Are You Switching to 64-bit Processors? 252
chip_whisperer asks: "I used to be a big time custom desktop builder, making many working boxes per year, but I've been off the bandwagon for about four years now and am trying to get back into it now that Ars Technica has just released their recommendations. The standard seems to be heading towards 64-bit processors, but I'm wondering if it worth it to run a box on XP-64? I've heard that driver support for 64-bit processors can be a hassle. Also, for you fellow Linux geeks, how are current distros (like Suse, Ubuntu, Debian, and others) doing in supporting 64 bit processors?"
Why would I? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no need for 64 bit processing in my business (retail and web). Computer upgrades have to be worth it, from a financial standpoint. There's no reason for my business to spend any money on 64 bit processors.
How to decide between XP and XP-64 (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're even considering Windows, then that suggests you have some kind of heavy legacy requirements. Those legacy applications are what matters; check to see if they have been re-compiled. That's how you'll decide which way to go. If your legacy is ready for 64 bits, then maybe you are too. If your legacy isn't ready, then what's the point?
Wrong Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why would I? (Score:5, Insightful)
One example is that bit-board chess engines, including the current top engine Rybka, are much faster. Non bit-board engines gain little or are slower (The extra registers! They do nothing! Or at least not enough to do more than make up for the code bloat).
Large number arithmetic (e.g. encryption) gains even more because one 64 bit multiply does more that twice the work of a 32 bit multiply.
64 bit hardware vs. 64 bit software (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I've been 100% 64 bit on the hardware side for a while now. Athlon 64 X2 in my desktop, Core 2 Duo in my laptop, and even a triple-core 64 bit "Xenon" PowerPC derivative in my game console (though I recently sold that for a Wii, I'm not sure whether "Broadway" is 64 bit or not).
Software, it's a different story. I'd have no problem running a 64 bit OS on a server or workstation where I can be certain it'll be doing a set group of tasks, but on the desktop no way.
On both Windows and Linux, drivers are the biggest issue. Linux obviously less than Windows, because all but my video drivers are open source and many were 64 bit ready before AMD ever shipped a single Opteron, but the user-level 64 bit support is less. On Windows, it was mainly driver issues and a few games that balked at the NT 5.2 (Win2003) kernel under XP64. On Linux, the biggest problem was related to plugins and codecs. I didn't have Flash or Java in my web browser and a lot of codecs either weren't there or required building from source which I prefer not to do if I have a choice. I know I could have installed 32 bit Firefox and the 32 bit plugins would have worked, but just like with the codecs it was more work than I was willing to put in to it.
In both cases 64 bit gained me nothing other than being able to say I'm running in 64 bit mode while causing quite a bit of extra work. The tradeoff wasn't worth it, so I went back.
Depending on how things develop, I might try 64 bit Vista a few months after the official release, and of course Leopard will bring my Macbook a fully 64 bit OS, but for now I'm happy with 32 bit Vista on the desktop, 32 bit Tiger on the laptop, and 32 bit Ubuntu on both.
Re:Why would I? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but if he doesn't need an upgrade, then it is much cheaper to not buy any hardware at all. ;-)
It depends on your environment. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand there is no reason to not use 64-bit Linux on a machine that is capable of 64-bit processing. Very few of the frequently used drivers are 32-bit only. The advantages is not only due to the fact that you are able to access large amount of memory, but you will have less problems with larger files (Above 2GB). If there are any real disadvantages I haven't seen them here.
If you plan for Vista - I don't see any reason to stick with 32-bit. This since it seems likely that the major focus on Vista development will be on the 64-bit variant. Remember that the recommended minimum RAM is 1GB and new applications are likely to use more RAM so the 4GB barrier present in 32-bit is not too far away.
Re:um. 32 bit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that the situation seems likely to persist this time.
No, at most you'll get a 100% increase (assuming you're doing two different CPU-intensive tasks that don't need to pass data back and forth at all). 50% is closer to an average figure (unless you spend all your time doing only a single CPU-intensive task, that can't be multithreaded).
Or gaming (soon, when more games become multithreaded), or running Folding@home, or compiling Seamonkey in less than 50 minutes...
Re:The answer is: because you don't have a choice. (Score:4, Insightful)
They came out with a 64bit CPU that, unlike Itanium, performed just as fast on 32bit tasks as the predecessor. Which meant that buying AMD 64bit chips was a no-risk decision. You could get a 64bit chip (future-proof) but without sacrificing performance on existing 32bit workloads. I don't know if it was an engineering or marketing decision, but it was an important one.
Imagine a world where Intel's Core 2 was the first 64bit chip for x86. It would've pushed the move to 64bit back to 2010 instead of possibly happening as soon as 2007.
(Not sure when the 64bit Xeon CPUs first hit the market. We've been buying all Opteron systems.)