View Full Version : What's Faster?
Warrior-Mentor
07-10-2006, 11:48
A single 64 bit processor running at 1.8gHz
- or -
Dual 32 bit processors running at 1.6gHz?
VelociMorte
07-10-2006, 12:15
A single 64 bit processor running at 1.8gHz
- or -
Dual 32 bit processors running at 1.6gHz?
Depends on a lot of stuff like the motherboard, chipset, software application, etc. One of the biggest issues is software. If the software wasn't written to run on a 64 bit machine, you won't see any improvement with the 64 bit, and the dual 32 bit board will run circles around the single 64 bit machine.
jfhiller
07-10-2006, 13:32
For most uses today, I think the dual 32 bit would be faster and the better option if you're just upgrading a system. If you're building a new one, it would probably be better to go with the 64 bit since it's more future compatible with both software (the new Win OS, Vista, is 64 bit) and hardware (motherboard could accept newer 64 bit CPUs). Many factors involved, of course. If you want more detail specific to your situation, respond here or feel free to PM me.
A single 64 bit processor running at 1.8gHz
- or -
Dual 32 bit processors running at 1.6gHz?
take a computer with each processor up to the roof of the building...drop them off simultaneously...:D
from my experience, dual processors are a bit faster...and as previously mentioned, software plays a big role in the speed of the machine...stuff written for 32 bit machines are unimpressed with the 64 bit chip...
Like the 64 bit chips, most applications aren't optimized to take advantage of dual processors. Off the top of my head After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator, Maya and XSI are the only ones I know of, and there's optimizations built into both for 64 bit and dual processor.
I know that Director and Flash didn't take advantage of dual processors as of 6 months ago, I haven't looked recently though. Most PC games don't take advantage of dual processors either. Personally, I think you'll get a longer life out of the single processor 64 bit stuff at this point because more and more stuff is being made with it in mind.
There is a new line of Intel chips coming out in (I believe) October or Novemeber that smoke the current crop of Dual Cores off the face of the planet. HardOCP or FiringSquad had benchmarks a week or so back if I'm not mistaken (though I can't find the link now).
Their release will torpedo prices on the current bleeding edge stuff. Then again I have no idea what you need your box for ^_^
j
take a computer with each processor up to the roof of the building...drop them off simultaneously...:D
9.8 meters per second squared? :D
9.8 meters per second squared? something like that...
in truth, speed is relative...if you need to use software that requires a 64 bit processor, you have to have one...if you don't have the software, i'd advise against buying the 64 bit processor for future applications as it seems computers these days have a resale value somewhere south of toilet paper...
Kyobanim
07-10-2006, 18:56
A single 64 bit processor running at 1.8gHz
- or -
Dual 32 bit processors running at 1.6gHz?
Are you looking at laptops?
Speed will depend on what you're doing and what you're doing it with. As stated before, chipset, video, RAM, etc will have a lot to do with how fast your apps run.
I've got a dual core 32 bit intel p4 3.4 processor in my box at the house. Didn't really perfom until I added another gig of RAM, but that's for graphics rendering and the such. Worked great for games.
jfhiller
07-10-2006, 20:53
so, W-M, clear as mud, huh? :confused:
So, i recentlty purchased 2 x AMD64bit machines.
One running 32 bit Windows XP, the other running Ubuntu Linux 32bit.
I had intended to use 64 bit OS's, but was rudely awakened to realize that the majority of software is not ready for the 64bit hardware.
In retrospect, i should have gone with the mainstream Intel 32bit although i get very good performance with a 2000ghz AMD chip and 1GB DDR, i feel it I am losing some of the potential performance (25-30%??) that i could have had using 64bit OS.
Bottom line, if it's a server with not too exotic hardware, go 64bit (chec kfor drivers first!), if it's for workstation/laptop etc., i woudl go the Intel route, just for convenience of software OS, drivers etc.
Oh, and use Linux :-)
Hoepoe
I would go 64 bit, for about the same reasons as Eva.
hoepoe: Ubuntu is available in AMD64 (http://www.initworld.com/ubuntu/6.06/ubuntu-6.06-desktop-amd64.iso)... (Israeli server)
I would go 64 bit, for about the same reasons as Eva.
hoepoe: Ubuntu is available in AMD64 (http://www.initworld.com/ubuntu/6.06/ubuntu-6.06-desktop-amd64.iso)... (Israeli server)
I know buddy, but after reading the forums about what i cannot do out of the box (flash, java etc), i went the 32 bit route. This is for my business machine and i don't have the time to hack around etc., i needed something that simply works out of the box.
In a year or two, i'll migrate to 64bit .
Thanks anyway!
Hoepoe
Warrior-Mentor
07-11-2006, 12:26
I got the 64 Bit AMD Turion64 Laptop by HP. Their Pavilion dv5215us. Bought it about 3 days ago. This morning, when I hit restart because the computer was runnning slow, I had to pull the plug and the battery to turn the machine off after 13 MINUTES...
I'm so mad, I'm about ready to take this back and trade it for the dual 32 bit processor that was a close runner up (Toshiba).
The software I'm running is all 32 bit. 90% of what I do is MS Word, Internet Explorer, Adobe Professional (for publishing) and simple Graphics/photo editing...
jfhiller
07-11-2006, 12:31
Definitely infuriating. However, the problem almost certainly isn't the fact that it's a 64 bit CPU. Could be some "bloat-ware" that HP had preinstalled or a hardware problem.
Edited to say:
All of that software should work fine with both 32 and 64 bit CPUs. The benefit to the 64 bit is that your upgradability is much better. On the other hand, if you don't have any intention of buying the next Windows OS until you're ready to buy a new laptop, it probably doesn't matter and you'd do better with the performance of the dual (core, i assume) 32 bit CPU.
BTW, if you're worried about viruses, Firefox is generally viewed as a much more secure browser than IE. I use both, but that's the techie view.