Why did AMD and Intel make 64bit cpu's with no OS to support them ?

Z

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
11,303
I am very upset on a few things going on in our hobby. First off that Vista is not what it was touted to be back in the Longhorn days, and second that is it not an official 64bit OS straight up no question's, I think Vista shouldnt even have a 32bit version that is what XP is for, and Microsoft had years to make this new OS, and make sure that both Intel and AMD got on the 64bit cpu thing across the line by 2007 now.

Then we have AMD like almost three to four years ago jizzing about their new Athlon64's, and how 64bit computing will change our world and make everything work at lightspeed :rolleyes: Ok four years later = today and we have a brand new OS from Microsoft and 64bit is still not ready for prime time, so thank's AMD for the marketing, I know in 32bit the Athlon64's were still king of the day, but 64bit still hasnt caught on.

I mean the wqay it is now there is no reason to have ever gone to WinXP64 it was really hard to get that baby working smoother than XP32......And now today on the official launch of a brand new next generation OS from Microsoft Vista64 is still sketchy to say the least, and only us brave few eXtreme gamer's will try it

And I know there has been Linux64 out for years already, but good luck playing DirectX made game's on it
 
I really don't know, but isn't 64bit really being taken advantage of in the scientific/research world where they're crunching some hard data? Not necessarily as powerful in the desktop environment?

That's how I understood it, I could be totally, completely wrong though.
 
Zorachus said:
I am very upset on a few things going on in our hobby. First off that Vista is not what it was touted to be back in the Longhorn days, and second that is it not an official 64bit OS straight up no question's, I think Vista shouldnt even have a 32bit version that is what XP is for, and Microsoft had years to make this new OS, and make sure that both Intel and AMD got on the 64bit cpu thing across the line by 2007 now.

Then we have AMD like almost three to four years ago jizzing about their new Athlon64's, and how 64bit computing will change our world and make everything work at lightspeed :rolleyes: Ok four years later = today and we have a brand new OS from Microsoft and 64bit is still not ready for prime time, so thank's AMD for the marketing, I know in 32bit the Athlon64's were still king of the day, but 64bit still hasnt caught on.

I mean the wqay it is now there is no reason to have ever gone to WinXP64 it was really hard to get that baby working smoother than XP32......And now today on the official launch of a brand new next generation OS from Microsoft Vista64 is still sketchy to say the least, and only us brave few eXtreme gamer's will try it
Click to expand...

64-bit OSs were available long before the Athlon64 came to market. x86-64 Linux distributions followed rather quickly on its release, but the thing about Windows is its absolutely enormous market penetration and its legacy support. The majority of that market is running machines and operating systems several years old and will continue to do so.

It is really not the fault of any chip maker if commercial software designers or the end user market don't make use of new hardware capabilities with a relatively quick adoption rate. The trend has long been for hardware to stay ahead of software (e.g. DX10 nVidia cards out before Vista). After all, 64-bit software does not present such a massive performance benefit as to push its adoption very quickly. Parallel computing however is much more promising in the area of improving software performance.
 
There were plenty 64 bit OSes available within weeks of the original Opteron (Hammer) release.

Microsoft's OS was not among it but I hardly see how that is AMDs or Intel's fault. All the relevant OSes were there :p
 
no one has really had the time to look too deeply into Windows vista, infact i think there add discribes it perfectly, were all still at the "Wow... ohh look how I can scroll through my screens... cool. " stages rather then the "ok well do any of the APIs have a 64bit bus?"

furthermore vista scares me, for a computer repair guy simply getting used to the interface can be difficult. The customer is charging you to fix the problem not sort through the millions of features Vista provides. On top of that, I cant even fiddle yet with vista because the one machine I just built that is Vista ready has an 8800 in it, which means I have to suffer the driver problems should I try to run Vista. Truth is, I have yet to even get on a Vista computer.

To all you people at www.nvidiaclassaction.org, I got it worse then all of yehs... and I'm NOT suing!!!
 
The most commonly found reasons for installing a 64-bit OS installation rather than a 32-bit OS installation:

* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Somebody wants to have more than 2Gb of RAM installed, and the 64-bit installation handles that amount of memory better.
* The 64-bit installation performs a tiny bit more responsively for the purposes to which a person put the PC to work at. (Should this alternative, perhaps, be ahead of the previous one?)
* Somebody actually needs to have more than 2Gb of RAM installed, and the 64-bit installation handles that amount of memory better.
 
Catweazle said:
The most commonly found reasons for installing a 64-bit OS installation rather than a 32-bit OS installation:

* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
* 64 is a bigger number than 32
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Somebody wants to have more than 2Gb of RAM installed, and the 64-bit installation handles that amount of memory better.
* The 64-bit installation performs a tiny bit more responsively for the purposes to which a person put the PC to work at. (Should this alternative, perhaps, be ahead of the previous one?)
* Somebody actually needs to have more than 2Gb of RAM installed, and the 64-bit installation handles that amount of memory better.
Click to expand...

So for gaming does 4gb memory make a difference in new games like Supreme Commander, and does overall computer use feel snappier ? But only the Intel Core 2 duo can do the 4gb memory = 2sticks of DDR2 2gb each stick. I dont think a Socket939 system can do 4gb memory on just two sticks I have yet to see a single 2gb stick of DDR400 ?

And if I did go 64bit OS would XP64 be safer and more stable than Vista64, or am I just gambling all the way around doing any 64bit OS from Microsoft regard's to driver's ?
 
Zorachus said:
So if you were buying a new OS would ya install WinXP64 or Vista32 ?
Click to expand...


XP64 most likely... i ran Vista64 for a few days (just ditched it yesterday) and it pissed me off to no end. the whole "NO unlicenced drivers" thing is absolutely insane, plus the fact that certain system files/folders are inaccessable even with proper permissions set..

vista just made me feel like i had my balls in a vice any time i tried to do anything 'out of the ordinary'
 
Zorachus said:
So for gaming does 4gb memory make a difference in new games like Supreme Commander, and does overall computer use feel snappier ?
Click to expand...

I played in the SupCom beta and it didn't use all that much RAM

Zorachus said:
But only the Intel Core 2 duo can do the 4gb memory = 2sticks of DDR2 2gb each stick. I dont think a Socket939 system can do 4gb memory on just two sticks I have yet to see a single 2gb stick of DDR400 ?
Click to expand...

Socket AM2...!?!?!? Besides, what other than MicroATX boards only have 2 RAM slots? a Socket AM2 A64 should be able to handle 8GB using 2GB sticks (as should a Core2 board with 4 slots)
 
distr0 said:
XP64 most likely... i ran Vista64 for a few days (just ditched it yesterday) and it pissed me off to no end. the whole "NO unlicenced drivers" thing is absolutely insane, plus the fact that certain system files/folders are inaccessable even with proper permissions set..

vista just made me feel like i had my balls in a vice any time i tried to do anything 'out of the ordinary'
Click to expand...


Have you ever tried WinXP64 ?......For a gaming machine how does it do, and are there any issues with drivers ?......I need 64bit driver's for my 8800GTX, nForce4 SLI, Creative X-Fi, and that is about it for hardware ?
 
Dear god, logic has completely removed itself from this subforum.

So, you're mad because the processors were released before the 64 bit OSes? Hmmm.

Would you rather if it had been the other way around? What good would it do to have a 64 bit version of Linux or Windows, with no possible hardware to run it on? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Pyromaneyakk said:
I played in the SupCom beta and it didn't use all that much RAM



Socket AM2...!?!?!? Besides, what other than MicroATX boards only have 2 RAM slots? a Socket AM2 A64 should be able to handle 8GB using 2GB sticks (as should a Core2 board with 4 slots)
Click to expand...


Dude how dare ya even mention AM2 :rolleyes: :D I mean AMD pissed me and my Brother off to no end with AM2 WTF was the point in even making that gay chipset :rolleyes:

I love my nForce4 SLI motherboard......Socket939 is nice and did not need to be upgraded until a major change come's out like K8L, test a Socket939 FX60 to a AM2 FX60 and the benchmark's are like 1% difference, so why the fuck would anyone upgrade from a 939 nForce4 board to an AM2 board and not go instead with Intel 680i and Core 2 Duo ?

I am really upset with AMD for not making new Socket939 cpu's, I just dont see the point how ya could justify spending all this momney to get into a AM2 system, but for the same cash an Intel Core 2 Duo will blow it away. DDR2 is the big holdup for me right now, I love my 2gb DDR400, I will only upgrade to DDR2 when I see a huge performace increase and right now that is an Intel Qx6700 or X6800
 
djnes said:
Dear god, logic has completely removed itself from this subforum.

So, you're mad because the processors were released before the 64 bit OSes? Hmmm.

Would you rather if it had been the other way around? What good would it do to have a 64 bit version of Linux or Windows, with no possible hardware to run it on? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No that is not my point :rolleyes: ......I mean why did Microsoft spend all this money and time on a brand new next generation OS for a new century, and had all these cool features back in the Longhorn phase, and now today it just seems like a fancy XP at best. Microsoft started Vista years ago, and could have warned AMD and Intel to make sure all their processor's sold in 2006 even the low end were 64bit, and make Vista 64bit ONLY
 
1) Vista is not just XP with a pretty face. Time to put that rumor to bed.

2) Why is done on the average computer that needs 64 bit computing?

3) What percentage of applications available to the public are re-written to 64 bit?

As usual, it's much easier to take the uninformed route and bitch at Microsoft (and in this case Intel and AMD as well), when the real fault lies in the slow adoption of the applications. However, anyone with half a functioning brain could forsee that applications would be the last step. The hardware and the OS had to be in place first....which brings me back to point number #2.
 
Zorachus said:
No that is not my point :rolleyes: ......I mean why did Microsoft spend all this money and time on a brand new next generation OS for a new century, and had all these cool features back in the Longhorn phase, and now today it just seems like a fancy XP at best. Microsoft started Vista years ago, and could have warned AMD and Intel to make sure all their processor's sold in 2006 even the low end were 64bit, and make Vista 64bit ONLY
Click to expand...

Pretty much most of the processors from AMD and Intel, even the low end, are 64 bit. Not sure where you're getting your information from.

It's those "it just seems like a fancy XP at best" comments that cause all the problems because it's not XP, and those comments "make it seem" like you and anyone that makes them look like complete idiots that don't have a clue about Vista at all.

Just something to think about.

64 bit computing is a progression, nothing more. We've been in a 32 bit world of sorts for a long long time. Just because reality doesn't have a bit-flip switch to change from 32 to 64 bits overnight doesn't mean this entire "thing" hasn't been in progress for some time now.

XP x64 was a spectacular failure for Microsoft because it failed on the consumer level but it was spectacular to those that did (and still do) use it, meaning primarily businesses and companies that required the power 64 bit computing could bring them, i.e. 3D rendershops, engineering firms, data processing centers, etc. They took all the lessons learned from XP x64 and applied them towards Vista.

We don't need an "only" 64 bit operating system from Vista, we just need one that actually works. And we got it, and it works great.
 
^ ^ Ya say we have a great new OS that is 64bit in Vista64, well there is a poster in this thread that just stated he ditched it because it is not ready for prime time yet ?

Another question does the 32bit verison meaning the old school 20th century OS designed before the Athlon64 version, does Vista32 support 4gb memory standard or is that Vista64 only ??
 
djnes said:
2) What is done on the average computer that needs 64 bit computing?
Click to expand...
There was a day when we were all sitting at our AGP, DDR1, Socket 478/(whatever AMD used before) thinking that if anything was going to change, we could slowly, steadily migrate to the new changes. But no. Literally overnight, if you wanted the fastest video card, you couldn't buy just the card, cuz it used a different interface. The mobo with that interface used different memory, and different CPU's, than the old style, which required different power supplies, with different attention to wattages and amps and whatever. To replace any one component meant replacing ALL of them. People cringed, and said goodbye to their money, and got all this new stuff, and now the people with the old stuff are, well, "delaying the inevitable."

64-bit computing is the future, and it's inevitable. Unlike my PC, which to get a faster CPU I had to get a new everything, 64-bit Windows will happily run 32-bit apps. I just used a 32-bit burner software to burn a CD in XP64 yesterday. I'm installing a 32-bit game on it now. 64-bit computing today is fairly painless. The differences between Windows32 and Windows64 are transparent to the user. You stick someone in front of a terminal and ask if it's Vista32 or Vista64, without looking for "C:\program files (x86)\" or a screen specifically TELLING them it's 64-bit, they simply won't know. The way the 64-bit extensions on the CPU's work, there's really little reason to lock people in 32-bit.

Whether or not the user needs it is irrelevant. Whether or not they see any benefit is irrelevant. What IS relevant is getting everyone on the same page, and getting the various parts of the chain (hardware, drivers, software) to a simplified support model. If they said "Vista will only be sold in 64-bit" it would definitely generate negative feedback for about a year, not much more than Vista compatibility is generating now. After that, people who want to run Vista will have upgraded, people who don't want to use Vista won't. It's not a new thing; there's still Win9x machines out there, WELL past their support lifespans and running basically until they stop running. There will be WinXP machines no doubt running into the next decade.

I have no reason why there's a 32-bit Vista either. The only non-64bit machines I have seen it running on *shouldn't* be running it at all.
 
4GB is a limitation of 32 bit OSes, period, it has nothing to do with it being Windows.

For all the people running Vista 64 bit editions, you'll probably find more that favor it over Vista 32 bit editions if they're using it and they don't have hardware issues.

There, I said it: 64 bit editions do require proper drivers from the manufacturers for Vista.

Note that I didn't say "Vista sucks because it doesn't work with <insert hardware here>." Read what I said again if you have to.

I said 64 bit editions do require proper drivers from the manufacturers for Vista. People continuously get it backwards: Vista doesn't have to work with your hardware - your hardware has to work with Vista.

The people that are having issues with 64 bit editions of Vista are bitching first and foremost because they have hardware issues and lack of proper driver support from the manufacturers; the secondmost complaint is gaming performance, which is really sad in the big scheme of things.

It's a computer operating system, not a freakin' console gaming system.

None of these issues are faults with Vista, they're faults with the hardware manufacturers and the lack of proper drivers. And when people say "Why didn't Microsoft wait till <xxx> provides the proper drivers?" well, Microsoft dictates this game, not the other way around.

Without an operating system, the hardware is useless. Again, it's people looking at it from the wrong perspective, they need to do a 180 and see it the proper way: the hardware requires drivers to communicate with the OS so bitch at the hardware manufacturers for not getting off their duffs and up to speed.
 
To the OP: This may come as a shock to you, but Microsoft Windows does not encompass the entire computing universe.

As to "Why did AMD and Intel make 64bit cpu's with no OS to support them?", your question makes in incorrect assertion. 64-bit operating systems were available from day 1, and none of them were Windows.
 
Zorachus said:
So for gaming does 4gb memory make a difference in new games like Supreme Commander, and does overall computer use feel snappier ? But only the Intel Core 2 duo can do the 4gb memory = 2sticks of DDR2 2gb each stick. I dont think a Socket939 system can do 4gb memory on just two sticks I have yet to see a single 2gb stick of DDR400 ?

And if I did go 64bit OS would XP64 be safer and more stable than Vista64, or am I just gambling all the way around doing any 64bit OS from Microsoft regard's to driver's ?
Click to expand...


You very much fall into the:

* 64 is a bigger number than 32

category!


Exceed 2Gb of installed RAM ONLY if 2Gb is restricting you from doing shit on the computer. If 2Gb is restricting you from doing shit, try 3Gb instead. 32-bit XP and Vista handles 3Gb pretty well.

Move to more, and a 64-bit OS installation ONLY if you don't have any hardware/software incompatibilities to confront. Whether you have or not depends upon your hardware and your software.

Don't move to Vista yet just because it's newer, and expect to immediately get performance boosts or even match you XP performance levels. Vista is fine. Hardware device drivers aren't yet. But they will be.

...well there is a poster in this thread that just stated he ditched it because it is not ready for prime time yet ?
Click to expand...

Do you really swallow wholesale everything that's fed to you? The fellow ditched Vista x64 because he had problems. He got 'pissed off' with it because he wanted it to be exactly like XP, and it's not. People who aren't prepared to accept that they don't yet know everything there is to know do stuff like that! They're better to go back to XP not because there's anything wrong with Vista but instead because they don't use a worthwhile approach to newer stuff.
 
I dont want to upgrade to 4gb just because it is twice as much as 2gb :rolleyes: No the reason is, if I plan an upgrade I like to try and make it as future proof as possible, my 2gb of DDR400 I am using was bought like three years ago when no one had that much memory in most system's, and it has lasted me through several upgrade's since then.

So if I move to DDR2 I may as well get two sticks of 2gb each = 4gb total, so I can use that for several upgrades down the road.
 
If you need to use unsigned drivers (IE nvidias 100.59's) in vista x64, you have to allow it. http://www.vistabootpro.org/ Vista boot pro will allow you to make the change to allowing unsigned drivers permanent, until things become more main stream.

Do it at your own risk :)
 
The machine you have listed in your sig is good for a long long time. If you can't see that, or figure that out, then perhaps you've just got a terminal case of "Hominus Technologicus Upgraditis," a terribly debilitating disease that I've discovered over the past 10 years or so.

There's a big difference between having a computer that meets your needs in terms of computing power and meeting your wants. Right now, that hardware you have should meet any need for another year or so, possibly two. Of course, people don't weigh their needs over their wants.

If I could have it right now, I'd build a machine that no one on earth could build but me - it would have my own choice of hardware components, software, etc. It would be mine from the first part to the last, with the closing of the case, the installation of the operating system, the tweaking, the optimization, the care and time it takes to build a truly unique machine, all mine.

But but but...

Apparently yours isn't enough for you or something else is wrong. :D But whatever...

</sarcasm_laced>
 
Zorachus, Vista 32-bit is subject to the same memory addressing restriction which applies for XP 32-bit. 4Gb is the absolute limit, and hardware address space falls within the 4Gb limit rather than outside it. If you have 4Gb of RAM installed you won't be able to access all of it because some memory addresses within the allowable range will be allocated to hardware addressing.

Effectively, the jump from 3Gb to 4Gb is in large part a non-event. Deosn't really make much difference.

If you can live with having 4Gb there and not being able to access all of it then fine. It is future-proofing, and it's a great idea for those people who need to continue using a 32-bit install and who have grabbed a retail Vista so they get both installs provided.

Some people will have no compatibility issues to confront. All their hardware will have drivers available and all their software will run fine on x64 Vista. Those people can make the migration right now, and enjoy the entirety of their 4Gb of RAM also.



Others, however, will want the x64 AND the 4Gb RAM availability right now, no matter what, just because it's there and they can't handle not using it. Those people will simply have to accept the need for changing some hardware and perhaps going without some software.

Future-proofing means having the alternative available for when it will be needed. It doesn't necessarily mean having it in use already :D
 
Stupac said:
Vista x64 rules.
Click to expand...

QFT

I'm not going back to 32 bit. My shit works with x64. Even the cheap ass tv tuner I picked up last week. You can play HL2 in 64 bit now as well if you didn't know. Only single player though. But it works.

Bottom line is, if you can't run it yet, don't worry about it. Stick with 32 bit for awhile and if you come to the point of upgrading the part that gave you problems before, try it again if you decide to do a new install. DON'T just upgrade to install x64.
 
Korialstrasza said:
I really don't know, but isn't 64bit really being taken advantage of in the scientific/research world where they're crunching some hard data? Not necessarily as powerful in the desktop environment?

That's how I understood it, I could be totally, completely wrong though.
Click to expand...

That is correct. We code our engineering software to use 64-bit Windows and Linux systems. My main development desktop in an XP64 system with 3G of RAM. Next to me is a Dual Opteron system with 8G of RAM, also running 64-bit Windows as well as 64-bit Linux. In the engineering world, you need lots of RAM to work with very detailed models of automobiles for crash analysis, cell phone designs for vibration and impact analysis, etc.

64-bit systems were not designed for Grandma to surf the web or compose a letter. I think you're also still several years away from any mainstream PC game requiring more than 3G of RAM, which is the upper limit of 32-bit XP or Vista.
 
markt435 said:
QFT

I'm not going back to 32 bit. My shit works with x64. Even the cheap ass tv tuner I picked up last week. You can play HL2 in 64 bit now as well if you didn't know. Only single player though. But it works.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Only single player?! The source engine has been ported to 64bit and all the multiplayer games based on the source engine will automatically detect the 64bit OS and run in native 64bit mode. You can even switch it to run in 32bit mode with the -32bit launch option.
 
ScYcS said:
WTF are you talking about? Only single player?! The source engine has been ported to 64bit and all the multiplayer games based on the source engine will automatically detect the 64bit OS and run in native 64bit mode. You can even switch it to run in 32bit mode with the -32bit launch option.
Click to expand...

If it does you don't see it. When I play HL2 singleplayer you see the little tab up top "64 bit mode". But when I've played any other mod like CSS or DoDS, you don't see the little tab. Maybe its just my install?
 
i've never even seen the switch you're talking about. Accoring the Valve, steam detects 64bit and runs your software in 64bit mode unless you use the -32bit launch option.
 
really? hmm...play HL2 and look up at the top left corner somewhere while you're still in the game menu. thats where it is. its not really a switch. its just more like a little info tab saying you're in 64 bit mode

nevermind what i said before lol
 
I could be wrong as well.....maybe it really IS only the single player, even though that wouldn't make sense since CSS and DoD:S both simply use the HL2 executable....

I also downloaded my copy from scratch after installing Vista 64bit (thank god for a 10mbit connection at home). Maybe it automatically installs the 64bit version then?

Prior i always simply copied my Valve folder back where it belongs after a reinstall....
 
ScYcS said:
I could be wrong as well.....maybe it really IS only the single player, even though that wouldn't make sense since CSS and DoD:S both simply use the HL2 executable....

I also downloaded my copy from scratch after installing Vista 64bit (thank god for a 10mbit connection at home). Maybe it automatically installs the 64bit version then?

Prior i always simply copied my Valve folder back where it belongs after a reinstall....
Click to expand...

When I reinstalled my steam backup (was made on XP 32 bit) it ended up updating all the games. Then i started seeing that info tab up at the top. So who knows....i'd prolly have to look at the info on Steam's site.
 
You got me curious about this. Could you post about your findings?
 
Found it...

Steam Support said:
Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2: Lost Coast are currently the only games available through Steam which support 64-bit CPU’s.
Click to expand...
 
How old is that newsbit though?

I just made a test and ran DoD:S and looked at the taskmanager:

It doesn't specify anything special concerning the hl2.exe

However, if i use the -32bit flag and start DoD:S with it, the task manager show the hl2.exe in 32bit mode..... :confused:
 
ScYcS said:
How old is that newsbit though?

I just made a test and ran DoD:S and looked at the taskmanager:

It doesn't specify anything special concerning the hl2.exe

However, if i use the -32bit flag and start DoD:S with it, the task manager show the hl2.exe in 32bit mode..... :confused:
Click to expand...

hmmm lemme look again, i'll update this post

EDIT:
Date Created
02/09/2006 05:18 PM
Last Updated
12/05/2006 10:26 AM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top