[[email protected]]

Hello,

This is sort of off-topic, but not.

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

And....

Any thoughts on audio software evolving into 64 bit architectures?
That would probably kill the argument that you need to go analog to
mix due to summing issues.

And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the
"ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit.

Just trying to get pointed in the right direction. Took a break for a
while...

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit

And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the
"ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit.

And you would be interested in "Vista" because....?

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 8, 10:13 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ...

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit

And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the
"ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit.

And you would be interested in "Vista" because....?

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will
settle in. a big drawback is that it requires a lot of ram. but
ultimately, the architecture will allow massive amounts of ram. we
will be able to forget about how fast the drives are, raid, etc. just
load the entire file into fast ram and don't worry about the drives.

[Richard Crowley]

wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will
settle in.

I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP
support ends.

a big drawback is that it requires a lot of ram. but
ultimately, the architecture will allow massive amounts of ram. we
will be able to forget about how fast the drives are, raid, etc. just
load the entire file into fast ram and don't worry about the drives.

None of those things are the major concern. As you say,
Moore's Law provides improved CPU, RAM, hard drive,
display, etc. technology all the time.

The embedded (and draconian by most accounts) DRM
is the show-stopper for many people.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.
well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will
settle in.

I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP
support ends.

Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-)

[Richard Crowley]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.
well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it
will
settle in.

I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP
support ends.

Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-)

Of course, secretly, I'm hoping that Vista will settle down
and be reasonable. I'm too old to make major changes to
my computing on a whim. ;-)

[Mogens V.]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:

wrote ...

"Richard Crowley" wrote:


Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will
settle in.

Yes, I'm sure Vista may be useful in, say.. 1-1½ years time, whin we've
seen the first one or two service packs, and how many things they fixed.


I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP
support ends.


Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-)

Been into Linux for some ten years. Fine for serveruse, fine for the
desktop, provided one is good at unix. The latter couple of years has
revealed a few distros which can actually be used by non-techies.

But... as a misic recordong/production platform...
Lotsa work getting intimately familiar with alsa, integrating alsa nas
stuff like jackd, not to speak about no professional music apps.
Drivers for (semi) pro soundcards? Well, a few, like RME.

Even being very well into several Linux distros and other unix, it was
an easy job deciding to go for OSX. Just shopped a used dual G4..

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[jt]

In article , Romeo
Rondeau wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.
well, that's what is out there and time marches on. i'm sure it will
settle in.

I propose to migrate to Linux (or Mac?) by the time WinXP
support ends.

Good luck with that :-) Let us all know how that works for ya :-)


Seesm to be working very, very well for more and more people, thanks
for asking.

[Laurence Payne]

On 8 Feb 2007 19:45:26 -0800, wrote:

ultimately, the architecture will allow massive amounts of ram. we
will be able to forget about how fast the drives are, raid, etc. just
load the entire file into fast ram and don't worry about the drives.

For data that requires rapid and random access, notably sample data
for softsynths, we do already. Audio data is normally required
sequentially, much less challenge to a disk system.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ...

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit

And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the
"ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit.

And you would be interested in "Vista" because....?

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is introduced...

[Arny Krueger]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
. net
Richard Crowley wrote:
wrote ...

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I
can't for the life of me figure out if the Intel Core 2
Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a fake one, or nothing
at all to do with 32 bit.

It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit

And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the
"ultimate super premium" edition
is true 64 bit.

And you would be interested in "Vista" because....?

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is
introduced...

And it will again, but probably pretty slowly, becasue XP is far more
competent than any *obsolete* OS we ever had before. There is a 64 bit
flavor of XP on the market, BTW.

[Romeo Rondeau]

And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is
introduced...

And it will again, but probably pretty slowly, becasue XP is far more
competent than any *obsolete* OS we ever had before. There is a 64 bit
flavor of XP on the market, BTW.

I'll bet you it plays out exactly like it always has. When folks buy new
PC's, they will have Vista on them. That in itself will take care of
it... like it always has. There is nothing different about Vista than
other operating systems. Some users will wait a long time, some will
stand in line outside the store the night before the launch (like they
did this time), it happens every time.

[Arny Krueger]

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message
t
And this movie plays itself out every time a new OS is
introduced...

And it will again, but probably pretty slowly, becasue
XP is far more competent than any *obsolete* OS we ever
had before. There is a 64 bit flavor of XP on the
market, BTW.

I'll bet you it plays out exactly like it always has.
When folks buy new PC's, they will have Vista on them.

Right now they often have a choice.

That in itself will take care of it... like it always
has. There is nothing different about Vista than other
operating systems. Some users will wait a long time, some
will stand in line outside the store the night before the
launch (like they did this time), it happens every time.

Agreed.

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:13:56 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

And you would be interested in "Vista" because....?

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

I'm sure the knowledgeable ones are avoiding early adoption, while
avoiding striking any emotional attitude to Vista.

[Romeo Rondeau]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:13:56 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

And you would be interested in "Vista" because....?

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

I'm sure the knowledgeable ones are avoiding early adoption, while
avoiding striking any emotional attitude to Vista.

Well put Laurence. I couldn't agree more. Anybody who makes as drastic a
change as to upgrade the OS on something mission critical like a DAW
deserves the possible crash. And they also deserve my bill when it comes
time to put it all back together. Emergencies can get real expensive :-)
Bottom line is, put it on a machine that don't have to use everyday and
get used to it, keep up on what's happening with other folks who are
using it. Take the "sky is falling" reports with a grain of salt. It
reminds me of a guy who used to live across the courtyard from me, he
was running OS/2. I had just upgraded my home machine to Windows 95 to
get a good feel for it. He told me all kinds of horror stories about
folks who upgraded to Windows 95 and it toasted their machines and that
he was sticking with OS/2. I performed the upgrade (with a few bumps
along the way, but it worked out fine and didn't cost me anything more
than buying the OS), I showed him it was working fine and he still ****
on it. There are some people who hate change so bad they will stick with
the old thing and **** on the new one at any cost. This particular guy
would rather sit in front of a PC with very limited usability than sit
down and learn something new. I haven't upgraded to Vista yet, but I
will, and I'm sure there will be a few bumps along the way. But looking
back on all of the new OS releases I've gone through over the years and
I haven't regretted a single one, and I go all the way back to Windows
286.

[Carey Carlan]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in news:53277lF1qf5iaU1
@mid.individual.net:

wrote ...

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

It is 64 bit and backwards-compatible to run 32...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In...2#32_vs_64_bit

And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the
"ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit.

And you would be interested in "Vista" because....?

Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

Yet my software company already has 4 clients who have bought Vista
machines and are struggling to get everything running. Gotta love those
early adopters.

[Richard Crowley]

"Carey Carlan" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote
Most knowledgeable people in my acquaintance are
avoiding it like the plague.

Yet my software company already has 4 clients who have bought Vista
machines and are struggling to get everything running. Gotta love
those
early adopters.

Sure. There have been hundreds of people running Vista
at the office for months. But I don't expect widespread
proliferation until next year. At least not in my department
which is very risk-averse (and IT-averse :-)

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 8, 9:59 pm, wrote:

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

I see nobody has answered the question. The Core 2 Duo is one that's
been described as "Vista ready" whatever that means.

I agree that eventually Vista will be the only Windows you can get
(until the next great operating system comes along) but I also agree
that it would be a good idea to hold off setting up a Vista-based
audio system for another several months, or maybe a year. Can you
continue to use what you have?

Or are you willing to install XP on a new Vista-ready machine now and
upgrade it to Vista when the need becomes apparent? That would be the
smartest thing, I think, if you're going to put together a new
computer now anyway. But if you can wait to buy the computer until you
really need it (and Vista), things will only get cheaper.

Any thoughts on audio software evolving into 64 bit architectures?

So far it seems that Cakewalk/Sonar is leading the pack. Either you
like it or you don't, but because it's there wouldn't be enough to
sell me on new hardware and software if what I had now was working
fine.

That would probably kill the argument that you need to go analog to
mix due to summing issues.

Only if it's well implemented. But then people seem to be satisfied
with present 32-bit systems when they get the right software and set
it up properly. Those who use external analog mixing do it for one of
three reasons:

1. They like the comfort or a real mixer
2. They're behind the times and still believe that computers can't
satisfactorily mix audio.
3. Their system is behind times and really benefits from analog mixing
in some respects.

And then there are different versions of Vista. Supossedly, only the
"ultimate super premium" edition is true 64 bit.

This is still confusing. At this point, if you really want to know
what it does, I wouldn't trust what anybody tells you, because there
are probably different ways of interpreting "true 64 bit."

[Take Vos]

Hello Richard,

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.
The Intel Core 2 Duo, is a true 64 bit processor. It can run both 64
bit and 32 bit application next to each other.

Any thoughts on audio software evolving into 64 bit architectures?
I myself see two significant changes that 64 bit architecture will
offer:
- Use of more memory for internal buffers, keeping buffers for a high
number of channels and high sample rates add up very fast.
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).

That would probably kill the argument that you need to go analog to
mix due to summing issues.
64 bit does not fix or cause summing issues. The floating point
processing of all Intel processors since the original IBM PC handles
32 and 64 bit floating point natively.

Right now most audio application do their internal processing in 32
bit floating point, but could just as easily be done with 64 bit
floating point. 64 bit floating point does cause twice as much memory
usage for buffers, and also twice the amount of memory bandwidth;
needing more and faster memory and processing power.

As most audio devices do not have AD/DA converters more accurate than
24 bit integer there have not been much use for 64 bit floating point.

Cheers,
Take

[Mike Rivers]

On Feb 9, 10:03 am, "Take Vos" wrote:

As most audio devices do not have AD/DA converters more accurate than
24 bit integer there have not been much use for 64 bit floating point.

There is some method to this madness. Whenever you perform some
operation on a sample like change its level or add two sample values
together (really, all audio processing can be reduced to these
operation) the word length increases. Originally all arithmetic was
done so that every operation was truncated to 16 bits and this got to
sounding pretty rough after a few operations. This got translated to
"digital mixing doesn't sound good" and people were getting better
sounding mixes of digital multitrack recordings by using an analog
mixer. The added noise and analog distortion was preferable to the
distortion caused by truncation.

But old ideas die hard (the Internet hasn't helped that) so even in
the 24- or 32-bit floating point world the perceived problems with
digital mixing still remain. And with some systems, they probably do
remain because not everyone does things right. But now at least it's
possible to construct a good digital mixer if you have enough
"headroom" (which we now have).

[tonewheel]

On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote:
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).


This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.

TWJ

[Arny Krueger]

"tonewheel" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote:

- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).

This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures.

Agreed.

Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.


Win95 and Win98 did memory-mapped I/O. Memory-mapped I/O has major
performance implications for executable code.

[Take Vos]

Hello TWJ,

- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).
This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.
Yes, memory mapped I/O is incredibly old, but I meant it would be more
useful with a 64 bit address space when working on large audio files.

In 32 bit, often 1 GB is already in use by the kernel, 1GB by audio
buffers and other application data structures, and you only have 2 GB
left for memory mapping the audio file(s).

In 64 bit you can map a large audio file in memory (think a single 6
hour, 48 channel polyphonic recording) and have enough room free for
the application itself.

Cheers,
Take

[tonewheel]

On 12 Feb, 18:21, "Take Vos" wrote:
Hello TWJ,

- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).
This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.

Yes, memory mapped I/O is incredibly old, but I meant it would be more
useful with a 64 bit address space when working on large audio files.

In 32 bit, often 1 GB is already in use by the kernel, 1GB by audio
buffers and other application data structures, and you only have 2 GB
left for memory mapping the audio file(s).


eek, how big are your audio files?

In 64 bit you can map a large audio file in memory (think a single 6
hour, 48 channel polyphonic recording) and have enough room free for
the application itself.


oh, that big.

Cheers,
Take

cheers,
TWJ :-)

[Ben Bradley]

On 13 Feb 2007 06:12:03 -0800, "tonewheel"
wrote:

On 12 Feb, 18:21, "Take Vos" wrote:
Hello TWJ,

- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).
This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.

Yes, memory mapped I/O is incredibly old, but I meant it would be more
useful with a 64 bit address space when working on large audio files.

In 32 bit, often 1 GB is already in use by the kernel, 1GB by audio
buffers and other application data structures, and you only have 2 GB
left for memory mapping the audio file(s).


eek, how big are your audio files?

In 64 bit you can map a large audio file in memory (think a single 6
hour, 48 channel polyphonic recording) and have enough room free for
the application itself.


oh, that big.

Now that you mention it, I have to wonder - just how much RAM is
that, and how much does it costs?
Quick calculations: 44.1k/24bits is 132,300 bytes/second, *3600*6
hours 2857680000, * 48 tracks = 137,168,640,000 - let's call it 137
gigabytes. Let's say 2G is $120, 137G is $8,220. That's not outrageous
for an upscale studio, but RAM is a depreciating investment. It better
save a lot of time vs. hard disk, and hope no one hits the power plug
near the end of a session. A good program would have a background task
writing the files to disk while not recording.

Cheers,
Take

cheers,
TWJ :-)

tonewheel wrote:
On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote:
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).


This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.

Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less
than 32 bits...

--
Aaron

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
wrote:
tonewheel wrote:
On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote:
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).

This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.

Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less
than 32 bits...

Actually, lots of S-100 machines did it with only eight bits. With varying
degrees of success and reliability.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
...
tonewheel wrote:
On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote:
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).


This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.

Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less
than 32 bits...

There was a 24 bit addressing limit in MVS until they tweaked the hardware
and software. I remember when it seemed ludicrously high!

The MVS 16 meg barrier fell first for hardware real memory, and then for
application address spaces. The letters "XA" were IBM's code for going
fully 32 bit.

VMS has been through a lot of changes. At one time it was restricted to 24
bit addressing, if I recall correctly. Appreantly there is now a VMS with 64
bit addressing.

Hey, IBM's AS/400 and System 38 systems had 128 bit addressing.

[tonewheel]

On 12 Feb, 20:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The MVS 16 meg barrier fell first for hardware real memory, and then for
application address spaces. The letters "XA" were IBM's code for going
fully 32 bit.


not quite, it was *31* bit. The top bit was a status bit.(reduced from
8 status bits on MVS)
I remember quite clearly linking with "amode 31, rmode 31".
Addresses were stored in 32-bit registers on both systems.

VMS has been through a lot of changes. At one time it was restricted to 24
bit addressing, if I recall correctly. Appreantly there is now a VMS with 64
bit addressing.

Yes 64 bit VMS running on Alpha AXP came out several years ago now,
but I've never heard of 24 bit VMS, unless you are referring to some
*very* bespoke installation created for a special case. Even microvms
on the microvax 1 was 32 bit, wasn't it? Help me out here, I'm digging
very deep into a very fading memory....


TWJ

[tonewheel]

On 12 Feb, 19:29, wrote:
tonewheel wrote:
On 9 Feb, 15:03, "Take Vos" wrote:
- Able to do memory mapped I/O, this allows a programmer to use an
audio file as if it was normal memory (64 bit address space allows us
to do this).

This is not a new feature of 64 bit architectures. Windows XP does it.
Windows 2000 does it. Windows NT 3.1 did it. DEC VAX/VMS did it. IBM
mainframes running MVS/XA did it, all on 32 bits.

Actually I think the early VAX/VMS and MVS/XA systems did it on less
than 32 bits...

--
Aaron

You are right about MVS/XA - that was 31 bit. Plain MVS was 24 bit but
I don't remember if that offered this feature - I was only a trainee
programmer at IBM at that time. VAX/VMS was 32 bit from the start,
though, I am 99% sure. Maybe you're thinking of the earlier DEC os's
that ran on PDP's and the like? Again they are before my time.

TWJ

[Scott Dorsey]

tonewheel wrote:
You are right about MVS/XA - that was 31 bit. Plain MVS was 24 bit but
I don't remember if that offered this feature - I was only a trainee
programmer at IBM at that time.

That's addressing, not data. Data was full 32 bit.

VAX/VMS was 32 bit from the start,
though, I am 99% sure. Maybe you're thinking of the earlier DEC os's
that ran on PDP's and the like? Again they are before my time.

The Vax was 32-bit data from the start (although the 11/780 had a 16-bit
compatibility mode so you could run your old RSX binaries). But, it did
not have full 32-bit addressing in hardware, although the instruction scheme
supported it. The actual width of the address buss depended on the model
you bought....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:
Hello,

This is sort of off-topic, but not.

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

Define "a true 64 bit processor"

64 bit datapaths?
64 bit addressing?
64 bit functional units?

--
Aaron

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
wrote:
Hello,

This is sort of off-topic, but not.

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

Define "a true 64 bit processor"

64 bit datapaths?
64 bit addressing?
64 bit functional units?

None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the
marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mogens V.]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

Hello,

This is sort of off-topic, but not.

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

Define "a true 64 bit processor"

64 bit datapaths?
64 bit addressing?
64 bit functional units?


None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the
marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is.
--scott

Not true, but I see your point
I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit
addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much
useless.

--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mogens V. wrote:

Not true, but I see your point
I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit
addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much
useless.

Intel claimed the 8086 was a 16-bit processor, since the internal data
paths were 16-bit even though the data buss was only 8-bit. And then
there was the wonderful TI 9900, which had a 16-bit data path but only
15-bit addresses. They called that 16-bit too.

That sort of silliness doesn't go on much any more, though.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Take Vos]

Hello Scott,

Not true, but I see your point
I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit
addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much
useless.
Intel claimed the 8086 was a 16-bit processor, since the internal data
paths were 16-bit even though the data buss was only 8-bit.
From what I remember from the datasheets, the 8086 did have a external
16 bit data bus.
The 8088 which was actually used in the original IBM PC, was a scaled
down version which only has a 8 bit data bus.

Cheers,
Take

Mogens V. wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

Hello,

This is sort of off-topic, but not.

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

Define "a true 64 bit processor"

64 bit datapaths?
64 bit addressing?
64 bit functional units?


None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the
marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is.
--scott

Not true, but I see your point
I'd say a processor with 64bit registers, ALU and so forth AND 64bit
addressing makes it 64bit, but without the bus and MMU it's pretty much
useless.

I'm pretty sure no such processor exists. As far as I know every 64
bit addressing processor is wider on the internal bus and MMU/FPU,
and MAY be narrower in the integer ALUs.

--
Aaron

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

I'm pretty sure no such processor exists. As far as I know every 64
bit addressing processor is wider on the internal bus and MMU/FPU,
and MAY be narrower in the integer ALUs.

Vax 11/780 with an Floating Point Systems FPS-64 vector pipe. The CPU
itself does only 32 bit loads and stores, but the vector coprocessor
has full 64-bit float operations on vectors, and addresses local vector
memory in 64-bit chunks or the main memory over the 32-bit Unibus.

You can argue that an array processor is part of the CPU since it takes
over the memory buss and is controlled by the instruction decoder of
the CPU. You can argue that it isn't part of the CPU at all, too, since
it has no register access and isn't part of the CPU instruction set.
Which argument you makes depends on whether you work for CDC or FPS.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Hello,

This is sort of off-topic, but not.

I'm in the market for a new computer with Vista. I can't for the life
of me figure out if the Intel Core 2 Duo is a true 64 bit processor, a
fake one, or nothing at all to do with 32 bit.

Define "a true 64 bit processor"

64 bit datapaths?
64 bit addressing?
64 bit functional units?

None of the above. It's all defined by the marketing department. If the
marketing department says the Z-80 is a 64-bit processor, it is.

As someone who worked as a design engineer in the CPU field for
several years I have to say: You're exactly right.

--
Aaron

[anahata]

wrote:

Define "a true 64 bit processor"

64 bit datapaths?
64 bit addressing?
64 bit functional units?

What the marketing department want it to be, of corse, but...
To qualify as any sort of 64 bit processor, it should support the
AMD/Intel 64 bit instruction set (which is different from x86.)

"True" 64 bit should mean that external data and address paths are 64
bits wide too. Ever since the 8088 in the original IBM PC, there have
been n bit CPUs squeezing their data through n/2 bit data paths, because
it saved lots of money and made a cheap upgrade path for an existing system.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827