Isn't OSX 64-bit?

A

a ronin

Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
782
I'm still sitting on the fence regarding about the MacBook; it would indeed be a very monumentous occassion as it would be my first time with a Mac. I love my Nano to death since getting it around Christmas, but during a moment of lucidity, I remembered what Steve Jobs said about OSX being 64-bit. Intel is on the cusp of releasing a 64-bit mobile processor and Apple would no doubt be updating their MacBooks/Pros accordingly.

Shouldn't those of us who are aching to buy the MacBook or MBP wait just a little longer?
 
I guess you could say that OSX is already 64 bit because the G5 PowerMacs are accordingly 64bit processors.

from Apple.com
64-Bit Computational Power
The other advantage provided by the 64-bit PowerPC G5 is the ability to perform multiple simultaneous 64-bit floating-point and integer calculations. The PowerPC G5 features full 64-bit data paths and data registers, allowing it to express the extreme precision needed for floating-point mathematics and to express integers up to 18 billion billion. By contrast, a 32-bit processor must break these types of computations into multiple pieces — requiring multiple passes through the processor and slowing down application performance.
Click to expand...
 
Cowcaster88 said:
I guess you could say that OSX is already 64 bit because the G5 PowerMacs are accordingly 64bit processors.

from Apple.com
Click to expand...


That's my point. I am aware it is 64-bit. So the implication is that Apple had to scale it down to 32-bit to be compliant with their Intel migration. Simply put, their new highly coveted machines are crippled. I would be pissed if I just spent $2000 on a MBP only to find out in a few months time they upgrade their processors across the board and start touting 64-bit supremacy.

Additionally, I can't see them selling their current line up of mobile products along with the new 64-bit upgrades. What's more likely to happen is they will hold off on it til it has saturated the market and then upgrade.

Anyone with more credible insights into Apple's upgrade strategy, feel free to correct me.
 
They're not crippled, unless you require more than 2 GB of RAM. The real test will be between the G5 and it's successor. That machine would have to be 64-bit considering some professionals need to have 8 GB of RAM. I wouldn't be surprised if the first PowerMac is a 32-bit machine then moving to 64 months after. Processor speed is relative. For example my 1.8 GHz G4 is faster than many 3 GHz dell machines in my school's computer lab. It's all relative man. :D
 
Why do you care about the 64-bit issue? Do you constantly run into the 4GiB roof of 32-bit adressing, or what? Really. It doesn't matter.
 
64-bit has been around for a long time in Unix servers and only really matters when needing to address very large amounts of memory as with large Oracle databases. Somehow home users have gotten the idea that it matters to them by making your PC much faster. It doesn't. 32 bit procs can use 4 GB of memory btw not 2 GB. Of course these machines are not even remotely "crippled" which anyone who has seen the benchmarks or used one can attest to. Macs running XP have even beat PC laptops with the same Core Dup procs. Also its pretty much common knowledge that the desktop machines will use the Conroe prcs and will be out in June or July.
 
macguy said:
64-bit has been around for a long time in Unix servers and only really matters when needing to address very large amounts of memory as with large Oracle databases. Somehow home users have gotten the idea that it matters to them by making your PC much faster. It doesn't. 32 bit procs can use 4 GB of memory btw not 2 GB. Of course these machines are not even remotely "crippled" which anyone who has seen the benchmarks or used one can attest to. Macs running XP have even beat PC laptops with the same Core Dup procs. Also its pretty much common knowledge that the desktop machines will use the Conroe prcs and will be out in June or July.
Click to expand...

Thank you. If the original poster actually read about 64 bit technology, he'd realize that in many cases (right now), 64 bit is slower than 32 bit.

Go ahead, look for the future so that the computer you're currently using will be obsolete.
 
Think about the transition/benefits of moving to the 64 bit version of Windows. If it was twice as fast as the 32 bit version, we'd all be jumping to get on it! However, it's not. For most users like us, the 32 vs. 64 bit issue just isn't important.
 
macguy said:
Somehow home users have gotten the idea that it matters to them by making your PC much faster. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

*cough* A64 marketing scam *cough*

Still, Conroe is 64-bit, and the memory wall does seem like it could be an issue for the PowerMac successor, as stated above, so I expect we will see them there.

As for the iMac, I expect it will stay Core Duo until Merom hits, then switch over with the MacBookPro, perhaps Apple will keep the MacBook on Yonah seeing as it is the low end machine.
 
IF 64-bit is a marketing scam so is Dual Core. 64bit has a large impact in large number floating point performance and high precision math. As applications get larger and more complex we will see the benifit. If AMD hadn't done 64bit intel would be pushing us into itanic as we speak. The thing is its taking a while for everything to transistion to 64bit but there is no question once the support base is in place 32bit CPU will be obsolete.

Will this happen in a month?
No chance, but 1-2 years down the road we may be singing a diffrent tune.
Games and rendering applications will probably require or recommend a 64bit CPU.

Should you not buy a computer because its not 64bit? Thats a though call and depends
on the application. Seeing the MacBook has a crappy video card and couldn't render to save its life. Its probably not that important. Then again I don't think it will be Aero Vista ready either because of 950 Graphics. Plus I bet apple will be running a 64bit kernel when Conroe ships.
 
The vast majority of users---probably around 99% of them---wouldn't know the difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit OS in usage...At all. The only reason people give two shakes about it now is cause some marketing folks somewhere made a big deal out of it...If you need a 64-bit OS, you'll know it. Most people won't hit any RAM limit, stack size limits or anything else of the sort.

I'm fairly tired of the 64-bit craze. Some of us have owned 64-bit machines at home for ages and just don't get what the big deal is.
 
The ones currently in Macs are. My rant was more about the hub-bub over 64-bitness in general.
 
DaCoOlNeSs said:
I bet you have.
Click to expand...
I bet I have too, working at the Santa Clara campus with the group running tests on OS X. I've seen the computers labeled M43. Please, don't mess.
 
Kingofl337 said:
IF 64-bit is a marketing scam so is Dual Core.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the rest of your post, I strongly disagree with this statement. Dual core procs aren't much more money than a single core chip but when used by apps that take advantage of the multiple processors, the gains are considerable.

While it's not teh r0x0rs like it was touted to be, it's an efficient (and relatively inexpensive) improvement to single core technology.

64 bit in most cases is a marketing hoax but that doesn't hold true for dual core chips.
 
Rocketpig said:
While I agree with the rest of your post, I strongly disagree with this statement. Dual core procs aren't much more money than a single core chip but when used by apps that take advantage of the multiple processors, the gains are considerable.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It (SMP) is about the only real solution to current CPU performance limitations, unfortunately...
 
Kingofl337 said:
IF 64-bit is a marketing scam so is Dual Core. 64bit has a large impact in large number floating point performance and high precision math.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. x86 has been able to do 64-bit floating point operations for AGES (like since the original Pentium). So has PowerPC. 64-bit does not give a performance advantage in floating point intensive application. For such apps, all it does is let you use more RAM.

Integers, on the other hand... A 32-bit processor cannot easily work with 64-bit integers. A 64-bit CPU (with a 64-bit app) can, however.

I am so sick of this modern myth. Go browse wikipedia or something.

Also, what the heck do dual core CPUs have to do with anything?




I thought the Dual Core CPUs were 32-bit
Click to expand...
Whether a CPU has two cores or not has no effect what-so-ever on whether it's 64-bit or 32-bit.




While it's not teh r0x0rs like it was touted to be, it's an efficient (and relatively inexpensive) improvement to single core technology.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is "teh r0x0rs," at least for pro users. A proper software renderer scales almost linearly with multiple cores (like over 90%). A dual-core G5 is actually MORE than twice as fast as a single-core at modo 201 rendering! If that's not teh r0x0rs, I don't know what is.
 
Thats pretty surprising actually. Since Intel has been doing the EM64T extensions on it recent processor lines, it seems odd that they would not carry it over to there "next big thing".

I just bought a laptop that has a AMD Turion64 in it...is it one of the only 64 bit capable laptop processors out there right now?
 
westrock2000 said:
I just bought a laptop that has a AMD Turion64 in it...is it one of the only 64 bit capable laptop processors out there right now?
Click to expand...
That really depends on what you mean by "64-bit capable." Technically, yes, it is one of the only 64-bit real laptops out there. There are lots of 64-bit luggables (Pentium D or Athlon64 laptop, for example), though. And the main advantage of a 64-bit computer is that you're able to use more than 4 gigs of RAM. Good luck squeezing more than 4 gigs into a Turion laptop...
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Actually, it is "teh r0x0rs," at least for pro users. A proper software renderer scales almost linearly with multiple cores (like over 90%). A dual-core G5 is actually MORE than twice as fast as a single-core at modo 201 rendering! If that's not teh r0x0rs, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I imagine that in some cases it performs extremely well over a single core design. I was basing it off the fact that I've seen tests where the dualie was about 30% faster than the single core chip using Photoshop... While that is very impressive (and well worth the little extra money for the dual core), it's not the 60-80% gains I heard people touting back in the day.
 
Rocketpig said:
I imagine that in some cases it performs extremely well over a single core design. I was basing it off the fact that I've seen tests where the dualie was about 30% faster than the single core chip using Photoshop... While that is very impressive (and well worth the little extra money for the dual core), it's not the 60-80% gains I heard people touting back in the day.
Click to expand...

Dual Core doesn't always double single threaded apps performance, or even multithreaded yet, but that will keep getting better.

The ability to multitask and run two CPU intensive programs at the same time both at 100% efficiency is more than worth it alone though.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
That really depends on what you mean by "64-bit capable." Technically, yes, it is one of the only 64-bit real laptops out there. There are lots of 64-bit luggables (Pentium D or Athlon64 laptop, for example), though. And the main advantage of a 64-bit computer is that you're able to use more than 4 gigs of RAM. Good luck squeezing more than 4 gigs into a Turion laptop...
Click to expand...

Exactly, why i would never buy an AMD mobile Chip, no reason too Intel has the mobile market by the nuts and AMD has nothing to compete, which is why i really scratch my head when people buy an AMD mobile laptop.. (not a desktop replacement with say an 7900GTX vid card)
 
MrGuvernment said:
Exactly, why i would never buy an AMD mobile Chip, no reason too Intel has the mobile market by the nuts and AMD has nothing to compete, which is why i really scratch my head when people buy an AMD mobile laptop.. (not a desktop replacement with say an 7900GTX vid card)
Click to expand...

Eh, it's probably all of the comp kiddies who got into this hobby in the past couple years have been brainwashed that AMD is better than Intel.
 
You know it's kinda funny because my old G4 which I'm writing this on has a proc. that has a wordlength of 128 bits, a pci bus that is 66 mhz 64-bit and a system bus that I think is either 32 or 64 bit and 100 mhz. Plus the memory stuff like lba 48 is only 48 bits. The bit thing kinda seems funky to me. Plus the whole speed thing compared to clock speed and bits only shows you that the weakest link is the slowest part of the system I'm guessing the hard drive. It'd be nice if hdd transitioned to some type of chip memory to erase that bottleneck. :D

M34 huh?
 
You know it's kinda funny because my old G4 which I'm writing this on has a proc. that has a wordlength of 128 bits
Click to expand...
The fact that AltiVec is 128-bit does NOT mean that the entire processor counts as a 128-bit processor. The G4 cannot do anything with >32-bit integers, and it even really sucks at >32-bit floats. I'd say being able to work well on 64-bit numbers is absolutely vital for the processor to be called 64-bit (or more). So the G4 is still stuck in 32-bit land.




Plus the whole speed thing compared to clock speed and bits only shows you that the weakest link is the slowest part of the system I'm guessing the hard drive.
Click to expand...
A test that first loads the entire thing into the CPU's cache, and then runs the test, will not be slowed down by a slow CPU. So not all tests suffer from the same bottlenecks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top