32 bit processor vs 64 bit processor

[michalrz]

I do get it - crawl before you walk, I fully understand you, no need for a peeing contest. This is how you guys learned. And that's fine too. Especially alxlwson - going from IT to industrial is precisely the kind of stuff I commend as well. My 'mentor' who's around 50 and in IT suddenly began making music
Another IT guy I knew WENT TO WORK AT MCDONALDS for the fuck of it and returned to IT when he felt it's what he wanted to do.
And it's fun when you see how various specialisations intertwine, how coding can be applying to creating legal documents...
But let's not judge questions, please.

 

[athenian200]

Well, these days people use x86 to refer to 64-bit processors as well. But when they first came out, they tended to contrast traditional 32-bit x86 with amd64, x64, or even x86-64. Since there are so few 32-bit Intel processors now, people have gotten lazier and started calling 64-bit processors x86. So depending on the textbook, there may or may not be a distinction.

What's interesting about the history of this is that x86 was originally a 16-bit architecture. 8086 was the grandfather of all these processors (though by no means Intel's first), and there was later a 32-bit processor called the 80386. Basically, what Intel did was to add 32-bit data and address buses, while maintaining compatibility with older software. It was a similar design to the old one, but the number of bits you had to work with was doubled via new instructions designed to operate on data 32-bits at a time, in addition to physically widening several connections to accommodate them. It's best likened to widening a highway... you don't change the speed limit or the size of the lanes, but you can have more cars going through.

Another interesting thing to note is that Intel originally didn't plan on maintaining backwards compatibility with the x86 architecture all the way into the 64-bit era. They already had something called IA-64, the ill-fated Itanium processor. It was a completely new design, perhaps even superior to x86 in many ways. AMD essentially came along and used the same trick Intel had used years ago, just doubling the lanes without changing the underlying architecture very much. It was so successful that Intel was now forced to cross-license the technology from AMD, and it killed off Itanium due to backwards compatibility being an issue. Had AMD not done this, we might all be using Itanium today and had to kiss all pre-2007 software goodbye outside of emulation sometime in the late 2000s or so.

So we're really using a 64-bit architecture that's an extension of an extension of 16-bit architecture. Aside from being able to address more memory, the downside of 64-bit is that it takes up more memory to do the same thing. Those 64-bit instructions are a double-edged sword, and for many workloads you end up with wasted space. That's why on systems with less than 3GB of RAM, it's often preferable to run a 32-bit OS, or at least 32-bit programs. Did I answer your question, or did I get too far off topic?

 

[BinarySynapse]

Well, these days people use x86 to refer to 64-bit processors as well. But when they first came out, they tended to contrast traditional 32-bit x86 with amd64, x64, or even x86-64. Since there are so few 32-bit Intel processors now, people have gotten lazier and started calling 64-bit processors x86. So depending on the textbook, there may or may not be a distinction.

What's interesting about the history of this is that x86 was originally a 16-bit architecture. 8086 was the grandfather of all these processors (though by no means Intel's first), and there was later a 32-bit processor called the 80386. Basically, what Intel did was to add 32-bit data and address buses, while maintaining compatibility with older software. It was a similar design to the old one, but the number of bits you had to work with was doubled via new instructions designed to operate on data 32-bits at a time, in addition to physically widening several connections to accommodate them. It's best likened to widening a highway... you don't change the speed limit or the size of the lanes, but you can have more cars going through.

Another interesting thing to note is that Intel originally didn't plan on maintaining backwards compatibility with the x86 architecture all the way into the 64-bit era. They already had something called IA-64, the ill-fated Itanium processor. It was a completely new design, perhaps even superior to x86 in many ways. AMD essentially came along and used the same trick Intel had used years ago, just doubling the lanes without changing the underlying architecture very much. It was so successful that Intel was now forced to cross-license the technology from AMD, and it killed off Itanium due to backwards compatibility being an issue. Had AMD not done this, we might all be using Itanium today and had to kiss all pre-2007 software goodbye outside of emulation sometime in the late 2000s or so.

So we're really using a 64-bit architecture that's an extension of an extension of 16-bit architecture. Aside from being able to address more memory, the downside of 64-bit is that it takes up more memory to do the same thing. Those 64-bit instructions are a double-edged sword, and for many workloads you end up with wasted space. That's why on systems with less than 3GB of RAM, it's often preferable to run a 32-bit OS, or at least 32-bit programs. Did I answer your question, or did I get too far off topic?

To be fair, IA64 was not Intel's first, or even second try at getting away from x86 (which has it's roots in the 8080 and 8008). The 8086 was a stop-gap solution to bridge the gap between the 8080 and the ill-fated iAPX-432 (32-bit long before the 80386) that wasn't released until 1981. By the time they got it out the door, x86 was starting to get quite a bit of code behind it and developers didn't want to redesign their applications from scratch to run on the 432. It being very slow didn't help either.

Then there was the i860 RISC processor in the late 80's, but it ended up being a better graphics accelerator than a general purpose workstation CPU.


BTW, Itanium isn't dead. I work on applications that run on servers with some in them.

 

[LightningCrash]

Indeed. I earned my A+, Net+, and CCNA in highschool votech before I was 17.

Me too. Did they try to corral you into that SkillsUSA thing?

 

[PGHammer]

[QUOTE="ryan_975, post: 1042197465, member: 132036"

Windows XP was a 32-bit only OS. Vista and newer have all had x64 version. To see what version you're running open up the System properties and look for System type line. It'll say 32-bit x86 or 64-bit x64.

Incorrect. When AMD publically launched the Opteron at MillionManLAN in Louisville, KY(I met KyleB during this event) they did so on a beta build of 64bit WindowsXP, which ended up turning RTM.

You can also run the command "winver".[/QUOTE]

Actually that was only true (of XP) until Service Pack 2 (when a non-Itanium XP Professional x64 Edition was made available; this was also the first Microsoft Windows to actually be given away). Between this event and Vista's launch, I crossgraded quite a few non-Vista-ready PCs from the x32 XP Professional to XP64 - some with as little as 512MB of RAM. There was still the assumption that x64 was about big workloads and large amount of RAM *exclusively* (mostly because of Opteron); however, my own independent analysis showed quite a few benefits of x64 in more typical situations - even at 2GB of system RAM or less.

 

[alxlwson]

Me too. Did they try to corral you into that SkillsUSA thing?

Sure did! State runner-up Technical Computer Applications and State runner-up Tead Debate
I got an assload of scholarship monies

 

[LightningCrash]

Sure did! State runner-up Technican Computer Applications and State runner-up Tead Debate
I got an assload of scholarship monies

Awesome! I got second at state (and regional) in Internetworking, as a prize I got a <drum roll> Radio Shack multimeter. lol. Still have it though...

 

[alxlwson]

Awesome! I got second at state (and regional) in Internetworking, as a prize I got a <drum roll> Radio Shack multimeter. lol. Still have it though...

Lol. I still put skillsUSA on my resume, even though it's been since 2003-5 school years. Ive been surprised by the people that ask about it. Then, when you mention it was formerly known as VICA, they like to shake hands extra long.
I had a lot of fun back then. I miss those days. Especially the days before WoW and the publisher's removing the ability being able to run your own game server. Those two things destroyed LAN parties.