32bit CoreDuo -- Longevity of 32bit processor?

[WannaGoMac]

Given that Leopard is going to be 64bit, is a computer with a CoreDuo a bad purchase since it is only 32bit? Will the CoreDuo's (which are not much slower than the Core2Duos) be usable for several years in the Apple world? I realize that the main benefit to 64-bit is max addressable ram, so in real world it won't make much a difference....

Just curious on people's thoughts on this topic...

 

[dukebound85]

Given that Leopard is going to be 64bit, is a computer with a CoreDuo a bad purchase since it is only 32bit? Will the CoreDuo's (which are not much slower than the Core2Duos) be usable for several years in the Apple world? I realize that the main benefit to 64-bit is max addressable ram, so in real world it won't make much a difference....

Just curious on people's thoughts on this topic...

it should be fine. when all apps make use of 64 bit, those with 64 bit machines will want new ones by that time lol

 

[zakatov]

benefit of 64 bit: apps (threads even) can address more than 4GB of memory at a time.

Does the OS apply? NO
Does iLife apply? NO
Do office suites apply? NO
Do 99% of others apps apply? NO

So for now 64 bit CPUs are just hype, unless you are in math/biomed/physics research or very high end media production.

 

[disconap]

benefit of 64 bit: apps (threads even) can address more than 4GB of memory at a time.

Does the OS apply? NO
Does iLife apply? NO
Do office suites apply? NO
Do 99% of others apps apply? NO

So for now 64 bit CPUs are just hype, unless you are in math/biomed/physics research or very high end media production.

This is why I gave in and bought a used G5 last year. My G4 still competes, until I start doing audio or prepress work...

But yeah. For 90% of users, at this time (and probably for several years) there is little to no noticeable difference (other than cost, of course).

 

[stainlessliquid]

Core 2 Duo's being 64bit isnt what makes them faster, they are faster because they are simply much better processors than the Core Duos. Core Duos really arent very good, if possible get a C2D.

 

[flopticalcube]

I don't think there is that much of a difference between the Core and Core 2 to call the Core not very good. A T7200 is only about 8% faster than the equivalent speed T2500. The Core 2 does run cooler, however.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

 

[jamesi]

Core 2 Duo's being 64bit isnt what makes them faster, they are faster because they are simply much better processors than the Core Duos. Core Duos really arent very good, if possible get a C2D.

that is ridiculous, the core duos "really arent very good" what are you talking about

 

[FF_productions]

Don't worry, Apple won't leave you in the dark.

The G4 users should be the ones worrying, not only are they 32 bit, they are PowerPc as well.

With an Intel, you should be fine, and by the time 64 bit really takes off and becomes mainstream, you'll probably buy a new Mac by then.

 

[Will_reed]

I dunno I think g4 is pretty safe for a little bit longer, The signs are showing with apps like Imovie 08 but If I had too I could probably survive with leopard long enough to get the needed cash for macbook pro upgrade.

 

[booksacool1]

You'll probably be fine with the cpu processing capability for a while. Applications are only starting to realise the full capability of dual core cpu's. And there's quite a bit of improvement to come.

You'll probably run into other troubles, such as the max ram capacity, early
mbp's didn't even support 2gb sodimms (assuming thats what you've got).

 

[WannaGoMac]

What about software? Will software only be released as 64 bit? Is there some sort of trickery for releasing both as 32bit and 64bit?

How does leopard manage to be 64 bit for the C2D and 32bit for the CD and PPCs? Does it ship with both 32 & 64 bit code sets?

 

[FF_productions]

What about software? Will software only be released as 64 bit? Is there some sort of trickery for releasing both as 32bit and 64bit?

How does leopard manage to be 64 bit for the C2D and 32bit for the CD and PPCs? Does it ship with both 32 & 64 bit code sets?

Everything is built-in to Leopard.

32/64 bit support for PPC and 32/64 bit support for Intel.

It just works.

 

[Cabbit]

in linux the os can run upto 40% faster in most tasks between the 32 bit and the 64 bit in favor of the 64bit os. In Windows 64 it is less noticable but in games like the 64bit Half Life 2 it runs smoother with less dropped frames on the 64bit edition and the loads are faster, overall it just feels smoother using the 64bit editions.
Not sure about intel last i looked the prescot was a lot slower in 64bit mode and missing some of the instrutions. Core2duo may be diffrent. Aslo as part of the specification there are extra units on the chip i forget all there names but the key is they only come on in 64 bit mode.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Everything is built-in to Leopard.

32/64 bit support for PPC and 32/64 bit support for Intel.

It just works.

Thanks for the Mac marketing response . I am more interested in an explanation of the technology that actually makes the magic happen...

For example, are we talking a fat binary like the universal binary? Or, are there just two versions of the binaries, one that is 32 the other that is 64bit and the OS just links to the proper one at installation?

in linux the os can run upto 40% faster in most tasks between the 32 bit and the 64 bit in favor of the 64bit os. In Windows 64 it is less noticable but in games like the 64bit Half Life 2 it runs smoother with less dropped frames on the 64bit edition and the loads are faster, overall it just feels smoother using the 64bit editions.
Not sure about intel last i looked the prescot was a lot slower in 64bit mode and missing some of the instrutions. Core2duo may be diffrent. Aslo as part of the specification there are extra units on the chip i forget all there names but the key is they only come on in 64 bit mode.

Well, unless you are using a computer with more than 4gb of ram, I suspect your subjective measurements are very much influenced by the Hawthorne Effect

 

[TBi]

Thanks for the Mac marketing response . I am more interested in an explanation of the technology that actually makes the magic happen...



Well, unless you are using a computer with more than 4gb of ram, I suspect your subjective measurements are very much influenced by the Hawthorne Effect

Well, X86-64 has double the available registers that X86-32 has. So basically 64-bit programs will run faster on X86-64 hardware than 32bit programs.

So i guess his "subjective" measurements are down to fact rather than anything else. Go do your reading before ridiculing others!

 

[WannaGoMac]

Well, X86-64 has double the available registers that X86-32 has. So basically 64-bit programs will run faster on X86-64 hardware than 32bit programs.

So i guess his "subjective" measurements are down to fact rather than anything else. Go do your reading before ridiculing others!

I didn't think i was ridiculing anyone. He listed subjective analysis, and subjective analysis is subject to the Hawthorne effect. As a scientist, questioning the structure of a study (in this case his experience) is not ridiculing. Perhaps you're just a bit too sensitive?

I was looking for real quantitative proof. I will google and see what I can find later, and post results in the thread if anyone is interested.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Found this on Mac Slash:



http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/26/1939258
Geek Patrol has published an article comparing 32-bit and 64-bit performance under Mac OS X using both PowerPC-based and Intel-based Macs. What's surprising is that while the Intel-based Macs are faster in 64-bit mode, the PowerPC-based Macs are slower.

64-bit PowerPC is slower than 32-bit PowerPC even though it's a moot point. The real question is whether 64-bit Intel is faster than 32-bit Intel.

 

[Cabbit]

I didn't think i was ridiculing anyone. He listed subjective analysis, and subjective analysis are subject to the Hawthorne effect. As a scientist, questioning the structure of a study (in this case his experience) is not ridiculing. Perhaps you're just a bit too sensitive?

I was looking for real quantitative proof. I will google and see what I can find later, and post results in the thread if anyone is interested.

The game mesurements are based on a stopwatch test, with a tollerence of 10 m/s, the 64bit vs 32bit preformance at os level was based on 2 GB of ram.
(note: that going form 1 - 2 GB of ram on a 64 bit system results in an unusually large preformance boost compared to 32bit systems that nether microsoft nor linux devs have been able to fully explain.)
AMD added quite a few "goodies" to the 64bit path of the CPU that causes quite a bit of preformace gains these do not happen in the EMT64 in the presscott but have been noted in newer "core" CPU's as they follow the AMD spec closer.

 

[TBi]

The real question is whether 64-bit Intel is faster than 32-bit Intel.

Yes it is because the chip is designed to be faster in 64-bit mode due to extra registers.

AMD added quite a few "goodies" to the 64bit path of the CPU that causes quite a bit of preformace gains these do not happen in the EMT64 in the presscott but have been noted in newer "core" CPU's as they follow the AMD spec closer.

I always thought they were slower because Prescott was crap!

 

[Cabbit]

Yes it is because the chip is designed to be faster in 64-bit mode due to extra registers.



I always thought they were slower because Prescott was crap!

oh no prescott gets worse than normal in 64bit -5% - -10%, compared to the upto + 40% the Athlon 64 got.

 

[TBi]

oh no prescott gets worse than normal in 64bit -5% - -10%, compared to the upto + 40% the Athlon 64 got.

I'd say it's something else holding it back on the front end. Or else it is a bad internal design as you say. Remember Intel didn't want X86-64 to succeed.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Does anyone have a technical answer to this?

I am more interested in an explanation of the technology that actually makes the 32 and 64-bit in the same OS magic happen...

For example, are we talking a fat binary like the universal binary? Or, are there just two versions of the binaries, one that is 32 the other that is 64bit and the OS just links to the proper one at installation? Or, does the Leopard install DVD/CD have both file types and copies the 32 bit files for CD and 64-bit for C2D?

 

[mrfrosty]

I didn't think i was ridiculing anyone. He listed subjective analysis, and subjective analysis is subject to the Hawthorne effect. As a scientist, questioning the structure of a study (in this case his experience) is not ridiculing. Perhaps you're just a bit too sensitive?

I was looking for real quantitative proof. I will google and see what I can find later, and post results in the thread if anyone is interested.

OMG ! You look for real quantitative proof on google ? Are you having a giraffe ? I may be paranoid but IMHO the internet is a tissue of lies.

 

[TBi]

Does anyone have a technical answer to this?

I am more interested in an explanation of the technology that actually makes the 32 and 64-bit in the same OS magic happen...

For example, are we talking a fat binary like the universal binary? Or, are there just two versions of the binaries, one that is 32 the other that is 64bit and the OS just links to the proper one at installation? Or, does the Leopard install DVD/CD have both file types and copies the 32 bit files for CD and 64-bit for C2D?

It's simple. AMD designed X86-64 so that 32-bit programs will run on it natively while it is running in 64bit mode. They just can't access all the new registers that 64-bit programs can.

In OSX, for programs which are 64-bit and 32-bit then both versions are included and chosen based on the CPU you run. There will probably be a way to strip out the 32 or 64bit versions as you need.

(Windows and Linux do this differently)

 

[flopticalcube]

I suspect it will be handled as TBi said: two versions shipped similar to Intel vs PPC and your OS will decide which one to run.