• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Conroe + 64bit?

C

CoW]8(0)

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,427
Aside from the ridiculously high benchmarks, how well does Conroe do in 64bit compared to AMD.

From benchmarks I've seen there's appears to be no gain at all. But these benchmarks don't repeat the benchmarks on an AMD64 system so I can't be sure how valid the results are.

I remember Intel's EM64T wasn't good, did Intel fix this with the Conroe?
 
the problem is the operating system (& apps) going from WinXP to WinXP64 basically offered no difference either.
Unless you're going to be using more than 4Gb of ram you won't notice a substantial change from one to the other. At least not initially. MAYBE down the road as the bloatware grows and all systems start coming with 8Gb of ram and the Operation System, apps & games all have higher needs then it may actually be of some use.

The hardware x86-64 is basically just an extension of x86-32. So its not like its a whole new architecture like Itanium built from the ground up. Once again, it really shows its strength when addresses large amounts of ram. (4+ GB)

But when most people barely need over 512Mb of ram, I doubt 32 to 64 will help 99% of people.
 
Isn't it amazing how well the upgrade going from 8-bit to 16-bit and from 16-32 bit was needed but how the move from 32-bit to 64-bit is for the most part not really needed in the desktop arena.
 
There is a noticeable difference going from 32 -> 64 bit on both AMD and on Conroe.

Cinebench does have a 64 bit version, and Xvid has claimed up to a 40% decrease in encoding time using 64bit.

Coolaer has shown that 64bit cinebench does run faster on 64bit OS.
 
fhpchris said:
There is a noticeable difference going from 32 -> 64 bit on both AMD and on Conroe.

Cinebench does have a 64 bit version, and Xvid has claimed up to a 40% decrease in encoding time using 64bit.

Coolaer has shown that 64bit cinebench does run faster on 64bit OS.
Click to expand...
Me thinks you didn't live through the aforementioned transitions like I have. :p
P.S. I've ran Cinebench and XVid on a P3 750mhz
PSS It's not like 99.9% of desktop customers (grannies etc) run Cinebench and XVid on a daily basis ;)
 
Fort_Major said:
PSS It's not like 99.9% of desktop customers (grannies etc) run Cinebench and XVid on a daily basis ;)
Click to expand...

That might be true, but it still shows that there *are* gains in speed to be had when using properly optimized software, which is all that really matters anyway...

the extensions *do* have very good uses, and when they are better used, I'm sure things will get better...

Right now, the majority of software is single threaded 32bit... I cant wait for the flood of multithreaded, 64bit extended software to come out...
 
Fort_Major said:
Isn't it amazing how well the upgrade going from 8-bit to 16-bit and from 16-32 bit was needed but how the move from 32-bit to 64-bit is for the most part not really needed in the desktop arena.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain to me why you think that the move to 64 bit is not needed in the desktop arena? Or is that just your oppinion?
 
drizzt81 said:
Can you please explain to me why you think that the move to 64 bit is not needed in the desktop arena? Or is that just your oppinion?
Click to expand...

Especially since you can still derive benefit just based on the fact that the new instruction set doubles the number of GP registers. >:|

AMD64 is a _good_ thing.
 
I'm assuming with Vista's 64 bit edition, things should change and we'll see much more applications written to take advantage of more memory and those extra registers.
 
I think everyone misunderstood the OPs question. He was asking how much better than AMD the Conroe processors will perform, IN 64 BIT.

You know how the P4 always, or in most cases, always lagged behind any AMD 64 in 64bit processing? Even though the tech is the same (AMD 64/EMT 64), Intel's solution was always slower.

I think this is what the OP was asking. I'm curious about this as well.
 
ajm786 said:
I think everyone misunderstood the OPs question. He was asking how much better than AMD the Conroe processors will perform, IN 64 BIT.

You know how the P4 always, or in most cases, always lagged behind any AMD 64 in 64bit processing? Even though the tech is the same (AMD 64/EMT 64), Intel's solution was always slower.

I think this is what the OP was asking. I'm curious about this as well.
Click to expand...

Given that Intel has now had sufficient time to create a solid X86_64 implementation, one would hope (at the very least), that Conroe does not perform any worse in 64-bit than in 32-bit. Conroe will most likely be the performance leader in desktop systems, and the Core architecture will most likely lead in both 32 and 64-bit performance at the time of release. (Except in cases where scalability is more important, like 4+P systems.)

Who knows for 100% sure though. It will certainly be a good time for consumers. Prices should drop!
 
Fort_Major said:
Me thinks you didn't live through the aforementioned transitions like I have. :p
P.S. I've ran Cinebench and XVid on a P3 750mhz
PSS It's not like 99.9% of desktop customers (grannies etc) run Cinebench and XVid on a daily basis ;)
Click to expand...

What do you want, Firefox or Outlook to be noticably faster?

I remember the transitions... The first comp I had was a 286...
 
ajm786 said:
I think everyone misunderstood the OPs question. He was asking how much better than AMD the Conroe processors will perform, IN 64 BIT.

You know how the P4 always, or in most cases, always lagged behind any AMD 64 in 64bit processing? Even though the tech is the same (AMD 64/EMT 64), Intel's solution was always slower.

I think this is what the OP was asking. I'm curious about this as well.
Click to expand...

Yup :D That's exactly what I was asking.
 
2cpu and techreport have some woodcrest benchmarks if you haven't seen them. They are interesting. both have some 64 bit comparisons i think.
 
CoW]8(0) said:
Yup :D That's exactly what I was asking.
Click to expand...

Then you got some very bad advice. Conroe runs 64bit and 32bit apps faster than A64s and X2s=P Presler P4s aren't bad as either.

These are Conroe based.
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=4

SiSoft Sandra 2007 1098 64-bit
CPU-Z 1.33
Cinebench 9.5
POV-Ray for Windows 3.6.1 64-bit
SMPOV 4.6
3ds max 8
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Edition
Xmpeg 5.0.3 with DivX 6.2
LAME MT 3.97a 64-bit
Sphinx 3.3
picCOLOR 4.0 build 561 64-bit
 
thecoldanddarkone said:
2cpu and techreport have some woodcrest benchmarks if you haven't seen them. They are interesting. both have some 64 bit comparisons i think.
Click to expand...

I saw it here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top