| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Pokemon999
Micro Wave
United Kingdom
117 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2003 : 04:26:53
Intel will not go for it until necessary!
But, by third quarter, AMD will release AMD Athlon64, codename hammer, 64 bits processor for PC_____________________
Patience yields stamina.
Alert Mentor now
|
Greg Bernhardt
Radio Wave
USA
2001 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2003 : 04:48:20
Intel has a 64bit in the works already:
http://www.intel.com/products/server/processors/server/itanium/admin@physicsforums.com
http://www.physicspost.com
Alert Mentor now
|
ObsessiveMathsFreak
Infrared Wave
Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
282 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2003 : 12:06:54
We'll always need faster computers.
But one of the main problems that I se with computers is not the speed of hardware, but the quaility of software.I'd prefer to see, better, and hence faster, software on 32-bit machines rather that ill planned sluggish software on 64-bit machines. There is a tendancy amoung software companies now to just release anything and hope that the latest PC's will handle it. In such an enviorment we may well need 64 bit machines and maybe even 128 bit while your at it! "May the maths be with you"
Alert Mentor now
|
STAii
X-Ray Wave
Jordan
1376 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2003 : 18:15:52
quote:
Originally posted by ObsessiveMathsFreak:
But one of the main problems that I se with computers is not the speed of hardware, but the quaility of software.I'd prefer to see, better, and hence faster, software on 32-bit machines rather that ill planned sluggish software on 64-bit machines.
GREAT, you found the problem.
Here is the solution, try not to use MS products  , specially operating systems.
"Don't try to teach colors to a blind person"
Alert Mentor now
|
MSI
Visible Light Wave
Israel
646 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2003 : 19:18:20
quote:
Originally posted by STAii:
quote:
Originally posted by ObsessiveMathsFreak:
But one of the main problems that I se with computers is not the speed of hardware, but the quaility of software.I'd prefer to see, better, and hence faster, software on 32-bit machines rather that ill planned sluggish software on 64-bit machines.
GREAT, you found the problem.
Here is the solution, try not to use MS products , specially operating systems.
"Don't try to teach colors to a blind person"
but we can't do that because every new software come with MS OS support so we can't use any other OS ...
and onther problem that the other OS are not so avaliable
the dead man:
"every day you discover how dumb you were the day before..."
forums HERE
Alert Mentor now
|
Pokemon999
Micro Wave
United Kingdom
117 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 00:27:17
intel's itanium is only for server, not for desktop._____________________
Patience yields stamina.
(I'm Daniel C. Dennett)
Alert Mentor now
|
voyeur
Visible Light Wave
USA
577 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 02:53:40
I don't see much need to go beyond 128bit but I am not a programmer. Processor speeds will go up at least until we have monitors that have resolution much closer to the human eye and run several of them, can run any application with no lag, run video on these monitors without a 3D card needed. Another words speeds will go up for another 20 years at least.When a PC can run photorealistic graphics at 100FPS while running any program that can be devised, there won't be much need to make it faster.
Alert Mentor now
Edited by - voyeur on 02/28/2003 02:56:27
|
Janus
PF Mentor
USA
1086 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 06:03:21
quote:
Originally posted by voyeur:
When a PC can run photorealistic graphics at 100FPS while running any program that can be devised, there won't be much need to make it faster.
That depends on what you are using it for. For instance, I run a graphics rendering program on my desk top that is used to render photorealistic images of one's own creation through a ray-tracing process. It is very computation heavy. A really complex and realistic image (using radiosity, atmospheric effects, focal blur and other goodies could take days to render on even today's fastest desk tops. Increasing the speed not only shortens the render time, but increases what features (present and future) you can incorporate into your image. For this type of program, you can always see improvement wtih an increase of speed.
Janus
"Haec immatura a me iam frustra leguntur. o y"
Alert Mentor now
|
STAii
X-Ray Wave
Jordan
1376 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 07:18:52
Ask me about this Janus.
My brother is a graphics (and 3D) designer, he uses 3D S Max for modeling, and uses a renderer (that runs under MAX) called Brazil (from a company called SplutterFish if you care to see more about this one).
The renderer is great, it makes renders almost realisitc, but it needs lot of time !
So to solve this, my brother uses MY workstation as HIS renderslave, and this is annoying !
Last time a single frame took more than 20 hours of rendering (on my 750 MHz workstation), that was only one frame !quote:
but we can't do that because every new software come with MS OS support so we can't use any other OS ...
and onther problem that the other OS are not so avaliable
Since most of the worls use an MS OS, then the companies will surely program aplications that run under MS OS.
Companies are only welling to sell their applications, they dont' really care if it is MS OS or another OS.
So if people start using other OSs (specially those open-source OSs like Linux) then companies will start programming more for those OSs, and then everyone (except MS) will be happy.There are lot of applications for Linux online, and most of them are free, and are as good as the applications that run under any MS OS, actually they are sometimes better ! (note that one of the clues that Linux is far better than any MS OS is the up-time, an MS OS cannot stay up running (meaning: without restart) for more than 2 days (and at that point your PC will be dying !) while a PC using Linux can stay up for more than 200 days BEFORE you feel anything wrong, and can stay for more than 700 DAYS before restarting. Add to this that Linux never crashes (comparing to the MS OSs that always crash, like Win95 that crashed when Bill Gates was first presenting it  )) "Don't try to teach colors to a blind person"
Alert Mentor now
|
voyeur
Visible Light Wave
USA
577 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 17:54:25
Re. Janus comment:That is a static image. Doing it at 100FPS would take a staggering amount of horsepower. That's why I said at least 20 years. It may take closer to 50. Does anyone know if it would help to go beyond a 128 bit processor?
Alert Mentor now
|
Artman
Micro Wave
USA
132 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2003 : 21:04:54
The number of bits 16, 32, 64, 128 determines the amount of ram that can be accessed simultaneously by the CPU. As an example, a 16 bit system can access 2^16, 65,536b or about 64kb ram. A 32 bit system can access 2^32 or about 4,294,967,296 or 4GB of ram. I personally don't know anyone with this much ram on their home PC. A 64 bit system can handle 2^64 or 18,446,744,073,709,600,000 an enormously huge amount of ram. The problem is that until recently, the Windows 95, 98 and ME OS had trouble handling more than 512MB Ram (a flaw in the 95 kernal). XP is supposed to have 64bit capability, how much ram it can actually access I'm not sure. Access to this large an amount of ram makes sense in servers, on a home PC unless you're working on huge graphics files there would probably not be much use. We don't even use the full capability of 32 bit systems. Deep pipelining and superscaler design increases speed, better instruction sets in the CPU, software that utilizes the design features of the CPUs would make a big difference. Data storage, I/O bus speeds, software design, limitations due to motherboard design and backwards compatibility with old software and hardware all contribute to holding back CPUs from what they are capable of doing now.
Alert Mentor now
|
STAii
X-Ray Wave
Jordan
1376 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2003 : 08:18:00
As far as i know the number of bits represent the space of each register on the proccessor.
On x86 for example there are 16 bits (2 bytes) of space for each register on the proccessor (except for flag registers which have only a single bit).
A clue on what i saying is that the addersses of RAM locations on a 486 are 20 bits long, which allow you to have 2^20 = 1 MB of RAM, while the x86 is actually a 16 bit computer.
But maybe i am wrong anyway "Don't try to teach colors to a blind person"
Alert Mentor now
|
nowonmai
Radio Wave
Ireland
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2003 : 14:32:50
^^
no, you're right. the wordlength of a processor refers to the bus width, or the amount of data which can be shunted around in one clock cyclealso, the greater the wordlength, the more precise the math that can be done, and the more complex the instruction set, thus giving rise to peocessors that can do complex operations in machine language rather than having to resort to a 'high level' language like C or, god help us, C++
Alert Mentor now
|
