Its pointless buying 64 bit processors now - Page 2

64 bits discussions... should I make another bet as i did 2 years ago (and win) ? Nah...

No way man, you should definitely start betting on 128 bit. YOU"RE ALL SCREWED 128 BIT PROCESSORS BY NEXT YEAR!!! Y2K+7 UNLESS YOU UPGRADE

64 bit sux.....69 bits is where it's at!

simmer down kids. 64 bit DOES have it's benefits over 32 bit processors.

A ferarri F1 racing car has it's benefits over a honda civic. Does this mean that every car driver on the planet NEEDS to get an F1? I think not.

You can't just lump everyone together. If you don't need 64 bit, don't pay a premium.

but that was the whole point, heheh... he even said we should not limit technology because we don't use it. actually, we should, at some point, but I won't stick to that because I know what he meant (not beeing a troll to get him by few words) and at some point he is right. At some point, but he greatly oversizes it.

we don't back down tech, but we do back down expensive things that 99% don't need. the 1% will pay R&D, so when prices go down, then we average joes will find a way to use that extra, as we always did.

however, as i said, we will reach a time when there will be no difference. and with merom and conroe (aside from AMDs), all top performance processors will be 64 bits. So, there won't be any difference, as general public who looks for performance will get 64 bits, at the beginning of this process, as a "bonus", not as main reason. If that wasn't it, Turions would had crushed Pentium Ms, and that certainly did not happen (and I remember people here saying that, oh I do...).

OK, i did another bet. Let's see how it goes.

Wow, some people take things way too far. 64 bit is where computers are headed. Sure the average user won't need 64 bit for quite a while, so I can understand getting annoyed with the "better get 64bit cpu's or you're going to die" mentality. But, at the same time we don't want to try to limit anyhting, as we'd just be shooting ourselves in the foot. There are always uses for faster/better technology, even if the majority of the people won't use it in their home. But the fact is 64bit technology(and advancing technology in general) benefits everyone. When universities can get more information processed in the fight against cancer or other diseases, everyone wins. So if 64bit helps knock a couple years off the research for cancer then we all win. Not everyone needs to use the newest technology in their day to day lives, but everyone will benefit from every advance in technology we make.

So don't knock 64bit, you may not need it but our society needs it. Just like we'll need 128bit and 256bit and quad core cpu's and etc down the line. I always find it funny that people say 64bit will never be useful to home users but the fact is in 10 years everyone will be using 64bit(and probably starting to convert to 128bit) and won't be able to imagine life without it. It's just what happens, the first few years the most powerful computers are used in the highest tech industries, then it trickles down to the home users. The computers we use now are faster than the super computers of 10 years ago, so what does that tell you?

And guys, try to be polite. There's no use calling other people ignorant or morons or whatever, it just doesn't help anything.

I think another point that may be missing here is that the processor is not the only thing to limit a computer. What I am saying is that by the time MOST people will actually use 64-bit, there will be much more capable chips available, we will probably be moving to DDR-3 RAM and Vista will be much more mature. I got news for you, if you got a 64-bit processor and middle of the road gpu or less, you ain't running Vista with eye candy. And why would you want to? If they indeed rewrite as much of the code as they claim, you will want to give them 6 months to a year to work out the bugs.

My plan is to buy what is available when I need it (looks like 32-bit now) and then make my next computer purchase be 64-bit. I don't think most people buying now will take advantage of 64-bit processing with what they get now. Too many things will change between now and then.

"Whoa- WHOA!
Guys, guys, c'mon!
-Let's all just try to get along, ok? Fighting and name calling is just soooo immature and unproductive.
Gee Whiz & stuff."



Nobody's dissing 64 bit. There's no debate. You'd apparently all like there to be, but there isn't one.
This was simply a case of someone acting like a jerk towards everyone because some people may not actually be able to make use of that technology, that's all.

Easy on the generalizations, eh?

That wasn't a generalization, g0dfr3y. I was talking to you specifically.
Look Man, -You're the one holding out for 128 bit, alright? So I dunwanna hear it!

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win.../vistarpc.mspx

actually, Vista is designed, even with graphics eye candy, to run easily on today's middle-graphics systems.

I'll be buying a Turion X2 cpu-driven laptop, which AMD has designed to be compatible with Vista. They may come out with a better Turion x2 in the meantime, but i think that'll be plenty of power for me for awhile. With 32-bit support, it's reasonable to buy now since price points are similar, and still take advantage of the new 64-bit programs as they are released. plus it will be easier to sell in the future when you want to upgrade.

I agree that you don't want to be the guinea pig on just-released Vista.

WELL THEN, i retract my statement. jerk. lololololol

and 128 bit is gonna RAWK, intel is like sending me samples ALREADY because i'm awesome. youre soooooo gonna be a computar noob. HA!

Havent posted in a while, but reading this thread, I figured i'd toss in my opinion. Just as was mentioned earlier, when vista comes out I am sure there will be a bit of time before the mass adoption MS is hoping for. Due to the "Its new, so its going to be buggy" theory. We should be happy that 64 bit is out while we dont need it. The bugs in the cpu's and memory controllers and all that good stuff is being worked out well in advance. We wont have to say we are waiting on the next gen cpu/mb/memory because its been done already. Its kind of like NV did with SM3. We didnt and dont need SM3. SM2b was barely even pushed at all, yet with both sides using it it pushed developers to use what was out in mass. To be honest, I remember seeing a guy who could do awsome things with the old voodoo cards, way more than the original doom and we never saw anything like what he had done till a few generations later. DX10 will be out with vista and DX9 hasnt been pushed either, ie. we dont need it. But it will most likely be in SP3 or whatever and we will have it so it will be used. AMD has used the 64bit thing for other things that actually do help us 32 bit users inside the cpu itself with its own internal memory and addressing, so its a good thing, and since when is having more than we need not been the american way? Really all the day to day office users with solitaire I heard mentioned really only need a thin client with no HD and a PIII processor or less to get by, but thats just not how it works. I agree with the scenarios about where 64bit helps with research and such. I worked at NASA for a few years before I broke my back and there were people there who would set up a program to compile and walk around chatting and drinking coffee all day waiting on the computers output, and with their salery, it was worth it for the IT dept to get them the quad core 4G 64 bit machines. It saved money. And this wasnt one person, we moved 1200 machines from the old to new building and tossed about half because of that analysis and cost savings. 64 bit is not for the secretary or the guy who uses it for inventory of his small shop, but there is a BIG list of uses where it does make a big difference and saves companies money. Look through the news on how many companies do R&D of any sort and your going to find a ton of them. Anyhow, just my $.02

I play Pacman.
I'm 01D 5k00! noo833!