Originally posted by Shrek
Dukestreet, it would be nice because currently 64-bit processors can only crunch data at up to 1GHz, while 32-bit processors can do it at up to 2.8GHz. So if 64-bit processors are generally slower than 32-bit processors, wouldn't it be nice to have a two-speed processor that is able to crunch 32-bit data at twice the speed? Am I making any sense? Did I "switch the light on?"
Well, here is how I understand it. The difference between 64-bit and 32-bit in a CPU has nothing to do with performance or clock speed (GHz) - it has to do with the maximum word size the processor is able to handle. 64-bit processors are not generally slower (in terms of performance, not clock speed) than 32-bit processors - they are faster (in terms of performance, not clock). But not because they are 64-bit. They are generally faster because they are well-designed, have big caches, and are typically intended for high-end computers where no compromises are made for cost.
The reason 64-bit processors exist is because they are able to perform operations using twice the precision of 32-bit processors. What this means is that a 32-bit processor is limited to integers 32 or less digits long. Anything longer has to be truncated or rounded off. This sounds like plenty of digits for anybody, and it is for most people, but 64-bit precision is required for some specialized science, engineering, etc. tasks. This is why 64-bit computing hasn't caught on on the desktop yet, and why when it does, it won't be a big deal (hardly anybody will even notice). Personally I think it's kind of a laugh, like kids comparing the meaningless specs of their video game systems. "Mine has twice as much bits as yours, woooooooooooo."
64-bit CPUs are also able to address an order of magnitude more memory than 32-bit CPUs, but I think that can vary depending on the architecture.
Oops, I forgot about your question. A 64-bit CPU will never be able to run 32-bit code at 2x speed because... it just won't. That's not how CPUs work. So there you go.
(And now comes the part where I cross my fingers and hope I'm not wrong.
)
Alex