 6 gigs of total RAM footprint. 64 bit had arrived.

Since then every non-mobile Intel CPU has been 64 bit enabled to best of my knowledge. I think the confusion here is really in the notebook line up. But you have to ask yourself, if your notebook can only support 2 or 4 gigs of RAM maximum (chipset and physical limitations) why would you ever need a 64 bit OS? Its highly doubtful that any "killer-app" in the foreseeable future is going to be 64 bit only unless it uses huge amounts of RAM, in which case your notebook wouldnt cut the mustard anyway. I just think running x64 on a notebook isnt practical today for 99.9% of the users out there.

On the workstation side though it is entirely a different story, especially in 3D content creation space (film and games). We routinely hit the RAM barrier both creating the scenes; high poly count, large textures and also during render time when millions of "rays" are firing around the scene ray-tracing. So for our industry 64 bit has been remarkable, and I think Intel has done a great job in educating our market of the advantages. At all the industry events I have been to recently they have done a great job explaining which parts are 64 bit and which are not and why you need or don't need 64 bit. Again, I think all the confusion lies with notebooks.

Microsoft and Intel produced this video with me showing off the differences between Softimage's 64 and 32 bit versions. If you want to see a crazy 3D scene check it out... http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/videos/default.mspx click on the second link for "revolutionizing 3D Animation." You can also check out http://www.softimage.com for more information of the software and its native 64 bit version.

cheers!
October 26, 2006 6:12 AM PDT


dfumento at gmail.com		 I am completely baffled as I cannot figure out if the newest IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad notebooks X60 and T60 using the Core 2 Duo (Merom) will be able to run Vista-64 or not? Will there be some restriction because of the Napa platform/chipset or is there some sort of Napa-64 platform/chipset that enables the Core 2 Duo (Merom) to run in 64-bit so that it can run Vista-64.

There is this business week article which implies that the answer might be no, but perhaps they are not talking about the Napa-64 platform/chipset but using the Napa-32 platform/chipset?

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2006/tc200.....technology

Because 64-bit has many more registers and especially for double precision float point as used in programs such as Matlab there are some benchmarks that run much faster in 64-bit mode versus 32-bit mode regardless as to the amount of RAM.

There are a lot of questions about this in the Thinkpad forum (http://forum.thinkpads.com)

Incidentally, Novell SLED Linux works on Thinkpads and the reason why I read is because Intel asked IBM/Lenovo to put a Linux on the Thinkpads so for chip designers who use chip design software that runs under Linux.
October 27, 2006 4:04 PM PDT


David		 I was bothered by the Business Week article in a previous post to this forum and wrote the author. This is what he wrote back:

You and Intel are both right. There was an editing error in that item that I missed; it should have said that the 945 chipset prevents Merom from taking full advantage of its 64-bit nature. Specifically, Merom can handle 64-bit instructions and has a 64-bit data path. The 945 chipset, however, can only handle 32-bit addressing, meaning that the Core 2 Duo/945 pairing is still limited to 4 GB of RAM. This will be fixed in Santa Rosa.

Not long ago, I though the 4 GB ceiling didn't mean much on anything but servers but I underestimated the memory appetite of apps, especially for image and sound processing. Apple is currently selling 3 GB Macbook Pros and will surely go above 4 GB max when Santa Rosa is available.

Steve Wildstrom Technology & You columnist
BusinessWeek
1200 G St NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/wildstrom.htm
October 27, 2006 10:44 PM PDT


Dan Pendergrass		 I'm recompiling a xen kernel right now and did a bunch of hardware probing on a D820 Latitude with a Cuor 2 Duo T72000. It reported a 36 bit address register with 48 bits of virtual address. The "system" consume over half a gig when you go to 4 gigs of ram. My guess is it is using the Ram for the EMT64 addressing space (Yes 36+ 48 = 84 not 64 but they probably have error checking bits in there. They can run 64 bit OS's but they are Virtual 64 bit processors.
October 28, 2006 1:06 PM PDT


modem1123		 Just a bit off topic but when can we expect the Kentsington quad to come out on the market and for notebooks? Is this the same arch as the core 2 duo? I am about to get the core 2 duo but thought I may wait for the quad if it's not too far in the future. Thanks.
October 29, 2006 1:36 AM PST


David		 In laptops for all practical purposes, people will be running with at most 2 GB RAM (which is what Dell recommends for Vista according to http://www.tomshardware.com ) because there are only two RAM slots and 2 GB RAM sticks (only available from Transcend) go in the roughly $400 prices range as compared to about $100 for 1 GB RAMs. Most people will elect to spend $200 for RAM and not $500 for 3 GB or $800 for 4 GB.
November 1, 2006 4:22 PM PST


mmjjrr		 My concern is with desktop and small server systems. For me, memory addressability is critical, and I want to use systems of 4G real memory and beyond. The new processors (D and Core 2 Duo) appear to promise memory addressing of 8G and beyond. But when I put a D processor in an Intel D945GTP motherboard, I only am able to see 3.2G of memory (to the OS) when 4G is installed. The documentation indicates this to be the case where reserved memory and PCI IO mapping takes up the top 770M of the 4G space. This is actually worse than previous non PCIe Intel motherboards (like the D865PERL) where only about 300M is reserved, leaving about 3.7G for the OS.

A new Intel motherboard made for the Core 2 Duo processors (DG965RY) is advertised to accept 8G of memory. So I was hoping that when 4G was installed, we would see the total 4G available to the OS. But when I look at the technical document on the board (Order Number: D56011-001US), page 42 has a memory adress map diagram that shows exactly the same limitations below 4G as the previous (D865PERL) board. The upper 4G is not labeled as accessible to the OS. I believe a DG965RY motherboard populated with 8G of memory would only provide OS addressibility to 3.2G, which does not appear to be a practical offering for 64 bit processing. I am hoping that this impression is incorrect.

If this truly is a limitation of the DG965RY, what alternative desktop (low cost) motherboard does Intel offer that provides access to the additional addressability of the D and Core 2 Duo processors? I think this is one area where AMD and motherboard makers for the AMD have an advantage. Addressing full 4G and more memory space with AMD boards appears to be at least doable (with memory hole configurations) and encouraged (with 32 memory slot opteron servers).
November 15, 2006 2:15 PM PST


Bryan Stauffer		 Intel has a lot of potential politicians since there are so many people who are so good at not answering a question. I confess I only had the energy to read about 2/3 of this thread after seeing the same patterns repeated and re-repeated. Only Itanium is true 64-bit, I got that. I learned C/S a dozen years ago and back then it was about CPU register size. I assume the Itanium has 64-bit registers. I also assume, since software is required to make a Core Duo processor run in '64-bit mode', that the Core Duo has 32-bit registers but since it has two cores, can operate in the mysterious '64-bit mode'. Is that about right? If not, for God's sake, will someone from Intel give a straight answer! You can't ALL be president one day! :-)
November 16, 2006 8:05 AM PST


David Schwartz		 It is erroneous to say you cannot run 64-bit code on a 32-bit operating system. It is not easy, but it can certainly be done. For example, Vmware has no problem running 64-bit code on regular 32-bit Windows XP.

Also, to reply to Bryan, the Core 2 Duo's have two cores, but that has nothing to do with whether they're running in 32-bit or 64-bit mode. Having two cores has nothing to do with things like the processor register size.

As for populating over 4GB of memory or getting every last drop when you do populate 4GB, there are chipset, BIOS, and OS limitations. Most likely, on any modern mobo that claims to support *more* than 4GB, it would be an OS limitation you are hitting. There are still many mobos that top out at 4GB (according to docs) but can't use all the memory due to chipset limitations. I know of no motherboard that claims to support *more* than 4GB that can't get all of 4GB due to chipset or BIOS limitations.
November 16, 2006 8:14 AM PST


David Schwartz		 Markchm wrote:
It looks to me as if both AMD and Intel are hiding behind the "can run a 64bit OS" story. (of course, they can run commodore 64 progs in emulation, too! LOL) EM64T/64Bit Architecture, or whatever euphemism you prefer - none have 64bit wide bus/data/IO structure. They just rely on translations via the system BIOS to allow the development of 64 bit operating systems to function on a semi-crippled chip until people can afford what everyone is referring to as REAL 64 bit throughout this thread.

-

What the heck are "translations via the system BIOS"?

The Core 2 Duo is a chip that can run 32-bit code or 64-bit code. It can run 64-bit code because it has 64-bit instructions, 64-bit internal registers, and so on. Most internal busses have been wider than 64-bits for ages because cache lines have exceeded 32-bits since before the first Pentiums.

No emulation is used or needed for a Core 2 Duo (or any other EM64T CPU) to run 64-bit code. What would they be emulating excatly?

It is theoretically possible to run 64-bit code on a 32-bit processor by using full emulation (including things like registers and instructions), but it would be extremely slow and nobody does that.

Some marketing types do try to claim that these are not "real" 64-bit CPUs because they still hope to sell us CPUs like Itanium. If they can outperform x86-64 CPUs, we'll buy them, if not we won't.

What more do you want than a CPU that can execute 64-bit instructions operating on 64-bit registers as fast as it can execute 32-bit instructions operating on 32-bit registers? You want the 32-bit mode to be slowed down somehow?

Again, *NO* translations or emulations are involved in running in 64-bit mode. They simply switch to 64-bit mode and basically the operations that used to operate on 32-bit registers now operate on 64-bit registers. (The registeres, of course, have to be 64-bits to begin with -- the upper halves are simply unused in 32-bit mode.)
November 20, 2006 4:49 PM PST


Bryan Stauffer		 Thanks David for the last paragraph of the last post. I do not pretend to be an expert anywhere near the level of the folks at Intel or yourself. That the upper halves of the 64-bit registers are unused in 32-bit mode makes perfect sense to me, finally. Now I'll be able to sleep at night. Thanks!
November 21, 2006 6:20 AM PST


An Intel Guy		 So - I am someone from Intel. A chipset validation guy to be complete. I'm not exactly sure what I am allowed to say and what Im not allowed to say. All I can say is that core 2 duo 'supports' 64-bit with special 64-bit extension registers. there is no mysterious dual-core dual-32 bit mode or anything like that. It will support your 8GB of memory - no problem. Pentium-D can as well. So - EAX is still 32-bits. Im sure on an AMD - EAX is also 32-bits. However - there are special registers to enable the EM64T or the AMD64 mode to allow it to run in 64-bit mode with software support. The Itanium IS THE only 64bit processor. Im sure Intel wouldn't want to lie to the public saying it has 64-bit CPU's when they really aren't true 64-bit. Who says you need 64-bit anyways? Just get a quad core Kentsfield and overclock the crap out of it :) (by the way - you can access 8GB of memory with only 36 bits, you don't even need 64!)
November 21, 2006 8:22 PM PST


araoz		 Hi. Recently a customer ask me for a 64bit PC. When I ask him what had in mind, an Intel dual core o something else, he look at me confused and told me once again that he was looking for a 64 bit processor, AKA an AMD CPU, not an Intel one.

I confess that I was unable to convince him, since Intel doesn't shows in a clean and direct way if is or is not supporting 64 bit computing. That's the point.
November 24, 2006 5:13 PM PST


EGAVGA.BGI		 I'm looking to buy a new PC. I've been postponing it for the last 2 years because I don't want to get a 32-bit PC. I'm waiting for the 64-bit line of PCs and the 64-bit OSes, which are now available, to be released.

My question is are there any "64-bit only" processors or any "64-bit processors that supports 32-bit"? I don't want the processors to be the other way round. Extended 64 doesn't make much sense to me.
December 4, 2006 11:39 PM PST


Tech.Master		 Intel has not been as clear about 64-bit technoogy as it could have been (from end user perspective - the tech docs are very clear), but you will not understand what it is or what it does or which processor to buy unless you are a computer technology expert and have many years of experience.

Computer sales people at electronics stores ARE NOT and never will be computer experts. Do not ask them technical questions they will get it wrong 90% of the time. You have to ask a real expert or do the hard research yourself. Do not expect simple answers anymore with so many different processor models on the market. Those of you who think Intel is hiding something are just too lazy to do the research.

FYI a REAL 64-bit CPU can only run 64-bit instructions. Most current CPU on the market can run BOTH 32-bit OS and 64-bit OS, therefore they "support" 64-bit but are not
December 4, 2006 11:42 PM PST


Tech.Master		 (continued) ... only for 64-bit use.

And take it from a real tech expert. Buy Core 2 Duo processors. They kick ass!
December 5, 2006 6:05 PM PST


EGAVGA.BGI		 Tech.Master, but is Core 2 Duo 64-bit only with a support for 32-bit? From what I have read and heard, it's a 32-bit processor that supports 64-bit instructions. So, not REAL 64-bit.

I'm quite happy with my Pentium 4 PC even now which is about 4 1/2 years old. I do want to buy a new Desktop or a Laptop though, which is why I'm looking for a major upgrade that can have over 4GB of RAM and supports 64-bit instruction execution natively.
December 5, 2006 11:13 PM PST


Senior Intel Architecture Designer		 I would just like to say that my brother and I just had the same debate about whether Core 2 Duos were true 64bits, and if AMD was truer somehow. And after reading all the way through this thread not only am I still without an answer, I am the most confused I have ever been in my life. I want my last 30 minutes back.
December 6, 2006 10:15 AM PST


Richard		 I know assumptions make an ***** etc etc and are potentially risky. But based on the above trail I think some need to be made.

Intel make some great kit, it works really well and powers large chunks of the world's PC's at the least and probably fridges, cars,lawnmowers and space shuttles for all I know. The point is they obviously have many very intelligent and dedicated scientists, engineers and production experts to deliver these products to the marketplace.

I also think it is safe to ASSUME that most if not all of these people are very good at describing in plain language what they want, need and can or cannot deliver to get Intel's products to market.

So why can't anyone from Intel describe in plain language which of their processors do or don't operate in native 64bit or do or do not operate in 64bit emulation, in conjunction with X or Y operating system, connected to A or B motherboard or other peripherals? (I am sure they don't have vague disingenuous conversations about this topic within Intel, I am sure they know absolutely.)

It's probably for marketing, legal or maybe partner/vendor related reasons. Until the right time obfuscation rules. You don't want to say one thing now then have to do something different in 3-6-9 months time, we could end up as confused then as we are now.

So I'm with Tech.Master I'm buying a Core 2 Duo it's a s***load faster than my 3 year old notebook. Worst case, (as long as you have money to keep shelling out of course) in 12 or 18 months time, when the next new all singing all dancing native 64bit intel processor lands in the marketplace, if it adresses my requirements and it's s***loads faster than my Core 2 Duo, I'll probably buy it.

Signed. A Marketing Victim
December 7, 2006 12:19 AM PST


Tech to English Translator		 Ok, hopefully I won't make a major misstatement here.

The Intel64 and AMD64 chips both use compatible microcode to run the "64 bit extensions" required to run Windows XP x64 and Windows Vista64 operating systems. In fact, if memory serves, Intel has licensed the code from AMD, just as AMD has licensed much of the 32 bit code from Intel.

Yes, Virtually all of the current Intel Desktop processors and the new Core 2 Duo processors will run the Windows desktop "64" OSs.

You must check with the computer manufacturer to see how much memory a specific model will support. Many factors other than the processor come into play. Right now, very few mobile computers support more than 2GB.

My advice. Don't wait. "64 bit" is here, and it is useful. And it's not expensive. How much is your time worth? I replace my laptop at least once per year, not only to avoid problems from wear and tear, (inevitable), but also to take advantage of more memory, faster processors, and larger hard disk drives (I do a lot of digital photography). I spent less than $1300 on my most expensive laptop of the last 2 years, and less than $1000 on my current one (maxxed out at 2GB ram, btw). And I'm running Vista64 on that.

There are a variety of technical, legal, historical, and marketing reasons that Intel hasn't been very forthcoming with information, and it's hurt their market share. (Can you say Not Invented Here?) I think they recognize that, and the renaming of the extensions to Intel64 is a step in the right direction. But Intel, there is a lot of catching up to do!
December 8, 2006 4:41 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Time to recap a bit:

Except for the Itanium, which is 64bit through and through, Intel and AMD have remarkably similar 64bit implementations - this is why the same 64bit and 32bit software will run on both Intel and AMD hardware. What makes this implementation really great is that it allows you to run a 64bit OS, and still run your legacy 32bit software as needed.

CoreDuo will not run a 64bit OS.
Pentium D, Core2Duo and everything released after the Pentium D (except CoreDuo) can run both 32 and 64bit OS's.
If you're looking for "TRUE" 64 bit without a 32 bit legacy, then Itanium is the processor for you - but you probably wouldn't want to buy one to play Quake 4 at home.
- Pitz
December 8, 2006 5:15 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Ahh Marketing! The 64bit debate. Let's go back a couple years to June 2, 2004. The headline read, AMD64 Goes Down To The Crossroads With Eric Clapton At Guitar Festival In Dallas. The story which hit the music trades as well as the computer trades, (and was even mentioned in the Wall Street Journal) touted AMD64 technology and hinted this 64bit technology was used to record Eric Clapton live at the Crossroads concert. It was seen as a huge 64bit breakthrough for AMD - and was the flashpoint for much of the 32bit/64bit AMD-Intel debate that followed.
What most folks (and the resulting media hype) missed was that the OS used was 32bit, as was the software application used to record Eric Clapton, Steinberg's Nuendo 2.0.
December 12, 2006 7:29 PM PST


Ross		 So where can I take my Toshiba P100 to get upgraded to a Core 2 Duo from a Core Duo, which I understood was future proof for at least two years-for free? I am running high end architectural Building Information Modelling software -Autodesk Revit Building v9.1 to be precise. One would expect that the next release would be 64 bit in such a processor and memory hungry app.
December 13, 2006 2:57 PM PST


David Schwartz		 Wow, what a weird distortion on a set of facts.

"So - I am someone from Intel. A chipset validation guy to be complete. I'm not exactly sure what I am allowed to say and what Im not allowed to say. All I can say is that core 2 duo 'supports' 64-bit with special 64-bit extension registers."

Sure, all the CPU registers are extended to 64-bits and there's a switch to set it to 64-bit mode. The only difference between that and a "real" 64-CPU is that you have to flip a switch. The core 2 is a 64-bit CPU just as much as it is a 32-bit CPU.

"There is no mysterious dual-core dual-32 bit mode or anything like that. It will support your 8GB of memory - no problem. Pentium-D can as well. So - EAX is still 32-bits. Im sure on an AMD - EAX is also 32-bits. However - there are special registers to enable the EM64T or the AMD64 mode to allow it to run in 64-bit mode with software support."

Yes, there are other ways to use more than 4GB of memory without having 64-bits. They are inelegant and have some performance penalties, but they exist. This has nothing to do with whether the Core2 is a "real" 64-bit CPU. Hacks in *other* CPUs aren't relevant.

And yes, there are registers to enable 64-bit mode on the Core2. If a CPU isn't a real 64-bit CPU because it can also operate in 32-bit mode and needs a switch flipped to be a 64-bit CPU, then the Core 2 isn't a "real" 64-bit CPU. But that's a crazy definition.

The Itanium IS THE only 64bit processor. Im sure Intel wouldn't want to lie to the public saying it has 64-bit CPU's when they really aren't true 64-bit. Who says you need 64-bit anyways? Just get a quad core Kentsfield and overclock the crap out of it :) (by the way - you can access 8GB of memory with only 36 bits, you don't even need 64!)

What is "true 64-bit"? If a CPU has 64-bit registers and can add, subtract, multiply, and divide them, uses 64-bit pointers, and does so with no penalty over smaller word sizes, then it's a 64-bit CPU

I don't know what snake oil you've been buying

Take a look at this page:
http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm

I bet that you will be unable to define what "true 64-bit" means without resorting to technically-irrelevant nonsense.

I find the "without a 32-bit legacy" comment really, really strange. How does support for 32-bits hurt me?

You can try to argue that there's some performance penalty associated with also supporting 32-bit mode. That may even be true. But that's hardly a justification for purchasing a 64-bit CPU that performs worse. Maybe you'll feel better that the performance is slow because the design isn't as sophisticated rather than because of supporting a legacy mode.

Simply put, if you are looking for a 64-bit CPU, pick the one that provides the best price and performance for what you need. But don't buy the snake oil that there are "real" 64-bit CPUs and EM64T isn't "real" 64-bits.

If they claim the backward compatability hurts performance, let them prove it with benchmarks.
December 13, 2006 10:38 PM PST


abhijit		 When will intel start saying "64 - bit" and not "Supports 64 bit". I think if some one really opens the processor and finds its not a true 64 bit processor, he will kick intel ass. And intel dont want this to happen, so they are strictly saying "Supports 64 bit". Even a chimp can say that "Supports 64" dosent mean "64". It just means that it will run 64 bit OS and Apps. No one from intel says that "it is 64 bit". By making some registers 64 bit, it does not make the processor 64 bit. The whole processor architecture will have to be changed. And the processor will cost a lot ! It can also be designed for backward compatibility for 32 bit applications. A true 64 bit processor can access 16 exabytes where 1 exabyte = 1,024 petabytes = 1,024 ¥ 1,024 terabytes = 1,024 ¥ 1,024 ¥ 1,024 gigabytes. i think EMT64T uses 40 bit addressing not 64. They have just tweeked 32 bit technology to make it run 64 bit applications. Applications designed for x64 run a bit faster because some registers are wider than 32bit processors. We will have to wait for some time before we get 64 bit processors on out desktops. Till then Keep running stupid x64 OS on the EMT64T processors. Listen carefully to what intel says, and you will get you answers.
December 13, 2006 11:00 PM PST


abhijit		 Does intel do 64 bit ? This is the topic. It means "can intel processors run 64 bit applications". It is no where close to " is EMT64 true 64 bit architecture". I have even heard some application developer say that the extra registers added to 32 bit architecture are not exactly 64 bit. they are smaller. Intel is just saying "supports 64 bit". Even when people are forcing them to say that it is a 64 bit. Intel wants to play safe. AMD is planning to say (or has planned to say) "well it runs 64 bit OS and Applications"
December 14, 2006 7:02 AM PST


David Schwartz		 abhijit:

I am saying they are true 64-bit. If you want to continue to insist that they are not, please tell me what they lack.

I agree that making some registers 64-bit does not make the processor 64-bit. SSE has provided 128-bit registers for a long time and nobody argues that every SSE CPU is a 128-bit CPU. Making *everything* 64-bit makes the CPU a 64-bit CPU.

What is not 64-bit on an EMT64 CPU?

"They have just tweeked 32 bit technology to make it run 64 bit applications."

A 64-bit CPU is one that can run 64-bit applications without a speed penalty. 64-bit applications are ones designed to run on a 64-bit CPU.

"i think EMT64T uses 40 bit addressing not 64."

They support up to 48-bit virtual addressing and 40-bit physical addressing. That's enough to address 256,000 gigabytes of memory mappings per process and 1,024 GB of physical RAM. I believe no current software actually uses that many bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

I think there is one fair point that the virtual address translation doesn't support 64-bit addresses yet. However, 48-bits seems to be sufficient for the forseeable life of these CPUs. If they supported 64-bit address translation, it's hard to imagine anyone would use it.

"I have even heard some application developer say that the extra registers added to 32 bit architecture are not exactly 64 bit. they are smaller."

That's meaningless nonsense. If they were not 64-bits, they couldn't be used by 64-bit applications. How many bits are you claiming they are? 48-bits? 51-bits?

"All general-purpose registers (GPRs) are expanded from 32 bits to 64 bits, and all arithmetic and logical operations, memory-to-register and register-to-memory operations, etc., are now directly supported for 64-bit integers. Pushes and pops on the stack are always in eight-byte strides, and pointers are eight bytes wide."

There is nothing a "true 64-bit" CPU could or would have that these CPUs don't have that could possibly be of any conceivable use for the forseeable life of these processors.

If you think there is, state precisely what you think it is.

"well it runs 64 bit OS and Applications"

That's what, and all, 64-bit CPUs do -- they perform 64-bit operations on 64-bit registers with no speed penalty.
December 14, 2006 7:08 AM PST


David Schwartz		 No current Itanium processor supports 50-bit physical addresses. So if 64-bit physical address capability is required to be a "true 64-bit CPU", then no Itanium CPU qualifies.
December 14, 2006 7:17 AM PST


David Schwartz		 Sorry, that should be:
No current Itanium processor supports _64_-bit physical addresses.
December 14, 2006 8:16 AM PST


abhijit		 The purpose of going 64 bit is to increase the performance by 2 times, or at least improve it to some acceptable limit. Running 64 bit applications on current 32 bit processors by modifying a few registers is not the way to do it. If you just want to "show off" that you have a 64 bit CPU, you can use intel 64 and AMD64 CPUs. If you are a technical person, and know exactly why we need to move to 64 bit processing, these processors are a nightmare for you. Moving to 64-bit processors has huge advantages, which current intel 64 technology is not capabe of.
Home users currently dont require huge amounts of RAM, so i dont mind if address register is 40 or 48 bit wide ot a 1024 bit wide.
You can run a 64 bit application on a 8 bit microprocessor, with some modifications. But no one does that.
There is a difference between human and an elephant. To convert a human to an elephant so that he can eat as much as an elephant is not a good idea. You can chopp of the humans arms and legs and put elephents legs there, and say that you have created a elephant, is not a good idea!
If you respect 64 bit technology, and truly want to benefit from it, please dont accept the modified 32 bit processors as 64 bit processors.
The processor manufacturers just want to make money out of it. They just dont care. This is not the first time Processor manufacturers are fooling us. Fooling people is going on from ages.
I believe the Intel 64 gives some improvements over current 32 bit CPUs, but they should not be termed as "64 bit processors". Intel has not yet said that these are 64 bit processors. They just say "supports 64 bit".
December 14, 2006 2:19 PM PST


abhijit		 Just have a look at the benchmark results of x86 versus x64, on same hardware.

http://www.assemble.tripod.com/emt64t.htm
OR
http://www.hardware.tripod.com/emt64t.htm

Conclusion: FAKE 64 bit !
December 14, 2006 9:58 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 abhijit, I hear what you're saying - I look at it in a slightly different way though. For me, the true value of an architecture is how it helps me with a particular usage. My background is Digital Content Creation - mainly animation. There was a time when we were pushing the folks at Alias (now part of Autodesk) pretty hard to come up with a Native 64bit version of Maya for the Itanium. It was a very hard sell, and rightfully so - not because Maya wouldn't have screamed on the Itanium (provided we had graphics support...another issue), but because an entire ecosystem of software would have needed to make that same move before the film|FX industry would have adopted an Itanium port of Maya into their production pipelines. Core2Duo may not give you all the performance of a platform built 64bit from the ground up - but it does give you an extremely powerful platform in terms of usability for a very wide range of software - and it's dang fast too :)
- Pitz
December 15, 2006 11:24 AM PST


David Schwartz		 abhijit:

I don't know if you're uninformed or simply lying, but what you're saying is technical double-speak.

"If you are a technical person, and know exactly why we need to move to 64 bit processing, these processors are a nightmare for you. Moving to 64-bit processors has huge advantages, which current intel 64 technology is not capable of."

Why are they a nightmare? What are they not capable of?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about or are you just repeating something you don't understand? (That was likely being repeated by someone else who didn't understand it.)

There is nothing wrong with making a 64-bit CPU by taking a 32-bit CPU and changing everything that was 32-bits into 64-bits. How hard is that to understand?

"If you respect 64 bit technology, and truly want to benefit from it, please dont accept the modified 32 bit processors as 64 bit processors."

You are assuming what you want to prove by describing what I'm claiming are 64-bit processors as "modified 32-bit processors". What are they missing to be 64-bit processors? Be precise and specific or stop spouting FUD.
December 15, 2006 3:42 PM PST


abhijit		 David Schwartz:

I think i am very clear about what i am saying. How come MAD\spitzel understands what i am saying?
David, did you visit the links i have provided earlier?
They show a 16.8 % improvement over 32 bit.
Intel has not changed the whole processor from 32 bit to 64 bit, it only has changed some registers. These registers are only Fraction of the CPU, it is not even part of the actual processing modules, they just hold Data. The new registers which are wider than older processors makes the processor access more data from the memory, and send more data to the processing core. Every thing else is same.
You should not decide the width of a processor with what it can process. If the processor is fully 64 bit wide, then only you should call it 64 bit. An 8 bit processor can process 64 bit code with modifications and so no one will call it a 64 bit processor.

INTEL NEVER SAID THAT THESE ARE 64 BIT PROCESSORS, THEY JUST SAY THEY ARE "64 BIT CAPABLE"
December 15, 2006 5:58 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Ross! Hey, before I jump back in with David and abhijit, I just wanted to get back to you about the Toshiba P100. I've upgraded a whole bunch of desktop and workstation machines - but I have yet to crack open a laptop - that still scares the heck out of me (who knows what's in there? Could be the same white, gooey stuff you'd find inside a cockroach) I would definitely go back to Toshiba - I looked at the Toshiba website and didn't see a listing for the chipset on the P100 - it may be somewhere in the docs that came with it. If you know which one it is, look at the page below - it lists chipsets and from there you can link to the processors they support:

http://www.intel.com/products/laptop/chipsets/index.htm?iid=laptop_body+chips

- Pitz
December 15, 2006 11:01 PM PST


David Schwartz		 "David, did you visit the links i have provided earlier?
They show a 16.8 % improvement over 32 bit."

Yes, I did. What does the performance improvement have to do with anything? A 64-bit CPU could be much slower than a 32-bit CPU. Performance has nothing to do with whether a processor is really 64-bits or not.

Frankly, a 16.8% percent performance improvement for a jump from 32-bits to 64-bits is much more than I would have expected. Very few things don't fit in 32-bits, so the cases where 64-bits helps you much are not that common. (Encryption and image processing come to mind.)

"Intel has not changed the whole processor from 32 bit to 64 bit, it only has changed some registers. These registers are only Fraction of the CPU, it is not even part of the actual processing modules, they just hold Data. The new registers which are wider than older processors makes the processor access more data from the memory, and send more data to the processing core. Every thing else is same."

This is more FUD. Either state specifically what it is that is not 64-bits or stop claiming that somewhere something is still 32-bits. When we talk about a 32-bit CPU or a 64-bit CPU, mostly what we are talking about is the register size.

That is true though. Most of the processor was already 64-bits or wider. Intel did this because that was an efficient way to make the CPUs faster. Pretty much the only thing that was still 32-bits was the registers and the normaly arithmetic units (the FPU/SSE units were already 64-bits or wider).

"You should not decide the width of a processor with what it can process. If the processor is fully 64 bit wide, then only you should call it 64 bit. An 8 bit processor can process 64 bit code with modifications and so no one will call it a 64 bit processor."

If the core 2 is not fully 64-bit wide, then there must be something that's not 64-bits wide. Well, what is it? (Other than memory, which isn't 64-bits on the Itanium either.)

"INTEL NEVER SAID THAT THESE ARE 64 BIT PROCESSORS, THEY JUST SAY THEY ARE "64 BIT CAPABLE"

This isn't an argument about what Intel said, it's an argument about what the truth actually is. Intel could also say they are 16-bit capable, because they still support V8086 mode.

You are claiming these CPUs are not true 64-bit CPUs. So I'm asking you what is not 64-bits that you think has to be 64-bits for a CPU to be true 64-bits. You say that there are "some things" that aren't. Well, what things?

I am saying the only thing that isn't 64-bits is pointers to memory. The only thing that's 64-bits on the Itanium that isn't on the Core 2 is virtual memory. Physical memory isn't 64-bits on the Itanium.
December 15, 2006 11:12 PM PST


David Schwartz		 I think Abhijit's core misunderstanding is that he really thinks that, all other things being equal, a 64-bit CPU has to be twice as fast as a 32-bit one. In truth, all things being equal, you would not expect a 64-bit CPU to be much faster than 32-bit CPU in applications other than encryption, image processing, or manipulation of very large data sets. And even then, many of those applications are memory-limited.

Of course, the idea that you can tell the "real" bit width of a CPU from a benchmark is absurd on its face.

"If it was a true 64 bit processor, with a true 64 bit OS, performance would have been approximately doubled!"

That's absolute complete hokum. It's even funnier because the benchmarks he's using mostly just show that the same CPU does the same number of 32-bit operations in 32-bit mode as it does 64-bit operations in 64-bit mode. Well, duh.

The move from 8-bits to 16-bits made a huge performance difference because almost everything a CPU does numbers more than 256. The move from 16-bits to 32-bits made a large performance difference because many things a CPU does number more than 65,536. However, the move from 32-bits to 64-bits won't make that much difference because not too many things number more than 4 billion.

You will not find anyone who has any idea what they're talking about claiming that they expect 64-bit CPUs to double performance. For one thing, memory won't be any faster. Code that makes decisions won't make them any faster.
December 16, 2006 12:06 PM PST


abhijit		 David, a processor has a lots of things in it, the only things which changed in Intel 64 (EMT64T) are:
64-bit flat virtual address space
64-bit pointers
64-bit wide general purpose registers
64-bit integer support
Registers just hold instructions, results.
These extra registers are a fraction of the whole processor.

We moved from 8 bit uP to 16 bit uP, because there were lots of improvements, every thing either doubled or more than doubled, or at lease improved significantly!

We could have used the same 8 bit processor to process 16 bit code. But why did we go through all the trouble?

Then we moved to 32 bit, do you remember the 386SX? intel is doing it again. The difference between 286 and 386SX is similar to the difference between 32 bit an "Intel 64". Just that 386SX gave a much more performance improvement over 286 than intel 64 is giving over 32 bit.
386 could at least be called a 32 bit processor, intel dosent even call Intel 64 a 64 - bit processor!

To run 64 bit applications on 32 bit processor you will need to do a lots of work. If its SSE instruction, there wont be any problem. But if its not an SSE instrn then it will execute slower than two 32 bit instructions. Thats what shows up in the benchmarks!

Why the hell should we use the same 32 bit processor to execute 64 bit instructions ? Some Applications may run faster thanks to the extra registers provided, but some applications will suffer.
Why should we move to 64 bit, if its providing no significant improvement over 32 bit processing? We can obtain that improvement by just using using a processor at a bit higher clock.

Eating like an elephant does not make a human elephant! He will surely be different than normal human, but he will still be a human, he wont get transformed into an elephant.

You can not add parts to a human to transform him into an elephant, and you can not cut an elephant to create a human.

David, nice explanation for "move from 32 bit to 64 bit wont make that much difference". Please read some books on Microprocessors.
December 16, 2006 10:33 PM PST


David Schwartz		 abhijit:

There is no way this could be honest misunderstanding. You are a liar, plain and simple. You have yet to point to anything that is missing from the core 2 for it to be "real 64-bits" despite numerous responses after I've asked you to point to such a thing.

"To run 64 bit applications on 32 bit processor you will need to do a lots of work. If its SSE instruction, there wont be any problem. But if its not an SSE instrn then it will execute slower than two 32 bit instructions. Thats what shows up in the benchmarks !"

Then why do the benchmarks show any performance improvement at all? By your reasoning, the benchmarks should be slower in 64-bit mode because two 32-bit operations are required to "fake" each 64-bit operation.

In reality, the benchmarks show the precise opposite -- in 64-bit mode, the CPU performs 64-bit operations at about the same rate that it performs 32-bit operations in 32-bit mode. In other words, the Core 2 is just as much a 64-bit CPU as it is a 32-bit CPU. Some improvement is seen because 64-bit operations operate on twice as much data and sometimes that helps and sometimes it doesn't.

You claim the Core 2 is not "real 64-bits". Yet you have not specified anything *SPECIFIC* to show that it's not. What's not 64-bits? You have no idea.

The benchmarks show the opposite of what you claim. They show the CPU performs 64-bit operations at the same speed as 32-bit operations. In that case, it's just as much 64-bit as 32-bit.

As for your brilliant rebuttal of my explanation for why the move from 32-bits to 64-bits won't make that much of a difference, umm, actually there wasn't one. If you think there's some kind of error in it, please explain what the error is. Otherwise, it just looks like more lying or perhaps some kind of odd faith that there must be a mistake somewhere because what you've been told be people who have no idea what they're talking about can't possibly be wrong.

As for your history lesson, it's irrelevant for two reasons. First, it conflates improvements from increases in native bit width with improvements from other changes. Obviously, a CPU from a later generation is going to be faster than a CPU from the a previous generation even at the same bit-width. The '386SX processes 16-bit code faster than the '286 does, so it's not surprising it should process 32-bit code faster.

Second, as I explained, many things CPUs deal with number more than 65,536. So being able to handle 32-bits natively speeds up a large number of processing tasks. 64-bits only helps when you manipulate things that number more than 4 billion, which isn't that much. So our previous experience with performance improvements after changes in native bit width aren't likely to be seen again.

Sorry, but that's the truth.
December 17, 2006 1:48 PM PST


abhijit		 David, This is the last time i am talking to you.
There are a lots of units in a Processor, like ALU, FPU, AGU, etc. etc. Register are just for holding Data. To run 64 bit instructions on a 32 bit processor, processors should be modified in some way, thats what intel has done. It gives very little or no performance inprovement.

Consider a 16 bit processor:
SUPPOSE, it takes 1 Clock cycle to execute a 16 bit instruction, it will take 2 or even more to execure 32 bit instructions, and 4 or more for a 64 bit instruction.

Now consider same technology used to make a 32 bit processor:
Now the ALU, FPU, AGU, Registers are 2 times wider, so it takes 1 Clock cycle to execute a 32 bit instruction, it will take 2 or even more to execure 64 bit instructions, and 4 or more for a 128 bit instruction.

Now consider same technology used to make a 64 bit processor:
Now te ALU, FPU, AGU, Registers are 4 times wider than 16 bit, so it takes 1 Clock cycle to execute a 64 bit instruction, it will take 2 or even more to execute 128 bit instruction.

Note: Considering above senerio:
A 64 bit processor will take 1 cycle to execure a 1 bit OR 2 bit OR 4 bit OR 8 bit OR 16 bit OR 32bit OR a 64 bit instruction.
(Coz there is nothing less than 1 clock cycle)

A 32 bit processor will take 1 cycle to execure a 1 bit OR 2 bit OR 4 bit OR 8 bit OR 16 bit OR 32bit instruction. AND 2 OR MORE CYCLES FOR A 64 BIT INSTRUCTION ! THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN CURRENT "INTEL 64" PROCESSORS !

I think I am clear now, am i?

If you still think i am not clear, go climb a very tall building and jump down.

If you still are alive, again climb the building and jump again!

Keep repeating it till u are alive!

(just kidding, dont take it seriously)........
December 17, 2006 2:07 PM PST


abhijit		 David, i am not here to fight you. I just want people to know what actually is happening.
I know there are 2 ALUs in the P4s 16 bit each, which run 2 times faster than Core clock. so 2 * 16 =32: 32 * 2 = 64.
But do any thing you want, they cant execute a 64 bit instructon as fast as a single 64 bit ALU.
I know why Intel has used 2 - 16 bit ALUs instead of one 32 bit ALU.(At lease i think i know). But they could have done some improvements in a 64 bit CPU.

I dont know any thing about the Core 2 duo. Where can i get a detailed architecture of Core 2 Duo ? I can not claim them "not 64 bit" but Intel says they have not made any thing wider. They only talk about the extra registers.

But for Pentium 4 and Pentium D, i am 100 % sure they are still 32 bit processors with "64 bit support"!
December 17, 2006 4:17 PM PST


EGAVGA.BGI		 What I understood from this argument is that abhijit wants to prove that the processors are not native 64-bit. The guy is not mentioning a critical part called the "pipelines".

David, can you tell us whether the pipelines in Core 2 Duo have been changed to 64-bit to carry in 64-bit instructions at once? Or are they still 32-bits wide.
December 17, 2006 7:34 PM PST


abhijit		 Core 2 duo have 33% wider pipes, w.r.t AMD.
Actually, after pentium 3 - Core 2 duo should have been launched. These P4s messed up every thing.
December 17, 2006 8:17 PM PST


EGAVGA.BGI		 I'm not familiar with AMD and with much of the newer Intel architectures (P4 onwards). Things dramatically changed I guess. But, anyway, 33% sounds like an odd number to have for a width which carries instructions, don't you think? Which again goes back to "how can it execute a 64-bit instruction at once?
December 18, 2006 8:50 AM PST


abhijit		 EGAVGA.BGI, thats what i am taking about. Current processors have to split 64 bit instructions. P4 and Pentium D has to split them into 4. Not a very nice way of executing a 64 bit instruction.
Intel and AMD are not revealing their processor architecture details, i dont know why. They just say 40% faster. They dont even specify 40% faster than what ? We just have to guess, its 40% faster than current P4s (per core).
But Intel is doing a good job, without it we would not have cheap desktops. Only rich people would be buying Computers from companies like IBM.
Sometimes Processor manufacturers get carried away and release processors with Netburst technology, but then they also release processors like Core 2.

Intel calls current processors - IA 32e. They also call it Intel 64. The also used to call them EM64T (Extended memory 64 Technology) Actually it should be called EM40T, if you Love intel very much you can call it EM48T! EM64T is way too much.
December 18, 2006 4:21 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Hah! Abhijit - I loved the last comments - both about the P4 and about the cheap processors :). It's amazing how "non-linear" the path of processor design has been here. For some things the P4 was great... but it was definitely a departure. I don't see it as sinister.

Like a lot of high-tech companies, Intel is full of humans with great ideas and passion. A lot of battles are fought, won, and lost... but a lot of learning comes with the battles. Hyper-threading is a good example. Initially it was great for some things... but for real-time processes like audio recording it was best turned off in the BIOS. But then the geniuses at Cakewalk made HT work for their Sonar Digital Audio Workstation package. Then they went one better - they took what they learned from threading their package for HT and applied that to the Core2 technology. With two processors... and 64bit (and I love the debate on 64bit btw... as long as we keep it civil!) Sonar rocks!!! I'm working on a track now that choked my P4 3.2GH. It runs with no problem whatsover using the 32bit Sonar on a Core2Duo (this is a mid-level, E6600 running at 2.4GHz), and when I run that track using the native 64bit Sonar application and XP64Pro -- the Core2 barely knows I'm running anything at all -- the track screams and I barely eek out more than 12% out of either core.

You mentioned "cheap" processors. I came from an industry... Film|FX, where we routinely spent 40-50K for a good workstation. I don't even want to mention what an Inferno system used to cost. Literally, as an animation student, you would pay $75 an hour just to sit in front of an SGI Solid Impact to use a 3D package with no instructor. You sold your soul to learn 3D. Okay, well I did anyway.

Even without the greatest workstation graphics card in the world (I do have friends at both nVidia and ATI...so, hopefully they'll still speak to me at me at Siggraph next year), packages like Softimage|XSI and Autodesk's Maya (man, it's still hard for me not to say Alias) run extremely well on a machine you can build for 1K or less.

My friends at Avid put it well a few years back calling it the "Democratization of 3D."

Now -- the trick is going to be this (and I depend on folks like you, Abhijit and EGAVGA.BGI and Dave Stewart and a lot of the other passionate folks out there who love the technology and want to make sure it keeps moving forward): the trick is -- how do we keep corporations with stockholders focused on making technology not only cheaper (ah yes, stockholders love the idea of a $100 PC for the screaming masses)... but better?

How do we keep the admittedly small number of folks like content creators for film, music and games who will never have enough power and speed happy when there are a billion folks out there who'd just like to log onto Myspace once in awhile, send an email, or run the next version of Word?

Please... keep us moving forward. Keep us honest!

- Pitz
December 18, 2006 9:05 PM PST


abhijit		 I see P4 as an act of desperation. Intel some how wanted to beat the Athlon. Or at least make the people think that intel is still ahead, and in the mean while build a uP which could really kick some amd ***. And now they have done it. Now if AMD comes out with a uP with higher processing power, then just increase the clock speed, or number of cores. I think AMD is finding it difficult to increase the clock speed of their uPs

I still dont know how AMD got the technology of beating Intel.

I remember that P4 was realesed when i was studying. i had these 2 friends they were best friends (with each other). They wanted to buy a computer. One was into gaming and other just checked mail and used messenger. I told him to buy a Celeron 1.2Ghz, he said i can afford P4, i told him that P4 is a useless processor. So he bought the celeron. The other guy i had recomended Athlon or P3. But he went for P4 (1.4 or 1.5 Ghz). The guy with P4 started teasing the guy with celeron. The guy with celeron started saying " because of you i bought the celeron" and every time he saw me, he gave me this bad look. so i finally decided to show them the truth. I downloaded a few benchmark softwares and showed them the results. The face of guy with P4 was like "I am the unhappiest human on earth" "Intel has ripped me". He bought More RAM, and then a powerful Graphic card, again he bought more RAM. He has a collection of RAM now! Thanks to P4.

I dont know when P4 HT was released, but it has been a long time, and i am still not using even a single multithreaded application. Because, every thing i use still is sequential, uses only 1 processor. Why dont they write multi threaded programs ? Is it so difficult ? i have learnt some programming languages, languages like Java have multithreading since ages. But not even a single Java program which i use are multithreaded.
I know there are Multithreaded apps out there, but i just dont need them.

And why would i use more than 2 demanding applications at the same time ? Suppose i am playing a game, i would like the game to use both the processors. I wont play 2 games, so that both processors are used. What will people with 4 cores do?
1st, start a DivX encoder.
2nd, Start a Game
3rd, start some thing else
4th, start anything, coz 1 processor is still empty!

I bought a Pentium D, now i am upgrading to Core 2, that means i just wasted 1 core of my pentium D.it was never used!
I hope some multithreaded apps and games come up before i get old and stop playing games.
December 18, 2006 9:40 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 P4 architecture was definitely about clock speed. Initially we were hearing talk of possible frequencies in the 10GHz range. The way I understand it (and I'm an animator, not an engineer da** it!) is that the long pipeline of the P4 also meant more instructions per cycle - but that also meant a heavy reliance on intelligent branch prediction - if the prediction was wrong, you had a very long pipeline to flush. As long as those predictions were right - you had great performance. That meant a lot of programming work.

With multiple cores and multithreading - you once again really have to work on the software programming side. You've probably read some of Dr. Clay Breshear's Blogs - multithreading is not easy. And - it's also not for every software application out there. Some really do benefit though.

You're right to say that in many cases folks will only use one CPU intensive program at a time. Some of those applications - the ones I use every day for animation and music creation - can really take advantage of multiple cores though. Animation software in particular can use it to take care of things like physics, Inverse Kinematics, surface deformation, texture mapping, rendering, audio and particle generation on separate threads - all of these things are meant to happen in real time - but normally most of them would need to be "turned off" to use any one of them that way. Threading those apps for multiple cores improves their performance dramatically.

If you apply the same idea to many of the popular games - you find lots of opportunities to use multiple threads and multiple cores - since games essentially do everything the animation packages do and they really have to do it in real time.

The same goes for music production. You record tracks in real time, and, if you're a singer like I am, you really like to hear some signal processing like reverb and delay happening at the same time - and if you're recording on a computer you also need analog to digital conversion - and you can't afford latency.

The usages are out there - but, like I mentioned before, multithreading is not for every application, and it ain't easy. But it can be extremely worthwhile in many cases.

- Pitz
December 18, 2006 10:35 PM PST


David Schwartz		 Just use some common sense. If Abhijit was right, most code would be slower in 64-bit than in 32-bit mode. Simple operations that don't particularly care about bit width would take twice as long in 64-bit mode as the CPU had to do two 32-bit operations. The benchmarks *clearly* show that this is not the case.

As for the 16-bit ALUs, that's an absurd argument. If having 16-bit ALUs doesn't mean the CPU isn't a "real 32-bit CPU", how can it mean it's not a real 64-bit CPU? Intel chose 16-bits as the ALU width because a 16-bit ALU runs faster than a 32-bit or 64-bit ALU (for reasonably comparable chip real estate).

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~skadron/cs451/itanium/Itanium.ppt
Hmm why are the EM64T CPUs listed under the 64-bit CPUs?
December 19, 2006 9:03 AM PST


abhijit		 David, we are at war now!
see, i am talking about work done per cycle. An Intel 64 Can process 2 * 32 bit instructions at the same speed as one 64 bit instruction. Not exactly at the same speed, but similar speeds.
One 64 bit instruction can do the same work as 2 * 32 bit instructions, Although this may not the case for every 64 bit instruction.
But if we want to reach the next generation of processors, it should be able to execute one 64 bit instruction in the same time as a 32 bit processor of earlier generation executes one 32 bit instruction. This is not the case now.
The 64 bit wide registers will improve the performance.
And if you look at the benchmarks carefully, the reason why 64 bit mode scored more was due to error in calculating the dot product.
In some cases the 32bit mode scores more than 64 bit mode.
As the technology improves, faster and wider ALUs can always be built.
Right now we are using the same processor which was designed to execute 32 bit instructions.
Example: You have a 512Kbps internet connection, some one gives you a 1Mbps connection at the same cost. You are happy that u will get 2 times more speed. You also have to upgrade ur old hardware (like we have to buy win XP x64 pro). But when you connect, it connects at 1Mbps, but the throughput is still the same. So whats the use?
December 20, 2006 7:39 PM PST


abhijit		 Ok, i abort ! be it 32 bit or 64 bit processor. I just want my things done.
Whats the use ot these discussions?
Win XP home costs less than Win XP x64. And there are no 64 bit apps for general public.
Dualcore processors have been in the market for a while now, and still there are no multithreaded apps for general people.
I think instead of making dualcore uPs, intel should have expanded the width of the CPU, (like bus width, more L1, 32 bit ALUs, or more ALUs.. etc..) that would have helped all apps.
And now they have quadcore uPs. i know Intel has the technology but i dont know why they come up with such ideas.
December 21, 2006 1:12 AM PST


David Schwartz		 Abhijit said, "An Intel 64 Can process 2 * 32 bit instructions at the same speed as one 64 bit instruction. Not exactly at the same speed, but similar speeds."

But that's simply not true. If that were true, most benchmarks would show a significant reduction in speed in 64-bit mode. Operations that didn't require 64-bits would take twice as long, and the vast majority of operations don't require 64-bits.

"And if you look at the benchmarks carefully, the reason why 64 bit mode scored more was due to error in calculating the dot product.
In some cases the 32bit mode scores more than 64 bit mode."

Which is exactly what you'd expect for a product that is just as much a 32-bit CPU as a 64-bit CPU. Some benchmarks show an improvement because you can calculate on twice as much data at a time. Some benchmarks show a reduction because you have to move twice as much data through the same memory interface, internal busses, and so on.

Suppose someone took a 64-bit CPU and added a feature that let it run 32-bit code. In some cases, the 32-bit code would run faster because less data would have to move around the same internal pathways. Would that somehow make the chip less "real" as a 64-bit CPU?

Basically, a CPU's bitness is the width of its general-purpose registers and the size operands its normal arithmetic operations operate on -- no more, no less.

As for there being no multithreaded applications for general use, that's a whole separate argument. But it's based on the false assumption that multiple cores are only useful if applications are multithreaded. That's mistaken for a large variety or reasons.

First, the OS is concurrent. Having two cores means that you can process a network packet or the completion of some disk I/O without interrupting the application. Think about a game that needs to write some data to the disk -- the actual disk I/O code can run in the other core.

Second, core system libraries are concurrent. Having two cores means that one core can be running Direct3D code without interrupting the application.

Third, people sometimes run more than one application at a time. Even if they really aren't meaning to, systems do lots of things "in the background" which, with only a single core, means interrupting the application. A lot of gaming stalls and stutters are due to just this.

When MMX and SSE first came out, heck when 32-bit processors first came out, everyone complained that there were no programs that took advantage of them. And that's a good argument not to pay too much extra for that technology short term. There's no point in paying more for a 64-bit CPU if it's obsolete by the time you'd want to put a 64-bit OS on it.

But that's most definitely not an argument against developing the technology. We will absolutely have to have it one day soon. We're hitting a wall with making single cores faster.
December 21, 2006 10:25 AM PST


abhijit		 David do u work for Intel ?
December 21, 2006 12:52 PM PST


abhijit		 ok David,
i have a Pentium D 2.66. Once win XP put my HDD on PIO mode. So now every thing had to be done by the processor. I started Limewire, now 1 core was busy doing I/O and running Limweire. I thought now i just cant sit there and watch limewire for an hour. So i started Windows media player, and tried to play a movie. Guess what ? I just could not! So i Opened my task manager and could see 1 processor was being used, not 100% but like 80% Average. The second processor was empty, like "i am having sunbath dont disturb me now". Using the task manager i forced the Mediaplayer to use the 2nd Processor. Guess what, i still could not play the movie.

By media player could not play the movie i mean every thing was out of sync Sound was going ahead of the graphics.

Dont tell me that it was due to the Hard disk or RAM, over 600MB physicsl RAM was empty, and PIO mode limits the HDD to 16Mbps, and i was doing nothing to use all 16Mbps.

I was watching a movie of 700Mb and duration was 1hr 30 mins.
1hr 30 mins = 60 + 30 mins = 90mins = 5400 seconds
so the transfer rates would be = 700MB / 5400 secs = 0.12962962962962962962962962962963MBps
Limewire was downloading at 400Kbps = 50KBps = 0.05 Mbps
So the total amount of HDD i was using is = 0.179629629629629629629629629629 MBps AVERAGE.
If you consider loading the programs in the memory, it was already done.
And since sound was playing smoothly, it was already buffered in the memory along with the video.

While selling intel Pentium 4 and Pentium D i make it a point to tell them every thing that actually happens, so that they dont create problems after sale. Not a problem for mail checkers, but people who are technically strong notice small problems and ask why it is happening even when they bought multi processor(multi-core) computers.

I remember one girl who actually asked me to run benchmark softwares on her computer to prove that dual channel RAM gives some improvement over single channel RAM. Thank god that she had bought a single-core processor.

You know that i never sold a single P4 HT 3 Ghz ? I just coud not prove that the processor was faster than 2.8Ghz without HT which was selling almost at half the cost! I directly went for Pentium D. I skipped the HT generation of P4.
December 23, 2006 8:21 PM PST


Someone,No-one		 To both Mr. Abhijeet & Mr. david;

The main topic has turned into a personal fight between you two.I think you both are half true.The only "pure 64-bit cpu" in the world is the ITANIUM.Both Intel and AMD uses an extra amount(eight) of 64-bit registers,64-bit flat virtual address space;64-bit pointers,64-bit wide general purpose registers, 64-bit integer support ;but not a real 64-bit processor core;only some 64-bit extensions over a normal x86 core,which can support 64-bit but not a true 64-bit.If Intel doesn't tells all lies they are bound to respect this truth that the x86 architecture, on which all 32-bit Intel and AMD CPUs are based already provides for 64-bit floating point registers (actually 80 bits internally).But the main difference between the Intel and AMD is that,AMD redesigned a processor core which Intel made only by "supercharging" the x86 architecture exsisting for several years.Even they both wotk in the same way.you both can visit http://www.pcstats.com for any detailed info on so-called "64-bit processor".

As for the matter of multicores, Intel haven't designed any such architecture that could run different apps in different cores; all are done via a single core while others are idle. Thats why AMD is going to hit the market with their second greatest innovation "Anti-Hyper Threading" ,which will divide and share workload of a single threaded application between different cores.

One request further, if anyone finds any errors or dis-consistensy in my opinion,please notify me with the correction.Thanks to everybody; specially MAD\spitzel for the topic.
December 26, 2006 2:06 PM PST


abhijit		 Thank you Someone,No-one. Anti-Hyperthreading is what people really need. It can use both the processors for running one app. Its a really bad news for intel.
December 26, 2006 7:41 PM PST


David Schwartz		 Abhijit wrote:

"i have a Pentium D 2.66. Once win XP put my HDD on PIO mode. So now every thing had to be done by the processor. I started Limewire, now 1 core was busy doing I/O and running Limweire. I thought now i just cant sit there and watch limewire for an hour. So i started Windows media player, and tried to play a movie. Guess what ? I just could not! So i Opened my task manager and could see 1 processor was being used, not 100% but like 80% Average. The second processor was empty, like "i am having sunbath dont disturb me now". Using the task manager i forced the Mediaplayer to use the 2nd Processor. Guess what, i still could not play the movie."

Wow, you cleverly proved that if you misconfigure your hardware, your computer won't work. Great job!

Someone,No-one wrote:

"but not a real 64-bit processor core;only some 64-bit extensions over a normal x86 core"

Are you Abhijit's alter-ego? This is the same nonsense argument. You are claiming that something, somewhere is not 64-bits, that only "some" things are 64-bits. Well, what's not 64-bits?

"The only "pure 64-bit cpu" in the world is the ITANIUM"

Nope, only some things are 64-bits. For example, the Itanium doesn't support 64-bit physical addresses. Notice how at least I can point to something *specific* that's not 64-bits?

And guess what, the Itanium is not a "pure 64-bit CPU" see. The Itaniums have what Intel calls "IA-32 H/W" which is hardware that executes 32-bit operations in 32-bit ALUs.

Not that I'm knocking Itanium for having a feature. Features are good. I'm just showing that the idea of a "pure 64-bit CPU" is dumb. How can having 32-bit capability *too* be bad?!
December 26, 2006 9:47 PM PST


David Schwartz		 "As for the matter of multicores,Intel haven't designed any such architecture that could run different apps in different cores;all are done via a single core while others are idle."

Uhh, what?! Of course you can run different applications in the different cores. You can also run two threads from the same application in two different cores. (If not, what do you think the advantage of having multiple cores is?)

You are confusing the ability to run a single thread in multiple cores (which does not exist yet) with the ability to run different threads (whether from the same application or not, whether in user-space or kernel-space) in multiple cores (which is the whole purpose of having multiple cores).

"Thats why AMD is going to hit the market with their second greatest innovation "Anti-Hyper Threading" ,which will divide and share workload of a single threaded application between different cores."

I am assuming you mean "single-threaded" rather than "single threaded". That is, an application with but a single thread rather than a single application that is threaded. Threaded applications can have their workload shared by different cores already, that's one of the main reasons you make threaded applications.

A single-threaded application can only run in one core at a time. That doesn't mean the other core can't do things (like processing network and disk I/O as well as some graphics tasks) that might make the application run more smoothly on a dual-core processor.

I think dividing a single thread over multiple cores will turn out to be a losing proposition for a variety of technical reasons. But maybe AMD will think of some clever thing that I don't know about. I'll have to take a wait-and-see approach to commenting on it.

My primary rationale is that it seems to me that if there were a way to make each core faster that you could afford to do and that was practical to do in a particular product, then you should do that in each core. The reason for multiple cores is that it's not practical to make one core any faster. (If taking resources from core B would make core A faster, just make those resources part of core A in the first place.)

Perhaps being able to take one core's cache resources when that core is only minimally used might make sense. As I said, I'll have to wait and see what AMD comes up with.
December 26, 2006 11:22 PM PST


abhijit		 What did i misconfigure ? Its an intel processor, with intel motherboard, and a 200GB SATA HDD. There was no misconfiguration what so ever ! Just proves that you are dumb.

I think Someone,No-one is talking about Apps that run on 1 core only, and not Multiple apps running on different cores, do u get that David ?

I say that a 8 bit microprocessor can execute 64 bit apps with some modifications to it, so does it become a 64 bit microprocessor ? Just answer this question.
Answer in YES or NO.

IF you say YES, all microprocessors are "infinite bit Microprocessors", coz they can execute infinite bit instructions in infinite amount of time (with some modifications). I hope your brain is good enough to understand what i am saying.
If you say NO, then Intel 64 is not a 64 bit processor.

So whats ur answer ? And please dont repeat your reasoning behind it.

And to Someone,No-one. I will need ur help.
December 26, 2006 11:30 PM PST


abhijit		 David, whats ur educational qualification ?
December 27, 2006 1:21 AM PST


David Schwartz		 Abhijit:

I say that a 8 bit microprocessor can execute 64 bit apps with some modifications to it, so does it become a 64 bit microprocessor ? Just answer this question.
Answer in YES or NO."

If those modifications include extending the size of the general-purpose registers to 64-bits and also include support for 64-bit instructions, then yes. When we talk about a "64-bit processor" we mean one with 64-bit general purpose registers that performs operations on 64-bit data.

If you mean something else, then for the love of god, explain *WHAT* you mean.

"IF you say YES, all microprocessors are "infinite bit Microprocessors", coz they can execute infinite bit instructions in infinite amount of time (with some modifications). I hope your brain is good enough to understand what i am saying.
If you say NO, then Intel 64 is not a 64 bit processor."

You keep using the term "some modifications" with no explanation of what the scope of the modifications are. With sufficient changes, a Xeon becomes an Itanium. If the "modifications" include 64-bit registers and operations that manipulate 64-bits of data, then it's a 64-bit CPU. That's what the definition of a 64-bit CPU is.

You keep saying these processors are not a "real" 64-bit processor, but you refuse to do two things:

1) Define what you mean by a "64-bit processor". So this makes your claim both meaningless and impossible to refute. You aren't saying anything meaningful at all.

2) State what is missing for it to be a 64-bit processor. So there is no way I can argue that what you claim is missing isn't actually missing or doesn't affect the bitness of the processor.

"David, whats ur educational qualification ?"

If you are asking if I'm as qualified as you are to keep repeating the same meaningless drivel while refusing to answer any concrete question, no, I'm not.

This is a simple concrete question -- what is missing? Why are these not real 64-bit processors? Yes, they are 32-bit CPUs with "some changes", but a car is an elephant with "some changes". What changes are missing? What wasn't changed? The fact is that you have *no* idea.
December 27, 2006 2:01 AM PST


David Schwartz		 "What did i misconfigure ? Its an intel processor, with intel motherboard, and a 200GB SATA HDD. There was no misconfiguration what so ever ! Just proves that you are dumb."

What do you think your experiment shows? If there wasn't even enough work to max out one core, how do you think a second core is going to help?

"So i Opened my task manager and could see 1 processor was being used, not 100% but like 80% Average. The second processor was empty, like "i am having sunbath dont disturb me now"."

If one CPU is not 100% busy, then there is no benefit to distributing tasks to the other CPU. It's hard to guess why the work got distributed the way it did, but my guess would be that you created a bottleneck in the disk I/O, and the OS found it more efficient to just keep the core that was handling each disk I/O running rather than switch to the other one.

An infinitely fast CPU with a dozen cores would not have helped much, you were still processing all the disk data as fast as it could be transferred.

It's hard to be sure though, since your testing was not exactly rigorous.
December 27, 2006 8:13 AM PST


Nik B.		 abhijit,

You know what your problem is? You know a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, you mashed the two together and you think you know it all, when in reality, you know, well, 'this' and 'that.'

You've kept on spouting FUD and nonsense. And after being corrected -- a number of times -- you've managed to make your position even more absurd. It's clear you have a fundamental misunderstanding about microprocessors in general.

Intel's x86-64 processors (or EM64T, as they call it) are tue 64-bit processors, no ifs, ands or buts. When in 64-bit mode, they process data _natively_ in 8-byte chunks (just to make it clear, that's 64-bits, abhijit). That they also operate in 32-bit mode is a completely different, and unrelated, issue.

As for the nonsense that you spout, that a 64-bit processor should be twice as fast as a 32-bit processor in general computing tasks, is, well, _complete and utter nonsense_.

And frankly, I'm really surprised that only one person has stood up to confront your idiotic comments.
December 27, 2006 9:11 AM PST


abhijit		 Great, now one more. See i am not here to fight for anything. Intel has not yar said that those are 64 bit processors ? They say that they are "64 bit capable". So are you saying that intel is incorrect. Who are you to challenge Intel ? Intel does not want to mess with their naming scheems. They clearly want to differentiate between an IA32e and IA64 architectures. You people say that IA32e is 64 bit. We have come close to 64 bit architectures for desktop, but we are not there yet. Being a technical person, i cant accept it as a 64 processor. You are free to call it what ever you want, i dont care. Whome are you trying to fool ? You are fooling yourselfs.
December 27, 2006 9:56 AM PST


Nik B.		 Of course they don't use IA-64 because IA-64 is the name of the architecture for their Itanium platform -- a platform that is _completely_ different from x86 -- and so it would make no sense to label x86 processors as IA-64.

They have another name that they use for their 64-bit x86 processors and that is "Intel® 64." They previously used EM64T but have since renamed it.

The bottom line is this: "Intel® 64" processors have adopted 64-bit wide data as the fundamental arithmetic size of the processor. That they can also operate in 32-bit mode (or 16-bit mode, for that matter) is irrelevant. Internally, the processor uses 64-bit wide data as its.

And to hear all this from the horse's mouth, check out this Intel site: http://www.intel.com/technology/intel64/index.htm.

I really don't know what else Intel (or anyone else) can do to convince you. Because, ultimately, it comes down to you reading and understanding.

You keep crying that you can't accept Intel® 64 processors as 64-bit processors. Why? What -- specifically -- do they lack?
December 27, 2006 2:14 PM PST


abhijit		 i dont say that they should call it IA 64 coz thats Itanium, i am just saying that they call it IA32e? Get that?

And i saw that Site even before, they only say "64 bit capable".

Show me one sentence where it says "Are 64 bit", show any where on intel Site.
December 27, 2006 2:26 PM PST


Nik B.		 You suggested that Intel not calling them IA64 meant they weren't 64-bit processors, which is -- by far -- the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You then proceeded to make the bogus claim that Intel calls them "IA32e" when in fact they currently uses "Intel® 64" and previously used EM64T.

Now, on the site specified, Intel says they're "64-bit capable" because simply having a 64-bit processor doesn't mean you're running in 64-bit mode. In order to do that you must also have appropriate software (that is, a 64-bit capable O/S) to switch the processor into 64-bit mode. But that fact doesn't detract from the fact that all processors that have the "Intel® 64" moniker are true 64-bit processors: they have a 64-bit flat virtual address space, 64-bit pointers and 64-bit wide GPRs. So what, _SPECIFICALLY_ do they lack that is necessary to qualify them as 64-bit processors in your mind? Can you answer that one simple question?
December 27, 2006 7:22 PM PST


David Schwartz		 Abhijit:

I thought we were passed a belief in voodoo, but apparently not. Guess what -- something's *name* tells you nothing about what it is. "Abhijit" might be greek for "person who believes in voodoo", but that doesn't mean you believe in voodoo, does it?

What Intel calls something largely reflects market pressures and market values as much as the technical content of the device named. However, the truth is most likely that Intel calls this "IA32e" because it closely resembles IA32. There is a lot more to an IA than its bit width.

The Itanium architecture represents building a new IA from the ground up. The Core2's 64-bit mode represents the least amount of effort necessary to get a 64-bit CPU. One would expect the former to give much better results as a 64-bit CPU than the latter, and all other things being equal, it probably would.

However, all other things are not equal. The market for Core2 CPU's is many, many times larger than the market for Itanium. So the disparity in development resources has lead to the Core2 being many times faster than it could otherwise be, given all the legacy crap it has to support.

It really just comes down to performance and cost. Pick the CPU that provides the better price/performance point for your application. Just don't believe nonsense about how one CPU is more "reliable for enterprise applications" than another or how one CPU is "not a real 64-bit CPU". That's pure FUD.

If it's not reliable, let them show that with reliability numbers. If it's not "real" challenge them to state specifically what's not real and how that will affect you.

And last but not least, understand that 64-bit CPUs will not be significantly faster than 32-bit bit CPUs just because of the bit width increase. Only things like compression, encryption, image processing, and manipulating very large data sets are likely to see much of a speed up just because of the bit width.

Some operations may even see a slow down. In fact, most developers of software for 64-bit CPUs still use 32-bit data types for most values. That's because it takes half as much space in the cache and half as much bandwidth from the memory to transfer a 32-bit value as a 64-bit one. A structure with a dozen 32-bit values takes half as much time to load or copy as one with a dozen 64-bit values.
December 29, 2006 12:08 AM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Great points, David. It really comes down to building the right beast for your application(s). If you look purely at performance and discount the real-world applications you can design something that's very fast and powerful -- and utterly useless for the majority of software apps out there. Allowing the CPU to run both 32bit and 64bit software as needed gives a huge amount of bang for the buck. Intel designed for the reality that some applications can make good use of 64bit, and even though more of these 64bit applications are on the way, the vast majority of software still lives in the 32bit world.

I do want to throw something back in on the multithreading, multi-core side of the world. Someone,No-one and abhijit, you both mentioned supposed plans by AMD to release an "anti-Hyperthreading" design. The rumors were supposedly "leaked" by an AMD engineer back in April 06, and the actual product was "expected" to be released back in July. We're now heading into January 07. Beware of FUD -- remember the Crossroads event touting the benefits of AMD 64bit technology while, in actuality, a 32bit OS and 32bit software were used.

In the words of Manek Dubash published in PCAdvisor and Techworld back in April:

"If AMD's (anti-HT) system exists, if it's produced, and if it works -- each of which is a major imponderable -- to be of full use, the system would have to be capable of being disabled by software that could exploit multiple CPUs, since an OS and application suite, if it's designed from the ground up to be fully multithreaded, is still likely to be faster even than the AMD hardware."

A lot of still unanswered "ifs." Know that major design shifts in hardware are rarely fully exploited by software without some effort at enabling that software, despite claims to the contrary. Intel spends a great deal of effort building software enabling and optimization tools, and in helping software vendors make use of those tools. Before counting the anti-HT chicks, you may want to poll developers to see if an "anti-HT" enabling effort has been hatched "? and whose tools they might be using to free those fine-feathered little fellows.

- Pitz
December 30, 2006 7:29 PM PST


David Schwartz		 Abhijit wrote:

"Thank you Someone,No-one. Anti-Hyperthreading is what people really need. It can use both the processors for running one app. Its a really bad news for intel."

Both Intel and AMD are already making each core as fast as they know how to practically make them. If there were some way to use the resources in another core to make the first core faster, those resources wouldn't have been put into the other core to begin with.

The reason we have gone to multi-core is because we don't know how to make a single core any faster. If there was something we could afford to put on the CPU to make the core faster, we'd put it there.

Any Anti-HT system that made a significant performance difference would simply prove that each core was deficiently designed and implemented.

Suppose Anti-HT made one core 18% faster by making the other core unusable. That would simply prove that AMD was making each core 18% slower than they could, if they just put the resources in the other core in the first core to begin with. If AMD actually did that, it would prove that they're basically idiots. AMD engineers may be many things, but they're not idiots.

Now, distributing cache to a more active core might make sense. No matter how much cache you give to each core, having all the cache for one core will necessarily make that core at least a little bit faster. But you will never see any significant speedups from Anti-HT unless the core design was broken and Anti-HT fixes the brokenness. A chip with two non-broken cores will always be better than a chip with two broken ones that needs to steal from one to make the other work fast.
January 2, 2007 4:15 AM PST


ccshen@twomass.com		 why Stupid Intel never mention clearly about their processor either a 32bit or 64bit? I till now (cannot find information on the processsor information, need to search and to here) then know my centrino dual can only to install the 32bit vista.

The AMD have the clear information to the customers.

Please do not confuse the customers .....

Think about if a customer don't know much about it....
January 2, 2007 6:30 PM PST


David Schwartz		 CC:

Just look up the S-spec number at processorfinder.intel.com. If you haven't bought the processor yet (and the advertising materials don't tell you what the processor's capabilities are) or someone else mounted it without telling you the S-spec number, don't blame Intel. The S-spec number is the only *sure* way to know what capabilities the processor you bought has.

If I understand your situation correctly, you bought a laptop from someone other than Intel and are upset Intel can't tell you whether the processor is 32-bit or 64-bit. How could Intel possibly know what CPU is in your laptop? The laptop manufacturer knows though, and if they didn't tell you, you should be angry at them.

If you know the S-spec, Intel's web site will tell you all your CPU capabilities easily. If you don't know the S-spec, it would only be because whoever you bought the CPU from didn't tell you. How is that Intel's fault?
January 3, 2007 3:26 PM PST


EGAVGA.BGI		 Hey CC, download the CPU-Z software from cpuid.com. It will tell you what kind of CPU, RAM, etc. stuff your hardware has.
January 3, 2007 11:49 PM PST


abhijit		 OK, i am getting bored of this, what i am saying is 100% true and even you know it. you just dont want to accept it. Running 64 bit apps on the same old 32 bit processor is not what i want. I want wider bus, wider execution units, widen the whole thing. I hate the Idea of taking a 32 bit processor and using few 64 bit registers and running 64 bit code on it. That was never the reason to go for a 64 bit architecture.

I like the architecture of Core 2 and AMD processors. But i dislike using same 32 bit architecture. I hate the intel 64 thing. And i hate it coz they are not telling the truth. People think that these are processors with full 64 bit architucture. A common man will think that every thing is made wider in order to execute 64 bit code. People should know that they are still using the same processor, and its no good than 32 bit mode.
January 4, 2007 2:50 AM PST


David Schwartz		 Abhijit:

You are a liar, plain and simple. I have corrected your lies at least six times now and challenged you to back up your claims and you have refused.

"I hate the Idea of taking a 32 bit processor and using few 64 bit registers and running 64 bit code on it."

Nobody cares about your personal preferences if you can't provide any evidence or argument to back them up.

"People should know that they are still using the same processor, and its no good than 32 bit mode."

You have some very fundamental misconceptions about what affect a CPU's bit width should have on its performance. I've tried to correct your misconceptions, but you seem militantly attached to them. So you get to live with them.
January 4, 2007 10:44 AM PST


abhijit		 You did not prove any thing as yet. you are just saying things, which of course are highly stupid. And you sound like some one is paying you a lot to do that. And he might shoot you if u dont win this. I guess who it is...
January 4, 2007 10:49 AM PST


abhijit		 when the processor showed 80%, media player was stopped, only Limewire was running.
January 5, 2007 1:04 AM PST


David Schwartz		 "You did not prove any thing as yet. you are just saying things, which of course are highly stupid. And you sound like some one is paying you a lot to do that. And he might shoot you if u dont win this. I guess who it is..."

Right, it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that you're wrong, that would be inconceivable.

"when the processor showed 80%, media player was stopped, only Limewire was running."

Since the CPU was not 100% loaded, whatever you were doing wasn't CPU-limited. So multiple cores or a faster CPU would not and could not have made any difference.

Bluntly, you have nothing of value to say and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. All you can do is make vague claims about what you think is a bad idea or what you don't like, but when it comes to being specifically asked what's wrong or what disadvantages you think there are, you are totally unable to come up with anything.

You are the classic example of a purveyor of FUD. Something, somewhere is wrong, you claim. You can't say what, and instead make more meaningless and vague claims.

X86-64 CPUs are 64-bit CPUs just as much as they are 32-bit CPUs. They contain some things that are narrower than 32-bits and some things that are wider than 64-bits.

The main reason the CPUs are not that much faster in 64-bit mode is simply that most things in the CPU were already 64-bits or wider, so you don't get the advantages of going from pure 32-bits to pure 64-bits.

However, you would not expect a significant performance difference just from going from 32-bits to 64-bits. As I tried to explain, there are costs involved in doubling the sizes of things without making the memory twice as fast and the caches twice as big.
January 5, 2007 1:20 AM PST


Nik B.		 Abhijit said: "I want wider bus, wider execution units, widen the whole thing."

The Core2 processor has wider registers -- 64-bit wide, wider execution units -- 64-bit wide ALUs, etc. So yeah, it's wider in every way. And forget about the external bus, as that's much wider than 64-bits even on the 32-bit P4 processors -- 256 bits wide if I remember right.

Abhijit then said "I hate the Idea of taking a 32 bit processor and using few 64 bit registers and running 64 bit code on it."

Hate it all you want, but your irrational hate doesn't affect reality and it won't make an "Intel 64" a non-64-bit processor.

He then continued and said "[T]hat was never the reason to go for a 64 bit architecture."

What was the reason to go to a 64-bit architecture? And how exactly do you define a 64-bit architecture, and what _SPECIFICALLY_ makes "Intel 64" processors non-64-bit?

If it's the fact that it can run in 32-bit mode, you may as well call the P4 a 16-bit processor, because it can run in Virtual-8086 mode.

You're clearly clueless, and what's worse, you refuse to get a clue from those around here who do have one.
January 5, 2007 4:10 PM PST


abhijit		 the ALUs are not 64 bit wide ! i have a Pentium D, and the ALUs are 16 bit wide. I am talking about P4 and Pentium D, i dont have a core 2 processor.
January 5, 2007 8:07 PM PST


Nik B.		 Your claims were getting more ridiculous by the minute Abhijit but this "i have a Pentium D, and the ALUs are 16 bit wide" nonsense takes the cake.

I cannot bring myself to believe that anyone would be _THAT_ stupid. I really cannot.
January 5, 2007 9:00 PM PST


Nik B.		 Hmm, you know, maybe the ALU is 16-bit running at twice the speed... I stand corrected.

But that doesn't make the P4 a 16-bit CPU, does it?
January 5, 2007 9:06 PM PST


David Schwartz		 Some of the ALUs on at least some of the P4-series chips are in fact 16-bits wide. But if that doesn't make them 16-bit CPUs, it doesn't make them 32-bit CPUs.

Some things are always going to take twice as long on a 64-bit CPU operating on 64-bit data as they would on a comparable 32-bit CPU operating on 32-bit data. That's just a fact of life.

Copying a structure with 64 values in may will take twice as long if they're 64-bit values than if they're 32-bit values just because twice as much memory bandwidth is needed.

One would not expect a 64-bit CPU to do 64-bit operations at the same speed as an otherwise identical 32-bit CPU does 32-bit operations. You would also have to increase the memory bandwidth and other things. Those increases *already* were done on the Pentium 4 series. So even 32-bit code gets that benefit.
January 9, 2007 1:19 AM PST


gaby haddad		 i think, that i didn't understand anything.
I NEED TO KNOW IF MY NOTEBOOK WHICH HAS INTEL CORE 2 DUO 7200
DOES SUPPORT VISTA OR XP 64 BIT?

AND IN CASE OF YES, WHY I GOT NON 64BIT PCU WHEN INSTALLING IT

THKS
January 9, 2007 1:58 AM PST


David Schwartz		 Most likely the notebook can support XP or Vista in 64-bit mode. It's possible that the notebook doesn't support 64-bit mode or Vista specifically in 64-bit mode, ask the manufacturer to be sure. The CPU does, but some hardware may not be supported or the BIOS might need an update. Anything is possible.

If you installed the 32-bit version of an OS, then that's why you have a 32-bit version. If the manufacturer installed XP, it's likely that they installed a 32-bit version because that's what most people still want.

DS
January 16, 2007 8:40 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Thanks again everybody for all of the questions, answers and passion! I'd like to shift the emphasis a little bit to what folks are doing with 64bit - but feel free to chime in about anything 64bit you'd like.

What I'd really like to know is: what 64 bit software are you developing, using, plan on using? What "goodness" are you hoping 64bit will bring you or your application?
January 17, 2007 6:07 AM PST


JoelKatz		 Major benefits from 64-bit computing:

1) The ability to have larger amounts of physical memory without ugliness. 32-bit starts to get ugly when you get over 1GB (though it should be 4GB, fragmentation, things other than physical memory that need address space, and kernel/user splits cut way down). 64-bit should carry us well into the future.

2) Performance improvements in programs that handle large data sets or are computation intensive. This includes things like large databases, manipulating video, compression, encryption, and the like.

3) In the case of x86 CPUs, performance benefits and increased code elegance (especially in low-level code) from having more general-purpose registers. Register pressure has always been an issue with the x86 and it will be nice for it not to be any more.

4) Perhaps some fundamentally new ideas and methods using the vastly larger virtual address space. For example, it will be practical to map an entire hard disk into a process' memory space. Why would you want to do that? I don't know, but maybe somebody does (maybe better isolation between the caching and low-level I/O code and the filesystem?). There are a lot of clever things you may be able to do if your address space is way larger than it needs to be and large contiguous chunks are available. (As a simple example, it will be practical to ensure that a chunk of shared memory has the same virtual address in every process that maps it. Think how much simpler that could make fast inter-process communication.)

5) The same as 4, but directly in the hardware arena. Graphics cards, for example, will be able to map all their video memory (even as it grows to 1GB or more) into the system memory map. Multiple machines on a network can map each other's memory into their address spaces without having to resort to windowing or other complex view synchronization mechanisms.

4 and 5 are kind of vague. I don't have a crystal ball. The point I'm trying to make though is that 64-bit computing may make possible some things that are very new and basically impossible on a 32-bit platform.

I think we're at a nexus now where we are going to see more major leaps in computing. We have 64-bit computing, Core CPUs with reduced power consumption and increased performance, multi-core CPUs, greatly increased CPU cache size, reductions in the cost of flash memory to the point where it's almost competitive for laptop hard drives, 1TB hard drives just on the horizon, graphics cards that will be having 1GB of memory and *hundreds* of pipelines instead of 8, Vista with DirectX10, drops in the cost of RAM along with increases in throughput and drops in latency, chipsets with 4 memory controllers and multiple FSBs, and so on. It's a very exciting time for desktop computing.
January 28, 2007 7:32 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 Hey, Joel - thanks for the great comments. It makes me wonder how much of my improved performance in multi-track recording software using a 64bit OS and native 64bit software is just coming from the better handling of memory. I'm only using 4GB of RAM on my 64bit system - the limit for a 32 bit system but not even a drop in the 64 bit bucket and the performance I'm getting on the 64bit system is phenomenal (at least to a non techie like me).

As far as 4 & 5 go - it's going to be very interesting, as an animator, to be able to pull in entire levels into memory complete with textures, geometery, particle systems, etc and work in next to real time is a pleasure we've only been able to dream of up till now.

Sure - it's fun to be immersed when you're playing a game - but man, being immersed while you're actually building and animating that game (or animated film for that matter) is going to make a huge difference in the final game or film.

It is an amazing time.
February 1, 2007 4:26 AM PST


JoelKatz		 I have to admit, I'm puzzled by 64-bit performance. Some things that I really thought would have been sped up quite a bit just aren't. But on the flip side, quite a few things that I didn't expect to speed up benefit quite a bit.

I haven't had a chance to compare AMD x86-64 CPUs to Intel x86-64 CPUs. I'm curious how much of it is inherent to what 64-bits is going to get us and how much of it is due to particular microarchitecture choices that Intel made. It's also possible that current tools aren't quite as advanced as they could be.

My current theory is that a lot of the performance benefit comes from better memory handling and from the extra general purpose registers available in 64-bit mode. The x86 architecture has always had a major problem with register pressure, and 64-bit mode fixes that. Some of the cases where I expected benefit and didn't get it may be due to those cases being more memory limited, and the memory bandwidth is the same in either mode.

Another strange factor is just that Intel and AMD have put ridiculous amounts of time, money, and effort into making 32-bit x86 code run as fast as possible, and so 32-bit code may be running a lot faster than it has any right to.

I'm optimistic that as more 64-bit software and operating systems are deployed, more chip real estate will be dedicated towards optimizing 64-bit operations in new processor designs, so 64-bit code may be more future proof. Similarly, once chip manufacturers can see what real code makes the chips actually *do*, they can do a better job of choosing what operations to invest chip real estate in speeding up.

Tools like compilers may improve over time as well. Also programmers will learn how to use 64-bits properly. Some code may use 64-bits excessively where 32-bits are sufficient and as a result require more memory bandwidth. In multi-core, shared FSB systems, this can slow the other cores down.

We had similar issues with hyper-threading. Some dynamic halt (spinlock) code allowed the halted thread to steal execution resources that the thread doing useful work needed in order to unblock the halted thread. It took awhile for people to understand this issue, learn how to fix it, and have that fix propagate into all the code that needed it.
February 1, 2007 2:45 PM PST

Steve Pitzel (Intel)
Total Points:
4,956
Status Points:
4,956
Community Manager
 I'm going to see if I can get my friend, Ron Kuper, to weigh in on this. He was the CTO at Cakewalk when they ported Sonar from 32 bit 64 bit. It seems to me he mentioned he'd had a noticeable speedup in performance just from recompiling Sonar for 64bit - even before he started optimizing.

I remember getting a noticeably better response from the 32bit Maya when I ran it on a 64bit OS and system - which REALLY surprised me.

Also - going back to Cakewalk - they were definitely on the bleeding edge with HT - obviously you don't want a real-time process like audio recording to have any of its cycles stolen. I don't know if Ron and Co. ran into and fixed the specific problem you mentioned (but it stands to reason they did), but after some lifting, they were actually able to eak out some better performance with Hyperthreading.

Their work really paid off when multi-core came in and they didn't have to steal those cycles anymore.

I'll see if I can get Ron or some of the Cakewalk folks to weigh in. Ron may not be able to comment since he's moved on into the game development world.
February 1, 2007 4:24 PM PST


Ron Kuper		 Hey Steve, happy to throw in my $0.02...

We did indeed get about 15% speedup simply by compiling using x64. I have a few theories why that happened. First, I think having more registers as well as a flat (rather than stack based) FP register file helped the compiler write better code. Our app is very FP intensive.

Also, we had some core audio mixing code that was originally written in hand-tuned x87 code. That all got rewritten to C++, using SSE2 intrinsics wherever possible. That may have made some difference, though actually from profiling I don't think much of our benchmark code wound up in the SSE2 enabled modules.

Regarding HT... All I can say is, I'm glad everyone is doing multiple cores now, because HT wasn't berry berry good to me. ;-)

I can recall one specific issue with HT that really put a fine point on it. SONAR is a multithreaded app. You can imagine it having a GUI thread and an audio DSP thread. Our audio thread had to run a time-critical priority to ensure that drivers were kept fed even with ultra small buffers. Our GUI thread would run a lower priority.

What we were seeing was floating point stalls in our audio thread, on HT systems, caused by the GUI thread. The issue was that the GUI was doing a tiny bit of FP math to update some UI widget. Since HT meant the FPU silicon was shared, we got a kind of unintentional priority inversion - a lower pri thread was stealing (silicon) resource from a higher pri thread, making it stall.

Once we banished this FP math from our GUI threads, our HT performance got better.
February 2, 2007 7:48 AM PST


JoelKatz		 Let's look at these cases:

1) You recompile 32-bit code as 64-bit and run it on a 64-bit OS:

First of all, there's no downside to this if you were going to run the code on a 64-bit OS anyway. You get the following benefits:
More registers
64-bit operations (long long, unsigned long long) are faster
You avoid an emulation layer in the OS
Floating point code will optimize
The only downside is that pointers grow larger, so code that does a lot of pointer manipulation will need more memory bandwidth. It's hard to imagine many cases where that would be significant.

These are most of the available benefits of 64-bits, so you should be able to get most of the benefit with just a recompile. (Though you may need to do a lot of reworking to recompile, for example code that assumes a 'void *' and an 'int' are the same size will break.)

2) You run 32-bit code on a 64-bit OS instead of a 32-bit OS, no recompile:

You might think this would make things slower because the 64-bit OS needs an emulation layer to run 32-bit code. But this may well be balanced by the greater efficiency of the OS due to the additional registers and the easier handling of large memory areas. Plus, you would be amazed how much OS code manipulates 64-bit values and thus runs significantly faster in 64-bit mode. File system code, network accounting, device timing, and much more. The Linux kernel source code has a total of almost 14,000 64-bit variables (although, of course, most of them won't matter in any particular configuration).

3) You retune/rewrite your code for 64-bits.

There really aren't that many benefits you can get by retuning or rewriting. One case would be code where you specifically avoided using 64-bit operations because of the added cost and made due with 32-bits at some cost. This isn't very common because in most cases you just use 64-bits anyway and this code will improve all it can with just a recompile.

Another case would be adding or taking advantage of SSE. (Some functions you may not have bothered to use because you have to support systems that don't have them are mandatory in 64-bit mode, so there's no reason not to use them.)

Code that really needs at least a retune to get the full benefit includes encryption, compression, checksum, image processing, and similar code. Bulk data analysis and manipulation, basically. Oddly, you may find you don't get the benefits you expected if the data set sizes are large because the memory bandwidth is the same and some of these tasks are memory limited.

I agree that hyper-threading didn't work out as planned. It sounded like a great idea in theory, but I never saw the theoretical benefits in practice for some reason. Perhaps the theories were just wrong or perhaps Intel's implementation was broken in some subtle way.

It never seemed to do what the documentation claimed it would do and introduced both security and performance problems. So I'm pretty glad to see that go, though I'm receptive to seeing it reappear if it turns out that the problem was just bad implementation.
February 9, 2007 9:44 AM PST


james.melancon		 Ok this getting out of hand. I just spent a good 2 hours reading this and I'm not understanding what is so difficult for people to understand. The Intel Core 2 Duo is a 64bit processor. It can handle 64bit Operating Systems (including Vista64) and all 64 apps. It can also handle all 32bit OS and apps. Think of it as a transvestite processor it can go either way depending on what you want.

It's able to handle 64bit through extensions but that doesn't make it any less of a 64bit processor. So I hope everyone understands that the Core 2 Duo and the D's say they support 64bit becaue they do support 64bit. The reason they don't say that it is a 64bit processor is because for something to be a 64bit processor it can only support 64bit not 32 bit. And someone else said, only about 95% of apps can run on 64bit alone.

So it can be looked at this way. The processor is a 32bit processor that supports 64bit processes, or the processor is a 64bit processor that supports 32bit processes. Hopefully, this clears some things up.

James
February 28, 2007 2:47 PM PST


abhijit		 Hmm, so i see that u people just dont want to accept that its not a true 64 bit processor. This is an intel website! i dont think intel will ever call it a bad way of going 64 bit. I just think its not so good, i will keep using 32 bit OS and Apps unless i see a real 64 bit processor! Its upto you, Call it any thing - 16 bit 32 bit or 64 bit ! well it can run 64 bit code though, but it only emulates a 64 bit processor. And the 15% Performance improvement is due to the bigger registers! i have typed this like 100 times here, but no one seems to understand ! Ok u r free to call it what ever u want, its democracy ! democracy used in a bad way.
February 28, 2007 2:54 PM PST


abhijit		 And people, Please dont buy Vista yet. It has issues, stick to XP for now.
February 28, 2007 7:06 PM PST


someone		 I think we should all get together and file a class action lawsuit against Intel for confusing and thus misleading the public regarding which supports 64-bits and which does not...
March 1, 2007 3:56 AM PST


abhijit		 hello someone, all Current processors "support" 64 bit. There is a big different between "Supports 64" and "is exactly 64". Please read every thing in the Forum, atleast what i have typed to know more! And one more thing, Intel has more money and support than u think, no one can do any thing against Intel or MS for that matter. And i Do respect intel for their work, they are the best, i just have a small problem with 64 bit thing, and the Stupid Motherboards they make, especially the irritating Bios on their motherboards.
March 1, 2007 4:08 AM PST


abhijit		 One more thing, Intel was not the First to start this "Supports 64" thing, it was actually AMD!! Since AMD got off with it, Intel said What the hell, and it also did the same thing! You Cannot run the "Supports 64" Softwares and OS on a true 64 bit architecture, so we are going no where by accepting this x64 architecture. If They relese a true 64 bit processor for desktop all current x64 software will be incompatible with it. You will have to change every software, or use it under emulation. So i just decided not to go x64 bit!!
March 14, 2007 11:23 AM PDT


Chris		 This is nicely insane blog.

I found it while trying to figure out if my new 1.83 MHz HP Laptop with a Centrino Core 2 Duo was 64 bit or not...how f'ing hard is it to get a straight answer on this?
March 17, 2007 10:11 PM PDT


CD3		 I read some of these posts and I don't see why there is any confusion. I looked through the website and compared processors and motherboards from intel for about two weeks before I made my final choices. I don't recall the research being overly taxing.
The only disappointment I have had is the lack of an available 64bit based Desktop Utilities (for Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit OS). I won't be able to overclock my speeds until I have some sort of reliable monitoring.
Maybe it is oversimplifying things to say that 64 > 32 but it sounds like that is what some of these posts need?
April 4, 2007 3:54 AM PDT


Vinoj Kumar		 The 64-bit instruction set of Itanium is completely different from that of Pentium 32-bit. So I wanted to learn 64-bit instruction set for my needs. But I am confused before and now even more. Did MS reject the instruction set (back in the year 2000 when Itanium manuals became available in this web site) in the first place to build a stable 64-bit Itanium based Operating system which is rewriting all their libraries and recompiling for the 64-bit.

Whereas in 64-bit AMD the instruction set is not that different as it is immediately just as in the times of 16-bit to 32-bit, it is from 32-bit to 64-bit and is not a complete rearchitecture. So if I aim 64-bit AMD chip for my software for 64-bit it could be better. But you cannot trust others than Intel because they have been around in this industry for the past 30 years. I wanted to buy an Itanium based machine with XP 64 bit edition but the Xeon 64-bit which I verified costs me 6 times the cost of a Pentium system. So I bought a Pentium 4 with 3.06 GHz and another Celeron D with 2.88 Ghz, for my research. I simply dont want 64-bit until the confusion is over with how the software model is going to be with the both. You can simply recompile with pointer sizes changed in Vista, but let me not be urgent, I decided a month ago.

I think that the Itanium 2 could be compatible with AMD as their document describes. Let me wait for a month before pricing is more effective and mass manufacture begins for Intel.
April 5, 2007 10:04 AM PDT


DavidC		 Vinoj -

Have you looked at the MS documentation on 64-bit .NET development? It looks pretty striaghtforward from here. (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/netframework/aa496329.aspx) I'm doing my work on a T7200 dell notebook and an older Pentium 4 (BIOS on the notebook calls x64 Intel64; the BIOS on the desktop calls it Intel E64MT).

I haven't done any development for Itanium, so if you were looking that direction my apologies for the misdirection.
April 27, 2007 3:25 PM PDT


abhijit		 What a mess! i have explained every thing, but still many cant get me, dont people have their own brain ? why only listen to Intel all the time ? Listening to your brains might help here. It doesnot require a rocket scientist to see that old P4 and P4 with EMT64 have the same architecture, except a few extra registers. And it also doesnot take a rocket scientist to say that same architecture means 32 bit, and so EMT64 is actually a 32 bit processor, with some extra registers. How hard is it to understand that? or do i need to type it in Chinese language ?
May 28, 2007 3:30 AM PDT


Wilhelm		 Would someone from Intel please answer the following question by selecting the correct (Or, most correct) statement. All I want in the response is either 'a' or 'b', I do not want a lengthy explanation, please, as those explanations mostly end up confusing us more, and some of them sound like marketing answers.

The Intel64 (Core2 Duo specifically) CPU is...
a) a 32-bit processor that supports 64-bit processing; or
b) a 64-bit processor that supports 32-bit processing;

Please just give me the plain and simple answer, without explaining what this and that implies. Remember - an engineer knows that he has achieved perfection, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Please apply this thought to the answer.

And furthermore, please remove the inappropriate statement:

W.r.t the Core2 Duo Processor:
ALU = 32/64 bit
FPU = 32/64 bit
AGU = 32/64 bit
etc. (Not sure about all technologies).
June 7, 2007 12:24 PM PDT


abhijit		 Wilhelm, I dont think Intel will ever answer your question.
Both your options a) and b) dont apply for the Core 2 duo. Core 2 duo is a 32 bit processor With Extended memory. option a) applies better though.
Itanium is a 64 bit CPU, which can run 64 bit applications, and 64 bit OS, those applications and OS cannot be run on Core 2 duo. The XP Pro x64 and vista x64 are not true 64 bit OS, they are just Coded to use the extended memory feature. It also means that XP x64 is more accaptable as a 64 bit OS than the Core 2 as 64 bit processor. Its actually very complicated. Its the processor who is 32 bit but with 64 bit registers. The OS just accesses the 64 bit registers as in every 64 bit processor. Its the processor which breakes them in 32 bits and processes them (in case of pentium 4 64 bit -> 16 (alu) x 2 (number of alus)= 32 bit).
XP 64 bit (without the x) is a 64 bit OS which cannot be used on Core 2 or AMD 64
June 20, 2007 4:17 PM PDT


Juarezdc		 I have a Pentium D 920, a Pentium 4 3Ghz HT enabled (Northwood), a Celerom M (Dothan) and a Pentium 3 (coopermine) acting as a little file server. I also had a i486 and MMX CPUs. I only had Intel's chips cause I never heard they "burn" and wreck any system by lack of cooling or something like this.
I recognize that AMD CPUs are good too, but never tested by myself at high demand CPU loads and high graphic demands on games, etc.
I also don't have any way to look inside the chip and see if they have or don't have 64 bits registers. The best way to test is installing any 64 bit operating system and see if it works.
And I don't need any supercomputing scenario and exceptional performance, then like Laozi says in the "Tao Te Ching":
"That one that is satisfied with what it have is rich."
Sorry about the poor english.
June 22, 2007 10:09 PM PDT


Mark		 Based on the postings of (in a lesser part) prezweezy, and a greater degree bret.toll, I would like to issue a formal apology for my post, and recant it. Thank you for helping me to see the light. I hope I did not mislead anyone, and if so, it was completely unitentional. BTW - I still only use and will continue to use Intel processors in every system I have, or suggest to others. I have found their reliability and speed heads above the competition, especially in the media encoding arena.

Peace!
July 10, 2007 6:10 AM PDT


abhijit		 Yep Intel processors are reliable. but Pentium 4 and D were lot slower than AMD processors (Execution per clock cycle). Core 2 Processors have solved that problem, so now even performance is reliable.
July 14, 2007 2:43 PM PDT


Rey Martinez		 I am considering to purchase a computer with Intel Q6600 ViV. The pocessor is 64 bit or simply 32.

Please advise./
July 22, 2007 2:14 PM PDT


abhijit		 if you buy real 64 bit processor, you wont find many 32 bit Applications for it. Q6600 is also same 32 bit core - 64 bit registers processor. Real 64 bit processors are not used for making desktops.
August 12, 2007 11:25 AM PDT

tvccs
 It would be very helpful to list what chipsets are capable of handling 64-bit Vista and displaying and using a full 4GB of RAM in Windows. As an example, some HP laptops in the DV9000 series use a 945GM chipset that Intel says will support 4GB of RAM, yet Vista only displays 3070MB. BIOS says 4096MB.

Other DV9000/DV9500 series laptops are 965 Express series, which Intel says will support 8GB of RAM, and which Intel is offering for sale with 4GB pre-installed. I have seen a post elsewhere that even with a 64-bit OS like Vista, the motherboard has to support 8GB of RAM for it to be fully supported, which would seem to not make sense on its face. There are also references to the BIOS having to be enabled for memory remapping, but at least in my case, no such BIOS option exists on a 945GM.

Any feedback would be welcome...I'd like to see this broken out separately so people could find it. Thanks.
August 25, 2007 1:56 PM PDT


abhijit		 Why does any one require 3 GB and above for a Laptop ?
Are you people trying to make the RAM manufacturers rich ?
2 GB is Enough - Future apps will need more RAM - till then your Laptop will be outdated.
August 31, 2007 6:59 PM PDT


Scott		 hangon.. so vista is having problems with more than 3gb? im putting 4gb in my new PC & getting another 4GB soon.... & as for the q6600, as far as normal desktop processors go, its a normal 64bit processor? i can run vista X64 without a problem & all the games compatible in X64??? please clearly clarify this, & it will stop my replies... (focus on the word CLEARLY & CLARIFY)
September 22, 2007 8:11 AM PDT


Brett		 Vista? Why don't you just run Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com) and get your problems over with?
October 8, 2007 11:28 AM PDT


abhijit		 Scott - every thing has been explained like 10 times or more above. please read, if you dont understand, just forget it, may be its not for you.
8 GB RAM wont increase the performance.
Try RAID.
December 21, 2007 11:39 PM PST


mouse musiciant		 Yeah, try RAID and your life will be better.
May 24, 2008 2:43 AM PDT

velsys_08
 Reviews posted soon...
latest information posted by me soon..
August 17, 2008 8:52 AM PDT


efrain		 Dear Sirs;
After reading all this I understand less than before. The best thing we can do it´s not to talk any more about 64 bits, most of us only use the office so if our processor it´s 32 or 64 bits it doesn´t matter, we can win some nano seconds in the speed. Let´s take a drink and watch T.V.
Regards to all the confused people.
December 13, 2008 1:31 AM PST


Franc		 Drivers for
SATA RAID controller chipset .
Linux OS
Download address?

Who knows it.
April 4, 2009 2:13 AM PDT


neil		 whats the direfence between linux and microsoft licences
April 4, 2009 2:13 AM PDT


neil		 whats the direfence between linux and microsoft licences
June 20, 2009 1:01 AM PDT


steve lynch		 i need a bios hack 4 a toshiba satellite M45-s265 system unit model # psm40u
July 1, 2009 11:51 PM PDT


MJM		 hi i wanna ask about a problem so what i wanna say that my bios can't take the hard disk as a primary boot but he keeps taking the cd rom and when i try to change the setings he aint take them and when i take off the cd rom the pc crashes and never enter again plz send me the solution to my email thnx take care

Trackbacks (0)


Leave a comment  

To obtain technical support, please go to Software Support.
Name (required)*

Email (required; will not be displayed on this page)*

Your URL (optional)


Comment*