Curse

Lansing Kai Don · Apr 13, 2005, 06:39 AM // 06:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sin

I wasn't necessarily suggesting a problem. I know less about either processor than anyone probably. What I brought up was brought up as a consideration so as to maybe lower the "temperature" in the thread. I am sure it runs fine on 32 bit setting yet I would bet anything you will notice a speed gain when the operating system is using the 64bit features as natively as it uses the hyperthreading features now. Until that is known anything, even benchs, are really speculation, expecially considering 99 percent of emulations even in hardware tend to have some amount of sluggishness. It may not be called an emulation, and my not be in the most technical sense, but it's a good alibi to lower the heat in the thread.

*Edit* I know that suggish "feeling" can be many things that are operating system only. I mean inside a program it may be different but getting there could be sluggish in fact, or accessing through the os to files can appear to be sluggish because of the handles in the OS more than how the processor is set up. Anyway, again just some conisderations.

I think it was in this thread (maybe not) where I explained that the only difference between a 32-bit OS and a 64-bit OS is that it makes use of the first 32-bits. When it doesn't make use of those bits there is a simple sign extension which doesn't take any processor time (done before computation by the ALU), but may cause some delay, but unlikely since our computers do this today when running 16-bit programs.

I've recently gone from a 1.7Ghz Pentium 4 to a AMD XP 3200+ and noticed a serious downgrade in performance (not to mention up from SDRAM to Dual Channel DDR)... but these cannot be backed up. The only explanation is that if the OS was geared more towards one processor than another (hmmm. would you think that Microsoft who owns the computer industry would make their OS more compliant with Intel who owns 90%+ of the market share in the computer industry?) Sounds like a good estimated guess.

But enough of estimated guesses... Ellestar SSE4 did throw a point out there. I don't know how true it is with the Windows environment, but for Linux... you'd have to have SUSE 9 (v2.6) or greater in order to even use threaded benchmarking tools.

If you want to use internet sites as references here are a few (some of them might be a bit older but most have at least the 3200, and they all seem to show Intel clearly in the lead) this is in 32-bit processing power, 64-bit AMD has pushed their product so fast (to gain an edge) that Intel will take a moment to catch up so I prefer not to compare the two till Pentium has a solid core to compete with AMD:
http://www.passmark.com/cpureview/
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...4_3200-17.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1196792,00.asp

I'm not suggesting Intel, in fact I thought there was an agreement that it depends on what the user wants. And quite honestly I'm glad that SSE4 said it was his personal opinion on the all-around performance instead of trying to falsify it, sometimes personal opinion means the most to the user not benchmarks.

Lansing Kai Don

P.S. It's easy to lie about your profession on the internet. I hate the people who do it, especially those that tack engineer on with anything they please (i.e. sanitation engineer). I'm the same with doctors (i.e. PC Doctors) so it's not bias... just want a world free of false advertising.

P.P.S. If you'd notice, you'd find as AMD pushed their 64 bit consumer processor line out there Intel went ahead an made a monster of a CPU to compete with the XP 3200+ which quite literally outperforms it to the point of no competition as seen in the articles.