New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yonah - Not 64-bit?

post #1 of 22
4/27/05 at 12:26am
Thread Starter 
It's a bit sad to know that Yonah will not be 64-bit anytime soon.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 22
4/27/05 at 12:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crellion
It's a bit sad to know that Yonah will not be 64-bit anytime soon.
I think Intel realizes that the 64 Bit thing is basically market hype, your average computer user doesn't need 16 Terabytes of Ram. But 64 Bit will be good for scientific apps.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 22
4/27/05 at 12:36am
I'd rather have an on-chip memory controller than 64bit if I had to choose. Luckily, AMD has them both so I don't have to.

Seriously, the on chip memory controller massively reduces memory latency. Its a huge improvement, and I think that is one of the main reasons the AMD64 line is so good. Its not like there are a lot of 64-bit games to bench it on. Intel would be wise to copy that feature for the Pentium M.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 22
4/27/05 at 2:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelX30
I think Intel realizes that the 64 Bit thing is basically market hype, your average computer user doesn't need 16 Terabytes of Ram. But 64 Bit will be good for scientific apps.
yes people also said that 128KB of ram is WAY more than enough to run any application, doom3 requires 1048576KB of ram (min) to run smoothly, i bet that guy is kicking himself now.. lol
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 22
4/27/05 at 9:25am
I suspect Intel is scrambling to produce a 64 bit P-M. If not in Yonah, then in Merom.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 22
4/27/05 at 10:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pr50wner
yes people also said that 128KB of ram is WAY more than enough to run any application, doom3 requires 1048576KB of ram (min) to run smoothly, i bet that guy is kicking himself now.. lol
what? Doom 3 takes a gig of RAM to run? I don't believe that. That would mean you'd have to have OVER a gig in your system to run the game and all the other programs your computer uses (operating system, anti-virus, etc.). Sorry, I don't buy it.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 22
4/27/05 at 11:45am
Quote:
yes people also said that 128KB of ram is WAY more than enough to run any application
There are some economic limits though. Placing 8 memory slots on a system board is expensive. It requires lots of traces, higher design quality, better signal management and more layers in the pcb. We need 4-8GB DIMMs now.

Second, 8 x 1GB DIMMs is not cheap. Even 4GB of ram is not cheap. I admin several 320-512GB memory servers at work. Memory makes up 25% or more of the hardware cost. On a Mac, one of the few consumer systems that can hold 8GB, maxing memory doubles the price of the system.

Third, laptops are limited to two SoDIMM slots. The odds of having 4GB or higher SoDIMM parts any time soon is very slim.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 22
4/28/05 at 12:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pr50wner
yes people also said that 128KB of ram is WAY more than enough to run any application, doom3 requires 1048576KB of ram (min) to run smoothly, i bet that guy is kicking himself now.. lol
And was DooM 3 released during the timeframe that 128KB of RAM could be found in computers? No.

Will Yonah be around by the time we need 16TB of RAM in a notebook? Not a chance.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 22
4/28/05 at 12:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djembe_Rob
what? Doom 3 takes a gig of RAM to run? I don't believe that. That would mean you'd have to have OVER a gig in your system to run the game and all the other programs your computer uses (operating system, anti-virus, etc.). Sorry, I don't buy it.
Well, you should be. RAM usage went over a gig when monitoring on my friend's system (2 GB RAM.) Keep in mind that your page file will make up for the fact that you probably don't have more than a gig of physical memory.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 22
4/28/05 at 12:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pr50wner
yes people also said that 128KB of ram is WAY more than enough to run any application, doom3 requires 1048576KB of ram (min) to run smoothly, i bet that guy is kicking himself now.. lol
uhhh huh... and I am sure I am gonna need more than 2 GBs of Ram within the next 2 years. My 1 GB of Ram in my desktop is barerly chugging along... after all with 400 MBs free during gaming I am certainly going to need more than 2 GBs... actually I am going to need more than 4 GBs! Looks like laptops are our of the question..... and 4 slot Ram mobos, I better get a server mobo that has 12 Ram slots so I can have 12 GBs of Ram, that should last me until at least 2006
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 22
4/28/05 at 5:10pm
Quote:
Well, you should be. RAM usage went over a gig when monitoring on my friend's system (2 GB RAM.) Keep in mind that your page file will make up for the fact that you probably don't have more than a gig of physical memory.
What did you monitor?
Private bytes, virtual size, working set?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 22
4/29/05 at 2:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OwcA
What did you monitor?
Private bytes, virtual size, working set?
As in "Ctrl+Alt+Del" - Oh, look! The "Memory free" figure is under a gig. There are two gigs of RAM in the lappy.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 22
4/29/05 at 4:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guspaz
Will Yonah be around by the time we need 16TB of RAM in a notebook? Not a chance.
Will we be around by the time we need 16TB of ram in a noebook?
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 22
4/29/05 at 12:32pm
I can believe that Doom 3 eats all your ram, but then so does HL2 and BF1942, which goes to show that these programs are built to take advantage of greater amounts of memory. I'm currently sitting here with 1 GB of Ram with about 650 MB free. And thats with Antivirus, Firewall and a bit of low impact crap (DVD Region killer, Daemon Tools, Speedswitch, FanGUI etc etc) running in the background.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 22
4/30/05 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pr50wner
yes people also said that 128KB of ram is WAY more than enough to run any application, doom3 requires 1048576KB of ram (min) to run smoothly, i bet that guy is kicking himself now.. lol

Do remember that quote was made like 2 decades ago. At that time, the comment was absolutely true. Now is a totally different story. I can't even begin to predict what the memory requirement for software is going to be in another 2 decades. I can say however, that the capability to handle 16 terabytes of memory is going to be waaay overkill for 99.9% of computer users over the next 3 years. That last .1 percent can go buy supercomputers and have their own custom OSs and software written for their needs.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 22
4/30/05 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancisQ
Will we be around by the time we need 16TB of ram in a noebook?
LOL! That's a damn good point!
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 22
4/30/05 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labmouse
LOL! That's a damn good point!
I guesstimate that 16TB will be found in computers (Notebooks and Desktops tend to stay the same for memory size, of late at least) in 35 years. I expect to be alive then.

Furthermore I would imagine that there is quite a good chance that leaps forward in memory technology will make it happen sooner than 35 years; my 35 years was very rough math based on 256MB being standard 5 years ago, and 1GB being standard now, so 4x per 5 years, giving 35 years for 16TB.

This math is flawed in it's simplicity and the guess about 256 and 1024, but it is probably not that far off.

But again, leaps in memory technology would probably advance things faster than that.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 22
4/30/05 at 5:52pm
I think a better question is "in the future will computers be the same as they are today?" With quantum computing, bioelectronics, and other advances in technology, chances are the computer of tomorrow won't be anything like the computer of today.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 22
4/30/05 at 5:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by crellion
It's a bit sad to know that Yonah will not be 64-bit anytime soon.
how is this sad? Is it sad that a sonoma 2ghz will be comparablke or faster than an Amd g4 3400+ and it runs at only 20 some watts. No...64bit is just hype. A sonoma will whip many Amds out of there place if they were cloked high enough. A 2.13 is faster than a 3500+ you honestly have to think in termas of wattage these sonomas are using only 20 some watts while the amd blow up to 80 i think or the high 70's. 64 bit wont be usefl not unitl a long long long time i expect minium 5 years!
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 22
5/1/05 at 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laptop&lt View Post
how is this sad? Is it sad that a sonoma 2ghz will be comparablke or faster than an Amd g4 3400+ and it runs at only 20 some watts. No...64bit is just hype. A sonoma will whip many Amds out of there place if they were cloked high enough. A 2.13 is faster than a 3500+ you honestly have to think in termas of wattage these sonomas are using only 20 some watts while the amd blow up to 80 i think or the high 70's. 64 bit wont be usefl not unitl a long long long time i expect minium 5 years!
Hype? No. Terribly useful right now? No.

64-bit processors have been VERY handy in the server market where applications can both take advantage of the speed benefits, AND the extra memory.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General