Is Core Duo 64-Bit?

[Anonymous Freak]

Not so long ago, PowerMac G5s also had a limit of 1 GB per slot. Support for 2 GB modules came along with support for ECC modules. As far as I know, no PowerPC Macs except the Dual-core G5 towers and the Xserve support ECC RAM. It is possible that these Intel chipsets do not support ECC RAM ...

For some time, Intel's chipsets have ALLOWED ECC RAM, even if they didn't SUPPORT it. This means that you can put ECC RAM into an Intel board, and it will function just fine; although with ECC disabled.

The 2 GB limit on current Intel Macs stems from the fact that there are *ZERO* 2 GB DDR2-667 SO-DIMMs available right now. I found ONE 2 GB DDR-2 'full-size' DIMM, for $2000. That's it. (Hey, double-checking, it appears to be more popular now, I found THREE, the cheapest at $1000 per stick. Still no SO-DIMMs, though.)

Somewhere, in one of these threads, I link to an Intel document that shows that the chipset does have support for 2 GB DIMMs, we just need to wait for them to actually make it to the market.

 

[slooksterPSV]

Given: 2 RISC CPUs of similar spec (Speed, Bus Speed, Cache Mode, Cache Speed etc..) One isa 32bit and the other 64bit.

Following on from the above, the 32Bit instruction (Op Code, Operand) Vs 64Bit instruction would essential execute with similar number of fetch-execute cycles if they where run on 32 Bit and 64 Bit CPUs respectively. However, as already pointed out Addressing More Memory (Operand) would be greater using 64 bit instructions. But when it comes to Floating Point Precision calculations (as in 3D rendering etc..) 64 Bit processors will out-perform there 32 bit CPUs on the fact that the CPU will compute 64 bit (quadword) in one+ cycle, whereas 32 bit CPUs would have to perform it in two+ more cycles...

***Note: the Intel x86 family are CISC and PowerPC are RISC. A True benchmark comparison is very difficult. If you have a certain application in mind such as Vector Processing, 3D rendering, Audio Synthesis. Then as was the case with the G5 CPU, the compiler optimisation would allow you to harness the chips best potential. At the moment if you are stuck with the Universal Binaires Nonsense, it's best to stick to a application that will harness one of the current cpus. So you might have to wait a for the Software companies to optimise there applications to run on Intel CPUs.

In my opinion there was nothing wrong with applications written on PowerPC cpus as they took advantage of the fact they where RISC processors and used them well (for vector based processing).

My benchmark is to see how long the phase the Power Mac G5 desktop!!!!

They won't rush on that one...

Ooo, I forgot PPC is RISC while Intel is CISC, that explains why the Dual-Core Pentium 4's that my school got, doesn't do very well with Illustrator (even with 2GB memory, 256MB Video card), I swear a lot of functions are actually faster on my PPC computer than the Intel PC's. Yeah, I mean seriously you try them out and the PowerMacs and my iBook seem faster than the Dual-Core Pentium 4, 2.8GHz 2GB DDR400 SDRAM, 160GB, WinXP Pro. computers, seriously. Anyways:

32-bit vs 64-bit
Size addressment:
32-bit is a Postcard in Manhattan (64-bit). I think that was the analysis. 4GB vs. 16EB (exa-bytes) for memory addressing? something like that.

 

[Dominatus]

Ooo, I forgot PPC is RISC while Intel is CISC, that explains why the Dual-Core Pentium 4's that my school got, doesn't do very well with Illustrator (even with 2GB memory, 256MB Video card), I swear a lot of functions are actually faster on my PPC computer than the Intel PC's. Yeah, I mean seriously you try them out and the PowerMacs and my iBook seem faster than the Dual-Core Pentium 4, 2.8GHz 2GB DDR400 SDRAM, 160GB, WinXP Pro. computers, seriously. Anyways:

32-bit vs 64-bit
Size addressment:
32-bit is a Postcard in Manhattan (64-bit). I think that was the analysis. 4GB vs. 16EB (exa-bytes) for memory addressing? something like that.

The x86s CPUs themselves arent really CISC anymore. The instruction set itself is from the days of when they were CISC processors and that hasnt changed, but now adays the intructions are immediately decoded into small RISC like statements in the CPU before anything else. The CPU then executes those broken down instructions, not the original instruction like a CISC machine would do. This brings the modern x86 very close to RISC like performance.

 

[jhu]

***Note: the Intel x86 family are CISC and PowerPC are RISC. A True benchmark comparison is very difficult. If you have a certain application in mind such as Vector Processing, 3D rendering, Audio Synthesis. Then as was the case with the G5 CPU, the compiler optimisation would allow you to harness the chips best potential. At the moment if you are stuck with the Universal Binaires Nonsense, it's best to stick to a application that will harness one of the current cpus. So you might have to wait a for the Software companies to optimise there applications to run on Intel CPUs.

if all you want to do is test raw processing power, it's not that difficult. you can write, for example, a small program that calculates a slew of fast fourier transforms to test the fpu. as long as the source code is available, performance tests between architectures is feasible. just take a look at the specint or specfp tests.

In my opinion there was nothing wrong with applications written on PowerPC cpus as they took advantage of the fact they where RISC processors and used them well (for vector based processing).

the only problem with altivec is that it only does single-precision floating point, unlike sse2 which can do double-precision floating point.

 

[wms121]

...ahem.."128 bit processor" link at IBM

..for those who think Sun has everything:

http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/3BBB27E5BCC165BA87256A2B0064FFB4/$file/128bitPlbBus.pdf

..YES Solaris 10 is FREE!!!.

But so are Cell Processor emulators* IF you register at IBM as a biz customer.

MacOSX 10.3 and 1.41 GHz chip clock speed with a minimum of 1 GB RAM required to run the simulator.

*(search IBM.com for "cell simulator"..lots of links..including the "custom supercomputing software..YES they have ppc versions..!!")

Mercury Computer has "Infiniband modules" with the first Cell plugins:

http://www.mc.com

YES this is why I post on the "64-bit who really cares pages?"...because Intel
can't do these "Next Gen" steps all by themselves. We will need ALL the computer companies working in unison..including Apple and Mr. Steve Jobs..to
stay competitive beyond 2010.

Hyperspace Drives are coming:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002065.html

WW

(moto we still luv you...get us a 128 bit chip and we will talk to Steve ; )

 

[jhu]

..for those who think Sun has everything:

http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/3BBB27E5BCC165BA87256A2B0064FFB4/$file/128bitPlbBus.pdf

..YES Solaris 10 is FREE!!!.

But so are Cell Processor emulators* IF you register at IBM as a biz customer.

MacOSX 10.3 and 1.41 GHz chip clock speed with a minimum of 1 GB RAM required to run the simulator.

*(search IBM.com for "cell simulator"..lots of links..including the "custom supercomputing software..YES they have ppc versions..!!")

Mercury Computer has "Infiniband modules" with the first Cell plugins:

http://www.mc.com

YES this is why I post on the "64-bit who really cares pages?"...because Intel
can't do these "Next Gen" steps all by themselves. We will need ALL the computer companies working in unison..including Apple and Mr. Steve Jobs..to
stay competitive beyond 2010.

Hyperspace Drives are coming:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002065.html

WW

(moto we still luv you...get us a 128 bit chip and we will talk to Steve ; )

OMG!!! Ponies!!!

 

[slooksterPSV]

The x86s CPUs themselves arent really CISC anymore. The instruction set itself is from the days of when they were CISC processors and that hasnt changed, but now adays the intructions are immediately decoded into small RISC like statements in the CPU before anything else. The CPU then executes those broken down instructions, not the original instruction like a CISC machine would do. This brings the modern x86 very close to RISC like performance.

Not good enough for me. When performance is everything, Mac wins. A compressed version of RISC, or minor-risc of cisc isn't good enough for me. CISC is CISC even if its 99.999% RISC IMO, still, I wonder how much faster any of the computers would be if they had RISC instead of CISC w/RISC Chopped down Instructions. - -sorry can't think of a better way to phrase that.

 

[slooksterPSV]

..for those who think Sun has everything:

http://www-306.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/3BBB27E5BCC165BA87256A2B0064FFB4/$file/128bitPlbBus.pdf

..YES Solaris 10 is FREE!!!.

But so are Cell Processor emulators* IF you register at IBM as a biz customer.

MacOSX 10.3 and 1.41 GHz chip clock speed with a minimum of 1 GB RAM required to run the simulator.

*(search IBM.com for "cell simulator"..lots of links..including the "custom supercomputing software..YES they have ppc versions..!!")

Mercury Computer has "Infiniband modules" with the first Cell plugins:

http://www.mc.com

YES this is why I post on the "64-bit who really cares pages?"...because Intel
can't do these "Next Gen" steps all by themselves. We will need ALL the computer companies working in unison..including Apple and Mr. Steve Jobs..to
stay competitive beyond 2010.

Hyperspace Drives are coming:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002065.html

WW

(moto we still luv you...get us a 128 bit chip and we will talk to Steve ; )

So is Apple going to use this technology, provided IBM let them, to enable virtualization such as Xen virtualization with Linux? That'd be awesome if this was the technology to do so.

 

[dr_lha]

... the compiler optimisation would allow you to harness the chips best potential. At the moment if you are stuck with the Universal Binaires Nonsense, it's best to stick to a application that will harness one of the current cpus...

I fail to see how Universal Binaries has any affect here on optimisation, or why its "Nonsense". I really think you have no idea what Universal Binaries are.

 

[jhu]

Not good enough for me. When performance is everything, Mac wins. A compressed version of RISC, or minor-risc of cisc isn't good enough for me. CISC is CISC even if its 99.999% RISC IMO, still, I wonder how much faster any of the computers would be if they had RISC instead of CISC w/RISC Chopped down Instructions. - -sorry can't think of a better way to phrase that.

hmmm... you really don't know what you're talking about. that's why apple stayed with powerpc, right? additionally, cisc and risc are now out-dated terms whereby current processors, be it x86, powerpc, sparc, etc transcend the original cisc/risc definitions.

 

[notjustjay]

CISC is CISC even if its 99.999% RISC IMO, still, I wonder how much faster any of the computers would be if they had RISC instead of CISC w/RISC Chopped down Instructions.

This makes no sense, particularly if you've studied (a) how CPUs work, (b) assembly language, and (c) how compilers work.

Just because a native Spanish speaking person happens to have a translator friend help you translate your English into Spanish doesn't make her any less fluent in Spanish than any other Spanish speaker.

 

[wms121]

1U Dual Cell Server Board

http://www.mc.com/products/view/index.cfm?id=96&type=boards

..THIS is why we need Intel.

The support chips for manufacturing something like this type of server
for Apple are almost entirely Intel based...at least for mass production.

Apple could always do a "micro-custom" shop version of things..but Steve
won't let them..his industry partners..the 'nice little companies' who help out
Apple and several other major computer manufacturers from time to time
(ahem..LIKE IBM)..need to allow the "little guys" their wiggle room.

More reasons to watch the Intel what is what isn't 64 bit discussing paradigm..the SUPPORT CHIPS ..are what drive these industries..and pays
off the bottom lines..for various industries..gamers..support the MIL-SPEC
crowd ALL THE TIME.

What ponies?

Just saw one little girl in pink shorts...she was from marketing.

WW

 

[chatin]

http://www.mc.com/products/view/index.cfm?id=96&type=boards

..THIS is why we need Intel.

Just saw one little girl in pink shorts...she was from marketing.

Does this person work for Apple? The current crop of chips are essentially two Pentium III's squeezed together on the same die.

AMD set the way 64-bit will be implemented (MS backed the AMD64 standard. much to Intel's shock and horror) back in 2003, so it's no wonder Intel is struggling.

The 65nm process will help, but there seems to be a problem here.

 

[MacCoaster]

Question: How many bits wide was the floating point unit in the old Intel 386? How about in the 486 and in all the Pentiums and in the new Core Duo?

Answer 80 bits.

Intel has been doing 64-bit math from the beginning days of the PC era.

What defines a 64-bit processor is that this code (written
in C) will print the number "64";

void* foobar;
printf( sizeof(foobar) );

Eh? That's just a void pointer. Meaningless. A ppc64 binary on Mac OS X will print "4" for this. C does not define the length of a pointer (or an integer, etc.) so doing this is pointless to 'find out' the bits of a processor.

 

[slooksterPSV]

This makes no sense, particularly if you've studied (a) how CPUs work, (b) assembly language, and (c) how compilers work.

Just because a native Spanish speaking person happens to have a translator friend help you translate your English into Spanish doesn't make her any less fluent in Spanish than any other Spanish speaker.

True; types CISC and RISC are long gone, its now about speed, core, motherboard, chipset, bridges, etc. AMD is still better though. Hehe.

 

[wmmk]

sometimes computer companies just dont wanna overwhelm us

 

[Eniregnat]

what would be the point of hiding these capabilities?

Not hiding, just not enabling. If the chip doesn’t reliably work at 64bit, then it would make sense not to enable it to do so. Likely the structures needed to support 64bit, if present, need refined.

 

[generik]

Not good enough for me. When performance is everything, Mac wins. A compressed version of RISC, or minor-risc of cisc isn't good enough for me. CISC is CISC even if its 99.999% RISC IMO,

Do you even understand what your statement means?

Instead of buying into the petard hoisted by Apple's marketing department do you seriously have the slightest understanding of these buzzwords you just quoted?

 

[XFce]

Apple is starting to act a lot like like Microsoft.
Spend three grand on a brand new Apple I Mac Intel core duo loaded with all the latest and greatest technology. Then three months down the road, Apple announces that they are in the process of releasing a brand New Apple computer that supports 64 bit technology, plays games etc etc. The Macintels we have right now will depreciate in value anywhere from one thousand dollars on up if Apple continuities to compete with Microsoft windblows.

 

[milo]

Apple is starting to act a lot like like Microsoft.
Spend three grand on a brand new Apple I Mac Intel core duo loaded with all the latest and greatest technology. Then three months down the road, Apple announces that they are in the process of releasing a brand New Apple computer that supports 64 bit technology, plays games etc etc. The Macintels we have right now will depreciate in value anywhere from one thousand dollars on up if Apple continuities to compete with Microsoft windblows.

A new computer being outdated by newer models? Egads, such a thing is unheard of in the computer industry!

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Apple is starting to act a lot like like Microsoft.
Spend three grand on a brand new Apple I Mac Intel core duo loaded with all the latest and greatest technology. Then three months down the road, Apple announces that they are in the process of releasing a brand New Apple computer that supports 64 bit technology, plays games etc etc. The Macintels we have right now will depreciate in value anywhere from one thousand dollars on up if Apple continuities to compete with Microsoft windblows.

First, even COMPLETELY decked out, with pre-installed iWork, and AppleCare, the iMac (not I Mac) onlly comes to $2700. If you leave off AppleCare, and the non-internal-hardware upgrades, you're only at $2400.

Second, Intel's new chips are at least 5 months away, probably 6.

Third, I can play games just peachy on my MacBook Pro. I don't need the new chips for that. LEGO Star Wars, World of Warcraft, DooM 3 in Mac OS; Half-Life 2, Dungeons & Dragons Online, and Quake 4 in Windows. (Yeah, I bought the Windows one first, I wasn't about to shell out for the Mac one, too.)

Fourth, EVERY computer depreciates $1000 or more 9 months after its release. Apple's have held their resale value significantly better than the majority of PCs. (A $1299 iMac from 1998 still sells for $100+. Show me one desktop PC, of any initial price, from 1998 that would sell for more than $50. And G4 Mac mini's, which are now, by your definition, completely obsolete, sell for only $100 less than the Intel minis.)

 

[jhu]

Fourth, EVERY computer depreciates $1000 or more 9 months after its release. Apple's have held their resale value significantly better than the majority of PCs. (A $1299 iMac from 1998 still sells for $100+. Show me one desktop PC, of any initial price, from 1998 that would sell for more than $50. And G4 Mac mini's, which are now, by your definition, completely obsolete, sell for only $100 less than the Intel minis.)

that has more to do with supply and demand, but mostly supply. you can say the same thing about dec multias, sun ultrasparc workstations, sgi irix workstations, etc.

 

[ReanimationLP]

No, there is NO 64-bit in the Core Duo.

Besides, Intel doesnt have 64-bit technology.

Their EM64T is really actually AMD64 tech.

 

[jhu]

No, there is NO 64-bit in the Core Duo.

Besides, Intel doesnt have 64-bit technology.

Their EM64T is really actually AMD64 tech.

intel has ia64 which no one is really using. they also have alpha, which they bought just kill. then theres emt64, which although it is just rebadged amd64, is still a 64-bit architecture.

 

[wms121]

...just thought I would remind everyone,

http://search.motorola.com/query.ht...sor"&charset=iso-8859-1&Submit.x=4&Submit.y=7


...any questions?

WW

(..ahem my apologies, IBM...gee ask Marketing what happened..your
note is on the 20th page:

http://www.motorola.com/mot/doc/1/1448_MotDoc.pdf )