The real 64bit difference is...?

[gadgetgirl85]

Um and they get access to twice as much registers (in X86-64) and thus increases the speed of applications as they don't have to access their cache as much.

(G5 chips operate differently and don't get any speed boost from 64 bit (AFAIK))

Which for the majority of low end users won't make any difference

 

[budugu]

I'm looking to buy a mbp, and i can get an awesome deal for the 2ghz core duo version (like 1600€) from my mac dealer (400€ less), it has an english keyboard (the default here is german :S ), 1.5GB ram(!!!) and I can pick it up today.

so my question is, what will i be missing out on when leopard gets released given that it will not have a core2duo processor with 64bit technology?

i don't really NEED to buy it now, but it seems like an excellent deal, it looks like the retailer is trying to get rid of it because they can't sell it with the ENG keyboard. though i don't much care for the merom speedbump, the 64bit thing has got me asking all sorts of questions, namely will i be missing out on some leopard features or it is just a matter of speed, which, as i said, isn't all that important (i'm still running a athlonXP2000+ PC for my cad stuff and i've never noticed it not being sufficient).

cheers

After wasting thousands of dollars on "DEALS" my advice is if you "DONOT NEED IT DONOT BUY IT" Because by the time you actually use it ... you will always have a better deal. ... 64 Bit will evantually make a difference. esp when media encoding and other stuff.

 

[jne381]

Of course the major advantages of 64 bit processing have been eclipsed by the ever increasing processor speed (the same way the RISC technology doesn't have the same impact that it once did). So today, in this era of processors that are so much faster than the average person could really need, the advantage that comes from 64 bit is not the word size, it is the memory size. Being able to give apps more than 4 GB of memory to run in is the advantage that will be most noticeable (be it in Photoshop, 3D apps or video editing apps).

If the advantage of 64bit is moot unless you have more than 4GB of RAM because the increased speed of processors makes it so, what would be the logic of putting it into a MBP when it only has the capacity to hold 2GB of RAM. I am missing something in the breakdown, somebody please explain.

 

[Finnxeon]

If the advantage of 64bit is moot unless you have more than 4GB of RAM because the increased speed of processors makes it so, what would be the logic of putting it into a MBP when it only has the capacity to hold 2GB of RAM. I am missing something in the breakdown, somebody please explain.

yeah....i was thinking the same thing......

 

[tuartboy]

Um and they get access to twice as much registers (in X86-64) and thus increases the speed of applications as they don't have to access their cache as much.

(G5 chips operate differently and don't get any speed boost from 64 bit (AFAIK))

To keep it in perpective: 2x the register count ? 4 billion times the address capacity.

CPUs are designed so that the contents of an integer register can store the address of a unit of data in the computer's memory. The total amount of data the computer can work with at a given time is based off the width of these registers.

32:64 != 2^32:2^64

2^32 = 4,294,967,300 = 4 Gb of address space

2^64 = 18,446,744,000,000,000,000 = 18,446,744,000 Gb of address space (AKA 16 exabytes)

Yes, 64-bit really does have to do with memory. The CPU itself is no faster by going 64-bit.

 

[Sun Baked]

If the advantage of 64bit is moot unless you have more than 4GB of RAM because the increased speed of processors makes it so, what would be the logic of putting it into a MBP when it only has the capacity to hold 2GB of RAM. I am missing something in the breakdown, somebody please explain.

The chipset in the machine is capable of 4GB, likely we won't be able to use it without the new CPU.

Plus the new chipset will probably still be a 2 DIMM machine, and require 2 4GB DIMMs for the full 8GB in the Santa Rosa MBP.

 

[generik]

The chipset in the machine is capable of 4GB, likely we won't be able to use it without the new CPU.

Plus the new chipset will probably still be a 2 DIMM machine, and require 2 4GB DIMMs for the full 8GB in the Santa Rosa MBP.

Erm.. sorry, the theoretical maximum ram for a 64bit architecture is not merely twice that of 32 bits, but really a factor of 2^32 bigger. To paraphrase it, it is 4GB multiplied by 2 for 32 times.

Santa Rosa probably will offer nothing that the current chipset doesn't offer, it is just that in Apple's own implementation where memory modules > 1GB are not supported.

 

[RacerX]

If the advantage of 64bit is moot unless you have more than 4GB of RAM because the increased speed of processors makes it so, what would be the logic of putting it into a MBP when it only has the capacity to hold 2GB of RAM. I am missing something in the breakdown, somebody please explain.

-and-​

yeah....i was thinking the same thing......

The advantage is standardizing on using just 64 bit as an environment.

There are issues associated with hybrid environments, and settling on one makes life (mainly for the makers of software) easier.

SGI maintained a hybrid 32 bit/64 bit environment so their users could continue to use 32 bit apps (I still use Photoshop and Illustrator on my SGI and they are both 32 bit apps). Microsoft maintained a 16 bit/32 bit environment in Windows 95-Me. Apple maintained a 24 bit/32 bit environment throughout most of System 7 as I recall (I think 24 bit support was dropped in 7.6.x).

And the G5 owes it's existence to IBM originally thinking that they needed a processor that could support a 32 bit/64 bit hybrid environment while moving their clients from PowerPC 604 and POWER3 based systems (both of which are 32 bit) to POWER4 and beyond (which are 64 bit). Sadly (for Apple) IBM found that the transition wasn't nearly as hard as they had thought and their need for the G5 evaporated.


Further, no matter what the current max for a MacBook Pro is today, there is the possibility that it will be exceeded in the future.

I am writing this post on a PowerBook Wallstreet. When this system was released Apple said that the maximum amount of memory was 192 MB. I have 512 MB in this system.

There is a good possibility that a MacBook Pro may one day hold up to 4 GB of memory, and then you would need to be able to access more than 4 GB when taking into account virtual memory... and a 64 bit operating system would be very helpful in that.

Also, though putting a 64 bit processor into a MacBook Pro may not give you a ton of advantages from the 64 bit technology, by making it 64 bit compatible the life of that system has been greatly extended.

In another thread someone ask how long Apple was going to support the G5. I responded by pointing out that what people should be worried about is not Intel verses PowerPC, it should be 32 bit verse 64 bit. If Apple goes totally 64 bit, then G5 based systems aren't at risk, it'll be systems that use 32 bit processors (either PowerPC or Intel) that will be left behind.

 

[net26]

The advantage is standardizing on using just 64 bit as an environment.

There are issues associated with hybrid environments, and settling on one makes life (mainly for the makers of software) easier.

SGI maintained a hybrid 32 bit/64 bit environment so their users could continue to use 32 bit apps (I still use Photoshop and Illustrator on my SGI and they are both 32 bit apps). Microsoft maintained a 16 bit/32 bit environment in Windows 95-Me. Apple maintained a 24 bit/32 bit environment throughout most of System 7 as I recall (I think 24 bit support was dropped in 7.6.x).

And the G5 owes it's existence to IBM originally thinking that they needed a processor that could support a 32 bit/64 bit hybrid environment while moving their clients from PowerPC 604 and POWER3 based systems (both of which are 32 bit) to POWER4 and beyond (which are 64 bit). Sadly (for Apple) IBM found that the transition wasn't nearly as hard as they had thought and their need for the G5 evaporated.


Further, no matter what the current max for a MacBook Pro is today, there is the possibility that it will be exceeded in the future.

I am writing this post on a PowerBook Wallstreet. When this system was released Apple said that the maximum amount of memory was 192 MB. I have 512 MB in this system.

There is a good possibility that a MacBook Pro may one day hold up to 4 GB of memory, and then you would need to be able to access more than 4 GB when taking into account virtual memory... and a 64 bit operating system would be very helpful in that.

Also, though putting a 64 bit processor into a MacBook Pro may not give you a ton of advantages from the 64 bit technology, by making it 64 bit compatible the life of that system has been greatly extended.

In another thread someone ask how long Apple was going to support the G5. I responded by pointing out that what people should be worried about is not Intel verses PowerPC, it should be 32 bit verse 64 bit. If Apple goes totally 64 bit, then G5 based systems aren't at risk, it'll be systems that use 32 bit processors (either PowerPC or Intel) that will be left behind.

is this a possibility with apple (the dropping of 32bit altogether)? by doing this, they would make ALL intel macs up to the macpro obsolete in one swift move... given that they release a new OS every 2 years or so, this could mean that people who buy computers from apple with pre-64bit tech (current intels and all G4s) are buying a 2 year timebomb in the event that the next osx will be completely 64bit.

anyway, it looks like I'm going to have to buy a computer before oct, and I'm quite certain that new imacs won't be available by then here in europe, so I'm biting the macbook pro core duo bullet i just hope it wont have any issues...

 

[RacerX]

is this a possibility with apple (the dropping of 32bit altogether)? by doing this, they would make ALL intel macs up to the macpro obsolete in one swift move... given that they release a new OS every 2 years or so, this could mean that people who buy computers from apple with pre-64bit tech (current intels and all G4s) are buying a 2 year timebomb in the event that the next osx will be completely 64bit.

I highly doubt that that is how fast Apple is planning on a full switch.

But what you should be more worried about than Apple is your perceptions of obsolete. From how you are talking, you seem to think that the day after Apple releases an OS that doesn't run on certain Apple hardware that that unsupported hardware will stop functioning.

With that mind set you are likely to make any computer company a lot of money. They love two types of users; ones who have to have the bleeding edge and ones who worry about being left behind. The one who have to have the bleeding edge with not only buy new system with each new release, they buy the highest end systems. Usually these people burn out unless they have a ton of expendable cash. The ones who worry about being left behind are a better group for computer makers. Even though they tend to buy a lot of equipment and software, they don't usually buy top end and are therefore more likely to continue in their buying practices over a very long periods.

My suggestion... Use what works until it stops actually working for you. You'll end up spending less money, and more importantly you'll worry much less.

 

[TBi]

Which for the majority of low end users won't make any difference

No, twice the registers means faster program speed which means a free 10-20% speed boost in all applications.

To keep it in perpective: 2x the register count ? 4 billion times the address capacity.

CPUs are designed so that the contents of an integer register can store the address of a unit of data in the computer's memory. The total amount of data the computer can work with at a given time is based off the width of these registers.

32:64 != 2^32:2^64

2^32 = 4,294,967,300 = 4 Gb of address space

2^64 = 18,446,744,000,000,000,000 = 18,446,744,000 Gb of address space (AKA 16 exabytes)

Yes, 64-bit really does have to do with memory. The CPU itself is no faster by going 64-bit.

Registers don't all relate to memory, the registers in X86 are for calculations. more registers means more calculations can be done without having to fetch data from the cache. Your logic is flawed.

 

[dornoforpyros]

I just consider buying a 64 bit machine to be a bit more of a future proofing effort more than anything.

Honestly apple isn't going to drop 32 bit anytime soon. Keep in mind there are still g3's out there running tiger just fine.

 

[tuartboy]

No, twice the registers means faster program speed which means a free 10-20% speed boost in all applications.

Registers don't all relate to memory, the registers in X86 are for calculations. more registers means more calculations can be done without having to fetch data from the cache. Your logic is flawed.

Well 64-bit usually refers to integer registers, not floating point (unless specified). So yes, whole number calculations with very significant numbers ( > 2^32) will be able to fit the whole number in a 64-bit register. AFAIK, this really should only give boosts to users with large scientific datasets and data encryption. Nothing near a typical user's needs.

So not quite flawed, but maybe not clarified.

And memory pointers can only be stored in integer registers.

 

[TBi]

Well 64-bit usually refers to integer registers, not floating point (unless specified). So yes, whole number calculations with very significant numbers ( > 2^32) will be able to fit the whole number in a 64-bit register. AFAIK, this really should only give boosts to users with large scientific datasets and data encryption. Nothing near a typical user's needs.

So not quite flawed, but maybe not clarified.

And memory pointers can only be stored in integer registers.

Yes and you get more registers... more registers = faster because less access to cache.

I don't mean you just get 64-registers i mean you get your standard 8 registers like you have in every X86 processor and you get an extra 8 which speeds the processor up...

 

[j26]

Leopard is a bit away and will support 32 bit.
It will be at least 2 years before the next OS is released, so 32 bit will last at least 2 years, assuming that 32 bit is dropped after Leopard (whiich I doubt). Also, you don't NEED the latest OS to get by. I've managed fine on Panther for the last 1 1/2 years. My PB didn't fall apart. I'm sure Leopard will be similar.

32 bit will definitely last 3 1/2 years by that reasoning, and a lot more realistically. Most people probably change computer at that sort of frequency anyway, so by the time it becomes an issue you're in the market for a new one anyway. The 64 bit thing is overblown for consumers at the moment.