|32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon Forrest) (2007-04-11)|
|Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed email@example.com (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2007-04-13)|
|Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed firstname.lastname@example.org (Marco van de Voort) (2007-04-13)|
|Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed email@example.com (2007-04-13)|
|Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed DrDiettrich1@aol.com (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2007-04-13)|
|Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed firstname.lastname@example.org (Ian Rogers) (2007-04-13)|
|Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed email@example.com (Michael Meissner) (2007-04-13)|
|Re: 32-bit vs. 64-bit x86 Speed firstname.lastname@example.org (George Peter Staplin) (2007-04-13)|
|[12 later articles]|
|From:||glen herrmannsfeldt <email@example.com>|
|Date:||13 Apr 2007 01:30:26 -0400|
Jon Forrest wrote:
> "One thing I've noticed about 64-bit computing in general is that it's
> being oversold. The **only** reason for running in 64-bit mode is if
> you need the additional address space.
There is probably some demand for 64 bit integer arithmetic,
though likely much smaller than for large address space.
Addition and subtraction are not hard to do on 32 bit machines,
but multiply and divide are significantly harder.
If intel had done things rights so that one could use the 36
bit physical address of its processors, it would be a few more
years before 64 bit was needed.
But the prices are low enough that it is hard to argue against.
I bought an Athlon 64 processor and motherboard about two years
ago for less than $200. I am sure it would be even less today.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.