Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- From: "Dan Palley" <dan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:34:50 -0800
"Jolyon Smith" <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message >> When most
people
on these forums talk about 64-bit support, they mean x86-64.
Nonesense - they mean "64-bit Windows". And yes, that means x86-64, but
it also means IA64, but whatever "flavour" it means Win64.
But you are of course changing the subject. You _stated_ that Windows
doesn't and wouldn't support IA64. It has done, and will do, for some
time.
If you're contending that Borland/CodeGear should target multiple CPU
platforms with 64-bit, then you've lost me completely. MS clearly is
moving away from IA64 (Itanium), i.e. no support in Vista and only
DataCenter version support in Longhorn, as are most PC manufacturers, except
perhaps HP. Borland shouldn't go there. If the current market for x86-64
compilers is small (compared to 32-bit), then the market for IA64 is
microscopic.
What say you for example on the ridiculous assertion that Win64 apps run
slower than their Win32 counterparts?
Here's one article using XP 64-bit vs. XP 32-bit testing applications
compiled for both 64-bit and 32-bit.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1857476,00.asp
"The good news is that 32-bit Far Cry (as of the 1.31 patch) runs fine under
Windows 64-bit mode, with very little performance penalty. When we move to
the base 64-bit version, we pick up a couple of frames per second at
1280x1024, but we defy anyone to actually notice the difference between 79.5
and 82 fps. "
I have another article somewhere from MS about how some of their own apps
were actually slower compiled for 64-bit. If I can find it, I'll post it as
well.
My wild guess is that typical applications that are not memory intensive
will see at most a modest improvement (<10%) when compiled 64-bit, mostly
due to the increased efficiency of certain instructions and the larger
number and size of available registers.
The big gains for 64-bit are in applications that are capable of taking
advantage of GB of RAM; those apps, however, are not as common. My mother,
for example, would see no benefit from a 64-bit machine. MS Office wouldn't
see any benefit either and that's probably why you can't buy a 64-bit
version of Office today.
Personally, I think there are a lot more gains to be made in terms of taking
advantage of multiple CPU's or multiple cores via threading than can ever be
expected by simply targeting 64-bit, and the threading would apply to 64-bit
as well.
Please take note that I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you about the need
for a 64-bit compiler (at least for x86-64). It's just not as a high
priority for me as it appears to be for you.
Dan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- From: Jolyon Smith
- Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- References:
- Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- From: Jolyon Smith
- Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- From: Dan Palley
- Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- From: Jolyon Smith
- Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- Prev by Date: Interview with Tod Nielsen (portuguese)
- Next by Date: Re: Turbo Delphi and dbExpress
- Previous by thread: Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- Next by thread: Re: 64-bit on the horizon? (Was Re: Vista Requirement Already)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
