64 bit Standard(S)

first of all why this is in the apple section is beyond me. why am i trolling around the apple section is beyond me as well but all in all both are pretty compatible, and if i am not mistaken EMT was based on AMD's work but it was more of an after thought rather than the initial goal of the design (unlike AMD Athlon 64 line of cpus). Between the 2 AMD64 is superior and more widely accepted, at least when you compare them to the P4 64EMT chips which were a good space heater, and thats about it.

AMD64 and EMT64 differ by 2 obscure instructions that AMD left out of their pre-release documentation. At the time opinions were that most compilers would not use them and the 2 chips would be 100% compatible. The other Intel standard is Itanium which is pretty much a flop.

As far as this being in the apple forum I think it is the right place. Seeing as how apple has shipped more computers with a 64-bit OS installed. Remember the G5 was 64-bit which means that 64-bit Tiger and Leopard will be a lot more stable than Vista

there is no truth to that. XP64 was rather stable....and lets not forget the infinitely many amd64 linux distros out there....and some of them existed before OSX...i am not saying osx isn't stable, simply that just because one OS has been out longer than the other, it doesn't mean that its automatically better.

in desktops i would go AMD...not only are they cheaper, but they offer some of the best overclocking performance around and traditionally AMD's gaming performance has been well above that of intel. in laptops core 2 duo is currently superior to turion x2, however since the cpus are of different generations...we have to wait and see what the next gen turion will offer.

Turion x2 only shipped in June. I think they are the same generation. I sure haven't heard of anything coming from AMD. I don't think the 65nm chips are due until 4Q which means xmas.

Also every bench mark I have seen has Core 2 Duo beating FX-62.

thats because all the current AMD chips are built on pretty old technology.....usually AMD is the brand to lead the way, but this time Intel released the 65nm chips, while amd is still using the old school....

I would go with Intel because their Core 2 Duo processors haven beaten the X2 processors in almost all benchmarks. However I am not sure what are the advantages of having x64 compatible processors in a macbook pro especially when the macbook has only 2 RAM slots. The whole reason why people switched to x64 was to have more addressable RAM which obviously you can do with the Macbook. I have been running Win XP x64 for quite sometime now. It is as stable as any XP build out there but my biggest problem is that I see absolutely no difference in performance even with 64-bit apps and games. Plus it is always hard to find x64 compatible drivers. The only advantage you have is the higher clock speed of the core 2 duo processor and thats about it. Plus OS X support for x64 is crap and so there are absolutely no useful x64 apps for macs. If I were you I would buy the core duo version of macbook pro when they release the core 2 duo version and that way you can save money.

The new Intel processors are very nice and as everyone has been saying they do beat out the old AMD's. I really like the way Intel has handled themselves even though I have been an AMD supporter for years.

Intel won this battle and I think AMD will be trying to catch up for at least five years.

With that said, I am very tempted to wait for the Core 2 MBP's to come out and then buy a Core Duo version at fire-sale prices. I mean with Mac's you can use them forever because Apple will make sure all their software works with older versions most of the time. Also, by the time I am ready to get a new laptop the whole 64-bit computing thing might actually be the standard (wouldn't that be the day)!

My two cents!!!!!

There are 2 gig ram sticks you know. The new C2D iMacs only have two slots but they can have up to 3 gigs of memory...for some reason there's no 4 gig option so I don't know what's up with that. I'm sure we'll hear reports in the next few weeks of people putting 2x2GB in their machines. I'd love to know where your information about OS X's support for X64 being crap came from. Apple has a very good reputation for being able to wring every bit of power out of the hardware it uses. While Tiger is not a pure 64 bit OS it does work with 64 bit processors very well, and in a few months Leopard will be out which promises to be pure 64 bit. As far as 64 bit apps go; any apps made in XCode that supported the G5 should be able to support the Intel processors with only minor reconfiguring. There are no 64 bit Universal apps out right now because the 64 bit processors have only been in Macs for a short while. Now that the iMac is 64 bit more and more apps should be coming out that support it.

4GB can be addressed by a 32-bit processor you don't need to have a 64-bit processor for that. First of all tiger is not a pure 64-bit OS like Win XP x64 although Leopard should be if Apple marketing s to be believed. For example all the graphics stuff such as quartz, core image and things like that still work only in 32-bit. 64-bit support on a mac is crap compared to Win XP x64 which has been fully fiunctional for quite some time now. For a true 64-bit OS everything is 64-bit and 32-bit apps are emulated like Rosetta. Even XP x64 which has been released for quite sometime still has very few x64 apps. As I said earlier the difference in consumer apps is negligible even for those handful x64 apps.

Actually I think the prices are going to be just the same as thier current lineup as the Merom proc. aren't that expensive and plus apple has always maintained these price levels from Powerbook days. However I am quite sure that the Core Duo macbook pro prices will dramatically fall. I have been having an AMD athlon 64 notebook ever since it was released. And until now I have seen very little support for x64 when it comes to apps so practically my processor's x64 feature is useless just like all the other people who own athlon 64 and intel EMT64 processors. Personally I am not a big fan of spending 2k on computer when you can get almost all the same things for less. x64 computing is going to happen but not anytime soon.

Just because the whole OS isn't fully 64 bit does NOT mean that it's 64 bit support is "crap".

64 bit applications work perfectly fine, as 64 bit apps, regardless of the fact that the entire OS isn't.

This is true, but you're forgetting a few important details. The maximum addressable memory area in a 32bit addressing system is indeed 4GB. But this address space has to take into account all memory addressed devices within the system in addition to the main RAM. There's video memory, BIOS, firmware and I/O locations for devices installed in the system, etc... In a typical PC or Mac system with 256MB video memory and the usual fare of standard components, there's about 3.6GB of address space left for the RAM. Installing 4GB into such a system is just installing extra RAM that can't be used and in many situations (in OSX, Xindows and Linux too) the full 4GB can often cause undesired conflicts and instabilities. There are 32bit solutions to such RAM limitations such as system BIOS/ROM/Firmware that can isolate RAM into various chunks or "pages" and special software for the operating system to help cope with this. But most of these solutions come with a performance hit and increased risk of problems or incompatibilities. To further complicate the whole memory addressing issue on 32bit systems, for various technical reasons that would take pages to try and explain with any meaning, there are other limitations. And this applies to the PowerPC and x86 architectures as well as some others... Memory addressing windows in which there's typically 2 of them, are usually split right down the middle of your RAM by the OS. But with Windows and Linux (and I believe OSX allows it as well), there's the optional ability to split 1GB or so for the OS itself and reserve the rest for the applications. Additionally, on these 32bit platforms, there's a maximum of 2GB addressable per CPU process. So in most situations any single application or process on your system can't address more than 2GB.

Moving to a 64bit system increases the addressable space by a huge margin. But also be aware that current G5 CPUs, the new Intel 64bit chips and AMD's AMD64 chips all use a 40bit memory addressing scheme rather than a full 64bit. With a 40bit address range, we have the capability to have 1TB of addressable RAM and device memory within a system. Window aperture sizes, process limitations, etc.. still apply, but they are greatly enlarged from the 32bit schemes.

As for these new iMac systems, I'm not sure why Apple isn't offering a 4GB configuration. Unless they're intentionally restricting the system to 3GB or just don't feel that people will buy the full 4GB. I'd love to put 4GB into a new 24" iMac and see what it will do... I bet it works just great and we'll see people trying it in the real near future.


Correct... Hopefully Apple comes through though.

It's a matter of perspective, but it is happening now. We're in the transition period just like we had when computers moved from 16bit to 32bit. I think the transition will take longer just because there are so many more computers already established and the demand from the masses is nowhere near as great to go to 64bit as it was to go to 32bit. All the new CPUs from here on out that we'll see for desktop and notebook computers will be 64bit (and eventually greater) and software will make the shift as needed. The next major releases of applications like Photoshop will be 64bit. Many applications are already 64bit compliant, mostly higher-end graphics/CAD software, server tools, etc.. Moreso in the PC world than the Mac world at this point. I think most common software will be 64bit capable/aware within the next 2 years... Some stuff will take longer.

Exactly, I never understand how apple decides on the specs. But I am quite sure that by the time you will feel the need to have 4(3.6)GB of RAM to run your usual apps, it would be time to upgrade your macbook anyway.

Actually, I feel the need right now... I regularly work with 3D scenes that take up 2GB of RAM, in addition to the application. 3GB would probably work just fine on a notebook, 2GB is really pushing it if I need to handle something while on-site with a client. My HP notebook died and it had 2GB RAM and I often ran short on RAM. So I've been holding out even though I really need a notebook, hoping that the new MBPs will let me install 4GB. The new Dell Merom books will and that's what I'll be buying if Apple takes too much longer or doesn't deliver. I want the Apple though so I can also run Final Cut Studio and Shake. Half of what I do in the field is video work and with our transition to the HVX200 HD camera, we moved from Vegas on the PC to FCP on the Mac.