Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: bloodline on January 14, 2005, 08:06:18 PM
-
MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEee!!!!
It's so cool!! Everything is... just like 32 bit... :-?
-
in fact, I see very little progress in PC world
yeah, the video processing and the 3d stuff is a lot faster nowadays, but that's about it. (http://www.amiga.org/images/subject/icon8.gif)
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
in fact, I see very little progress in PC world
yeah, the video processing and the 3d stuff is a lot faster nowadays, but that's about it. (http://www.amiga.org/images/subject/icon8.gif)
Hehehe, ok, it's not that bad.. WindowsXP 64bit is weird though... it's sort of two opertaing systems in one, I can't believe it's taken then over a year to get it to this point :-/
-
Thing is, my 386 starts quicker (with all drivers loaded and so) than my Sempron2200+, either with w98 or winxp
-
bloodline wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
in fact, I see very little progress in PC world
yeah, the video processing and the 3d stuff is a lot faster nowadays, but that's about it. (http://www.amiga.org/images/subject/icon8.gif)
Hehehe, ok, it's not that bad.. WindowsXP 64bit is weird though... it's sort of two opertaing systems in one, I can't believe it's taken then over a year to get it to this point :-/
Back handers from Intel is no doubt the reason they delayed releasing Windows x64.
-
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
in fact, I see very little progress in PC world
yeah, the video processing and the 3d stuff is a lot faster nowadays, but that's about it. (http://www.amiga.org/images/subject/icon8.gif)
Hehehe, ok, it's not that bad.. WindowsXP 64bit is weird though... it's sort of two opertaing systems in one, I can't believe it's taken then over a year to get it to this point :-/
Back handers from Intel is no doubt the reason they delayed releasing Windows x64.
I expect so, but it's pretty lame... even for Windows.
-
@bloodline
I can appreciate the sense of anticlimax. Consider it, other than supporting more than 4GB of linearly addressable physical memory, what does 64-bit do for you anyway?
I mean really, when it comes to instruction processing, many CPU's have supported 64-bit operands and data buses for a long time. Heck, even the Pentium2 can do 64-bit integer operations.
-
I think most people subconciously think 64 bit will offer a lot more performance than 32. Actually it's usually the opposite, and even when a 64 bit CPU is actually used optimally, it's still not a lightyear ahead of current CPUs.
-
KennyR wrote:
I think most people subconciously think 64 bit will offer a lot more performance than 32. Actually it's usually the opposite, and even when a 64 bit CPU is actually used optimally, it's still not a lightyear ahead of current CPUs.
Well this Athlon54 at 2Ghz is certainly a good margin faster than my 3,06Ghz P4... but that's because the P4 sux :-D
-
Karlos wrote:
@bloodline
I mean really, when it comes to instruction processing, many CPU's have supported 64-bit operands and data buses for a long time. Heck, even the Pentium2 can do 64-bit integer operations.
When AMD designed the AMD64 instruction they did try to change some other things in the instruction set like the number of registers. It's these changes that make 64bit programs faster then 32bit program on the AMD64 cpus.
greets,
Staf.
-
bloodline wrote:
KennyR wrote:
I think most people subconciously think 64 bit will offer a lot more performance than 32. Actually it's usually the opposite, and even when a 64 bit CPU is actually used optimally, it's still not a lightyear ahead of current CPUs.
Well this Athlon54 at 2Ghz is certainly a good margin faster than my 3,06Ghz P4... but that's because the P4 sux :-D
Sh!t loads of extra registers is what gives it it's speed. Oh, and the 1MB of cache on-die. :-)
64bit Linux is a hell of a lot faster on this Athlon64 3200+ of mine than 32bit Linux is.
-
@Staf
Damn, you beat me to it! :-D
-
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
KennyR wrote:
I think most people subconciously think 64 bit will offer a lot more performance than 32. Actually it's usually the opposite, and even when a 64 bit CPU is actually used optimally, it's still not a lightyear ahead of current CPUs.
Well this Athlon54 at 2Ghz is certainly a good margin faster than my 3,06Ghz P4... but that's because the P4 sux :-D
Sh!t loads of extra registers is what gives it it's speed. Oh, and the 1MB of cache on-die. :-)
64bit Linux is a hell of a lot faster on this Athlon64 3200+ of mine than 32bit Linux is.
Snap! I've got a 3200 (939 version) too :-)
Actaulyl now I've got all the drivers installed in the Windows64, it's starting to really get fast :-o It's not a little faster than my P4... it's a LOT faster (in 64bit mode anyway)!!!
-
bloodline wrote:
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
KennyR wrote:
I think most people subconciously think 64 bit will offer a lot more performance than 32. Actually it's usually the opposite, and even when a 64 bit CPU is actually used optimally, it's still not a lightyear ahead of current CPUs.
Well this Athlon54 at 2Ghz is certainly a good margin faster than my 3,06Ghz P4... but that's because the P4 sux :-D
Sh!t loads of extra registers is what gives it it's speed. Oh, and the 1MB of cache on-die. :-)
64bit Linux is a hell of a lot faster on this Athlon64 3200+ of mine than 32bit Linux is.
Snap! I've got a 3200 (939 version) too :-)
Actaulyl now I've got all the drivers installed in the Windows64, it's starting to really get fast :-o It's not a little faster than my P4... it's a LOT faster (in 64bit mode anyway)!!!
Mine's in my laptop it gets hot as fek!! :-)
Have you tried AROS on it it yet? It works fine for me on this laptop with Athlon64, VIA chipset and ATI 9600.
If only we had an ATI driver for AROS it'd be even quicker than it is in VESA mode.
Have you installed the AMD processor driver from the AMD website yet?
-
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
KennyR wrote:
I think most people subconciously think 64 bit will offer a lot more performance than 32. Actually it's usually the opposite, and even when a 64 bit CPU is actually used optimally, it's still not a lightyear ahead of current CPUs.
Well this Athlon54 at 2Ghz is certainly a good margin faster than my 3,06Ghz P4... but that's because the P4 sux :-D
Sh!t loads of extra registers is what gives it it's speed. Oh, and the 1MB of cache on-die. :-)
64bit Linux is a hell of a lot faster on this Athlon64 3200+ of mine than 32bit Linux is.
Snap! I've got a 3200 (939 version) too :-)
Actaulyl now I've got all the drivers installed in the Windows64, it's starting to really get fast :-o It's not a little faster than my P4... it's a LOT faster (in 64bit mode anyway)!!!
Mine's in my laptop it gets hot as fek!! :-)
Have you tried AROS on it it yet? It works fine for me on this laptop with Athlon64, VIA chipset and ATI 9600.
If only we had an ATI driver for AROS it'd be even quicker than it is in VESA mode.
Have you installed the AMD processor driver from the AMD website yet?
I've run AROS on this machine... I nearly pooped my pants :-D Though I've yet to get the AROS Nvidia driver to recognise my PCIExpress gfx card :-) Still it's sooperdooper fast in VESA mode!
AMD Processor driver? I'll have a look now :-D
-
mdma wrote:
Sh!t loads of extra registers is what gives it it's speed. Oh, and the 1MB of cache on-die. :-)
64bit Linux is a hell of a lot faster on this Athlon64 3200+ of mine than 32bit Linux is.
Here you demonstrate my point exactly. The performance increase is sod all to do with the "64-bitness" of the CPU. Rather it is down to having a new core architecture, more registers, new instructions and a larger cache.
All the 64-bit really refers to is the addressable space - and one assumes all the internal/external buses.
-
Karlos wrote:
mdma wrote:
Sh!t loads of extra registers is what gives it it's speed. Oh, and the 1MB of cache on-die. :-)
64bit Linux is a hell of a lot faster on this Athlon64 3200+ of mine than 32bit Linux is.
Here you demonstrate my point exactly. The performance increase is sod all to do with the "64-bitness" of the CPU. Rather it is down to having a new core architecture, more registers, new instructions and a larger cache.
All the 64-bit really refers to is the addressable space - and one assumes all the internal/external buses.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was trying to demonstrate your point.
One of the other teachers at college won't have it that the 64bitness isn't the reason for the speed increase. He even tells his students this untruth. So when they come to me for their C++ lessons they don't beleive me when i tell them the truth because i'm a student teacher. :pissed:
-
I want a **TRUE** 64 bit CPU!!!
64 bit ASSEMBLY OPCODES baby!! YEA!
(with that many opcodes, assembly would pretty much be a high level language)
-
T_Bone wrote:
I want a **TRUE** 64 bit CPU!!!
64 bit ASSEMBLY OPCODES baby!! YEA!
(with that many opcodes, assembly would pretty much be a high level language)
:nervous: Don't let T-Bone near any CPU design lab! :-D
-
T_Bone wrote:
I want a **TRUE** 64 bit CPU!!!
64 bit ASSEMBLY OPCODES baby!! YEA!
(with that many opcodes, assembly would pretty much be a high level language)
Well, suppose you made a super RISC load/store architecture where you had, eg 65536 integer and 65536 floating point registers, you could easily have 64-bit opcodes. 16-bits for the instruction and up to 16-bits each for each register definition :lol:
-
mdma wrote:
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was trying to demonstrate your point.
No, no, I realise that. I was just connecting your post and mine :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
I want a **TRUE** 64 bit CPU!!!
64 bit ASSEMBLY OPCODES baby!! YEA!
(with that many opcodes, assembly would pretty much be a high level language)
Well, suppose you made a super RISC load/store architecture where you had, eg 65536 integer and 65536 floating point registers, you could easily have 64-bit opcodes. 16-bits for the instruction and up to 16-bits each for each register definition :lol:
Hmmmm, you would probably just have a 64K register file...
-
bloodline wrote:
Hmmmm, you would probably just have a 64K register file...
Well, you could still have L2 cache, but you'd have less need of L1 cache :lol:
I dread to think how difficult to code such a system would be implement, let alone code for. It would be difficult to manage such a huge register file effectively in a multitasking OS.
Still, whilst we're being silly :-D...
Mind you, if you had a default 'offset' register that allows your definition of 'register 0' to be offset to any register in the file, you could implement a sort of "fixed register size per task" kernel, where each task would have it' own block of X registers. Once the register file fills, youd page out the ones for those tasks that arent doing anything.
Other than that, each task would just see eg 32 registers belonging to it that the OS almost never has to save/restore as part of task switching.
I wonder what the upper limit is for a sensible 'directly accessible' (that is not including shadowning and forwarding) register count?
I think PPC's 32 is more than enough, really...
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Hmmmm, you would probably just have a 64K register file...
Well, you could still have L2 cache, but you'd have less need of L1 cache :lol:
I dread to think how difficult to code such a system would be implement, let alone code for. It would be difficult to manage such a huge register file effectively in a multitasking OS.
Still, whilst we're being silly :-D...
Mind you, if you had a default 'offset' register that allows your definition of 'register 0' to be offset to any register in the file, you could implement a sort of "fixed register size per task" kernel, where each task would have it' own block of X registers. Once the register file fills, youd page out the ones for those tasks that arent doing anything.
Other than that, each task would just see eg 32 registers belonging to it that the OS almost never has to save/restore as part of task switching.
I wonder what the upper limit is for a sensible 'directly accessible' (that is not including shadowning and forwarding) register count?
I think PPC's 32 is more than enough, really...
If you read how the register rename feature on an Althon64 works, it's a bit like what you've described :-)
-
pha, nowadays the new atlon64 seems to be new, but Commodore had more than 20 years ago already a Commodore64!
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
pha, nowadays the new atlon64 seems to be new, but Commodore had more than 20 years ago already a Commodore64!
And everyone's forgettting the Nintendo64 was 64bit years ago. :-D (Yes, I know it wasn't STRICTLY 64bit)
-
I am now triple booting as opposed to dual booting.
I have Windows XP Pro, SuSE 9.2 Pro 64bit, and now Windows XP Pro x64 Edition.
WinUAE was fast as hell already on 32bit Windows, but if I reboot into 64bit Windows it's even faster. Even though WinUAE is still a 32bit application.
Nice. :-D
I wonder if Tony will compile a 64bit version of UAE? It could really make good use of those extra registers. Would that break the JIT as it's for x86 only? I know the 64bit version of PearPC can't do JIT for the same reason.
-
I expect it would harm the JIT. After all, Athlon64 "64-bit native" code has about as much in common with the original x86 as PPC does :-) A new JIT would need to be developed.
I wonder how much of the speed increase on 64-bit windows is down to lower latency of system calls (assuming 64-bit system code runs faster for all the various reasons mentioned) ?
-
Wasn't the Atari Jaguar sold as a 64bit machine too? =)
-
One could say the Atari Jaguar is 64 bits or 16 bits (since it's powered by a kinda 64 bits Tom GPU and a 16 bits MC68000 CPU
Quite the same can be said about the Dreamcast, that proc ranges from 16 'till 128 bits.
Rather look at the amount of polygons per second, MIPS and special graphic features (like texture filtering, and so)
fact is, both systems (+jaguar cd unit) I got in my posession :-D :-D :-D
-
mdma wrote:
I am now triple booting as opposed to dual booting.
I have Windows XP Pro, SuSE 9.2 Pro 64bit, and now Windows XP Pro x64 Edition.
WinUAE was fast as hell already on 32bit Windows, but if I reboot into 64bit Windows it's even faster. Even though WinUAE is still a 32bit application.
Nice. :-D
I wonder if Tony will compile a 64bit version of UAE? It could really make good use of those extra registers. Would that break the JIT as it's for x86 only? I know the 64bit version of PearPC can't do JIT for the same reason.
I'll Email him. The JIT would have to be redesigned for the A64, it's a totally ditterent CPU design... I wonder, though, if the JIT could run in a 32bit thread while the rest of WinUAE could run in 64bit mode... I have no idea how Win64 handles this sort of stuff :-?
Might be an idea to Email Bernie and see if he wants to make an Athlon64 JIT :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
mdma wrote:
I am now triple booting as opposed to dual booting.
I have Windows XP Pro, SuSE 9.2 Pro 64bit, and now Windows XP Pro x64 Edition.
WinUAE was fast as hell already on 32bit Windows, but if I reboot into 64bit Windows it's even faster. Even though WinUAE is still a 32bit application.
Nice. :-D
I wonder if Tony will compile a 64bit version of UAE? It could really make good use of those extra registers. Would that break the JIT as it's for x86 only? I know the 64bit version of PearPC can't do JIT for the same reason.
I'll Email him. The JIT would have to be redesigned for the A64, it's a totally ditterent CPU design... I wonder, though, if the JIT could run in a 32bit thread while the rest of WinUAE could run in 64bit mode... I have no idea how Win64 handles this sort of stuff :-?
Might be an idea to Email Bernie and see if he wants to make an Athlon64 JIT :-D
And a PPC JIT while he's at it too. :-)
Although I seem to remember some screenshots of UAE-JIT running on an iMac a while back.
What would be nice is if the PearPC coders made an Athlon64 JIT for PPC code, and then this was merged into UAE and appeared to the emulated Amiga as a CSPPC. Et Voila! OS4 for Windows! ;-)
-
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
mdma wrote:
I am now triple booting as opposed to dual booting.
I have Windows XP Pro, SuSE 9.2 Pro 64bit, and now Windows XP Pro x64 Edition.
WinUAE was fast as hell already on 32bit Windows, but if I reboot into 64bit Windows it's even faster. Even though WinUAE is still a 32bit application.
Nice. :-D
I wonder if Tony will compile a 64bit version of UAE? It could really make good use of those extra registers. Would that break the JIT as it's for x86 only? I know the 64bit version of PearPC can't do JIT for the same reason.
I'll Email him. The JIT would have to be redesigned for the A64, it's a totally ditterent CPU design... I wonder, though, if the JIT could run in a 32bit thread while the rest of WinUAE could run in 64bit mode... I have no idea how Win64 handles this sort of stuff :-?
Might be an idea to Email Bernie and see if he wants to make an Athlon64 JIT :-D
And a PPC JIT while he's at it too. :-)
I've been thinking about this one... A PPC->Athlon64 JIT...
Acording to the PearPC people the Lack of registers in the x86 do not cause much of a speed hit, it is emulating the PPC MMU that is the speed killer...
-
the Lack of registers in the x86 do not cause much of a speed hit
So imagine the speed increase that doubling the amount of resiters available will have.
-
mdma wrote:
the Lack of registers in the x86 do not cause much of a speed hit
So imagine the speed increase that doubling the amount of resiters available will have.
Err... not a lot.. :-?
-
bloodline wrote:
mdma wrote:
the Lack of registers in the x86 do not cause much of a speed hit
So imagine the speed increase that doubling the amount of resiters available will have.
Err... not a lot.. :-?
Well by my logic, if it is fast with the current number of registers, then a native amd64 version with all the extra registers will be a lot quicker for the very same reason that all the other native amd64 progs are.
-
@mdma
Remember that x86 has used a RISC style core for a long time. There are actually a very large number of rename registers as 'aliases' for the main ones. You can't use them directly, of course, but they basically allow greater parallelism when subsequent instructions don't depend on the immediate outcome of previous ones.
The AMD64 uses this same trick too. It has a lot more than 16 registers using a similar rename scheme. Even the PPC, with 32 registers uses rename mechanisms to help eliminate stalls when multiple instructions executing concurrently depend on each other. Even the venerable 603e has five rename registers (basically amounting to one each per functional unit in the core).
What it basically means is that x86 and AMD64 both are running from their registers and L1 cache most of the time. Having 16 registers just means you can write better code where the programmer/compiler can take advantage of more registers. If you imagine an algorithm on x86 might spend a reasonable amount of time juggling register variables to/from memory (usually the cache) during a loop, the same algorithm for AMD64 could simply keep the important values in registers, cutting down the number of instructions required to perform the overall operation. This is where you will see some speedup.
-
I think the speed up from 32bit to 64bit that mdma and myself are experiencing is simply due to more elegant optimisation allowed for by 16 registers... also the ISA of the x86-64 long mode has been "cleaned up", probably allowing instrution sequencing to allow better branch prediction and better caching, not to mention it probably looks a lot more like the RISC core, which means less overhead too.
-Edit-
<----Look at the size of that Cache!!! :-o
-/Edit-
Note, the Athlon64's register size is now 64bit long, Not sure if there is much 64bit integer processing in Windows but that will be speeded up. Maybe CPU's are so fast now that Microsoft needs counters that can go above 4billion for their "Your Brand new CPU is too slow" delay loops ;-)
-
bloodline wrote:
I think the speed up from 32bit to 64bit that mdma and myself are experiencing is simply due to more elegant optimisation allowed for by 16 registers...
Which is basically what I was trying to say, but you managed a lot better job of it :lol:
-
And the 1MB of L2 cache has a HUGE benefit I would imagine too! :-D
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
I think the speed up from 32bit to 64bit that mdma and myself are experiencing is simply due to more elegant optimisation allowed for by 16 registers...
Which is basically what I was trying to say, but you managed a lot better job of it :lol:
I think you need to cut down on the registers, mate... 32 seem to have made your head go funny... Stick to 16, you KNOW it makes sense :-D
-
Surely you need 64 registers to complete the 64ness of it all? :-P
-
Karlos wrote:
Surely you need 64 registers to complete the 64ness of it all? :-P
:lol: I learned asm with 16 regs, I don't need any more :-)
-Off Topic- I was just curious about what this 2Ghz 64bit chip could do... and decided to set the Front Side Bus to 230Mhz (up from 200Mhz). I now have the thing running at 2.3Ghz, I didn't need to increase the Vcore... the Temp has gone up from 23C to 26C... and it's totally stable... VERY fast too... I'm glad I paid extra for some branded Memory now :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
Karlos wrote:
Surely you need 64 registers to complete the 64ness of it all? :-P
:lol: I learned asm with 16 regs, I don't need any more :-)
-Off Topic- I was just curious about what this 2Ghz 64bit chip could do... and decided to set the Front Side Bus to 230Mhz (up from 200Mhz). I now have the thing running at 2.3Ghz, I didn't need to increase the Vcore... the Temp has gone up from 23C to 26C... and it's totally stable... VERY fast too... I'm glad I paid extra for some branded Memory now :-D
Lucky bugger! I can't OC mine as it's a flaming laptop. The only options the BIOS has is to change the time and boot device. :-(
-
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Karlos wrote:
Surely you need 64 registers to complete the 64ness of it all? :-P
:lol: I learned asm with 16 regs, I don't need any more :-)
-Off Topic- I was just curious about what this 2Ghz 64bit chip could do... and decided to set the Front Side Bus to 230Mhz (up from 200Mhz). I now have the thing running at 2.3Ghz, I didn't need to increase the Vcore... the Temp has gone up from 23C to 26C... and it's totally stable... VERY fast too... I'm glad I paid extra for some branded Memory now :-D
Lucky bugger! I can't OC mine as it's a flaming laptop. The only options the BIOS has is to change the time and boot device. :-(
Well my chip is a 90nm one and they have built up quite a reputation for Over Clocking... I noticed that mine ran 23C... I don't think I've ever seen a CPU run so cold!... I decided to crank up the Speed... :-D
According to SandraSoft, I'm clocking in at around the same processing power as a Pentium 4 at 3.8Ghz... :-o
-
bloodline wrote:
Well my chip is a 90nm one and they have built up quite a reputation for Over Clocking... I noticed that mine ran 23C... I don't think I've ever seen a CPU run so cold!... I decided to crank up the Speed... :-D
Try it without any cooling and see how hot it gets...
*disclaimer : don't do this, 'tis a silly idea.
-
With a little bit of luck in the near future I'll be fitting a water cooler to my socket 754 Athlon64 3000 (2Ghz), with a little more luck, I'll be overclocking the thing to hieghts that with my old AthlonXP setup would be considered silly (AthlonXP 2000@1.6Ghz o/c'd to 2Ghz with water cooling).
I'd expect to get 2.3Ghz comfortably with the possibility of 2.5Ghz at a stretch.
In other news I overclocked my mothers 1Ghz T'bird Athlon system to 1.3Ghz with the stock cooler with reliable results. I love my hobby :-D I just wish that the stock cooler for the Athlon 64 was as well spec'ed for the job at hand, as the temperatures are well above what I'd consider wise for general operations.
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Well my chip is a 90nm one and they have built up quite a reputation for Over Clocking... I noticed that mine ran 23C... I don't think I've ever seen a CPU run so cold!... I decided to crank up the Speed... :-D
Try it without any cooling and see how hot it gets...
*disclaimer : don't do this, 'tis a silly idea.
Well, I'm using the little HSF that came with the CPU (AMD's Processor in a box).
I'd risk not using a Fan... with this puppy, but I wouldn't expect it to last long without a heatsink, even if it's at 23C :-D
-
http://www.glebeci.ca/users/matt/video/Scene_1_AMD_Duron_Vaporizing_final_divx_lq1.avi
The Above video is what happens when you take the HSF off a Duron while it's running...
Not pretty... you have been warned!!! :-o
-
bloodline wrote:
http://www.glebeci.ca/users/matt/video/Scene_1_AMD_Duron_Vaporizing_final_divx_lq1.avi
The Above video is what happens when you take the HSF off a Duron while it's running...
Not pretty... you have been warned!!! :-o
:-o Ouch!
-
@ Bloodline
Do you reckon that video is real? I mean do you reckon that the chip came off the mobo at that rate by itself, and blew a hole in the table (1cm wood by the looks of things) without the mobo lifting?
I am a bit skeptical.
-
X-ray wrote:
@ Bloodline
Do you reckon that video is real? I mean do you reckon that the chip came off the mobo at that rate by itself, and blew a hole in the table (1cm wood by the looks of things) without the mobo lifting?
I don't see why not... It's been a while since I last used a SocketA but I don't recall it holding the CPU in place with any great resistance.
-
But what blew the hole in the table? All the chip pieces went up. I can't believe that gas blast alone blew a hole through the mobo and the table, without the mobo moving. I reckon that video was staged.
-
X-ray wrote:
But what blew the hole in the table? All the chip pieces went up. I can't believe that gas blast alone blew a hole through the mobo and the table, without the mobo moving. I reckon that video was staged.
The underside of the Duron has a small metal cap soldered over the top of the Silicon die, the gas inside the cavity headed up and poped the cap off.
-
I wonder how much difference the similarly clocked Athlon 64 would actually make over the Athlon 2800+ I'm running now? Haven't really seen a site that adequately explains the difference in real-world terms.
Wayne
-
I fully accept that, my good man, but you still haven't told me how that little pop could have blown a hole in the mobo AND the table underneath.
I don't profess to be an explosives expert, but I have done a few crazy things as a kid and the products of the explosion always follow the path of least resistance. I used to set off matchbox bombs that were taped inside a sealed tin that was one third filled with fuel, by means of an air rifle from a safe distance. The bang was...well...quite something. The surface upon which the charge rested was scorched, but undamaged even though the tin was shredded and the lid could not be found. So what I'm saying is, you've got a charge resting on a laminated surface (mobo plus table) and the only resistance it has is the chip itself. The chip goes up, which is understandable, but there's no way a little pop like that can blow a hole through a mobo and a table so precisely, especially when the main blast escapes vertically in the path of least resistance.
-
"...I wonder how much difference the similarly clocked Athlon 64 would actually make over the Athlon 2800+ I'm running now? Haven't really seen a site that adequately explains the difference in real-world terms..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to see actual raytracing benchmarks on this. There has to be a real incentive for me to buy 64bit, and raytracing is the main one for me.
-
X-ray wrote:
I fully accept that, my good man, but you still haven't told me how that little pop could have blown a hole in the mobo AND the table underneath.
I don't profess to be an explosives expert, but I have done a few crazy things as a kid and the products of the explosion always follow the path of least resistance. I used to set off matchbox bombs that were taped inside a sealed tin that was one third filled with fuel, by means of an air rifle from a safe distance. The bang was...well...quite something. The surface upon which the charge rested was scorched, but undamaged even though the tin was shredded and the lid could not be found. So what I'm saying is, you've got a charge resting on a laminated surface (mobo plus table) and the only resistance it has is the chip itself. The chip goes up, which is understandable, but there's no way a little pop like that can blow a hole through a mobo and a table so precisely, especially when the main blast escapes vertically in the path of least resistance.
I'm thinking Newton's Third Law...
-
Wayne wrote:
I wonder how much difference the similarly clocked Athlon 64 would actually make over the Athlon 2800+ I'm running now? Haven't really seen a site that adequately explains the difference in real-world terms.
Wayne
That's a good question...
I'm not sure, but What I can tell you is that the integrated Memory controler and Dual Channel memory architecture give massive performance gains for the Athlon 64 (Socket 939) 3200 over the AthlonXP 3200, My test program was Propellerhead's Reason 2.5
-
Wayne wrote:
I wonder how much difference the similarly clocked Athlon 64 would actually make over the Athlon 2800+ I'm running now? Haven't really seen a site that adequately explains the difference in real-world terms.
Wayne
Well, I never thought I'd hear myself syaing this, but 64bit windows with the latest 64bit radeon drivers feels just as responsive on this Athlon 64 3200+ with 1MB L2 cache as MorphOS on my Peg G3.
:-o
-
mdma wrote:
Wayne wrote:
I wonder how much difference the similarly clocked Athlon 64 would actually make over the Athlon 2800+ I'm running now? Haven't really seen a site that adequately explains the difference in real-world terms.
Wayne
Well, I never thought I'd hear myself syaing this, but 64bit windows with the latest 64bit radeon drivers feels just as responsive on this Athlon 64 3200+ with 1MB L2 cache as MorphOS on my Peg G3.
:-o
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!
-
Well, I never thought I'd hear myself syaing this, but 64bit windows with the latest 64bit radeon drivers feels just as responsive on this Athlon 64 3200+ with 1MB L2 cache as MorphOS on my Peg G3.
Perhaps, but the Windows machine is at least usable for something aside from "having one" and "hobbyitis". (For the record, I'd say the same about the AmigaOne/OS4).
-
mdma wrote:
Well, I never thought I'd hear myself syaing this, but 64bit windows with the latest 64bit radeon drivers feels just as responsive on this Athlon 64 3200+ with 1MB L2 cache as MorphOS on my Peg G3.
:-o
I don't really know what to say in response. Do we congratulate them for acheiving this level of performance?
Or do we ridicule them severely for requiring such a hardware base to achieve it compared to the comparatively pathetic G3 Peg. Especially if we assume 64-bit recompiled version of the OS brushes aside all the previous x86 legacy excuses.
:-?
-
Karlos wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
I want a **TRUE** 64 bit CPU!!!
64 bit ASSEMBLY OPCODES baby!! YEA!
(with that many opcodes, assembly would pretty much be a high level language)
Well, suppose you made a super RISC load/store architecture where you had, eg 65536 integer and 65536 floating point registers, you could easily have 64-bit opcodes. 16-bits for the instruction and up to 16-bits each for each register definition :lol:
Ew! Just imagine the length of the context switches between tasks!
-
Karlos wrote:
mdma wrote:
Well, I never thought I'd hear myself syaing this, but 64bit windows with the latest 64bit radeon drivers feels just as responsive on this Athlon 64 3200+ with 1MB L2 cache as MorphOS on my Peg G3.
:-o
I don't really know what to say in response. Do we congratulate them for acheiving this level of performance?
Or do we ridicule them severely for requiring such a hardware base to achieve it compared to the comparatively pathetic G3 Peg. Especially if we assume 64-bit recompiled version of the OS brushes aside all the previous x86 legacy excuses.
:-?
Oh, I have no doubt that once it's been installed for a few weeks and the registry starts getting bloated with crap, that it'll be just as slow as 32bit windows currently is on the same laptop.
Windows and Linux (other than gentoo or a self compiled distro), both run in the mixed 64bit/32bit mode anyway, so they can use the x86 legacy excuse for a few more years.
-
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!
If I don't die, am I a witch? ;-)
-
mdma wrote:
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!
If I don't die, am I a witch? ;-)
Don't worry about it too much mdma, once you've got the burnt taste out of your mouth and some fresh clothes you'll be good to go. You'll get used to it after they've tried it a few times ;-)
@ Wayne
I went from a 2Ghz AthlonXP to a 2Ghz Athlon64 and the speed difference was as great if not greater then going from a 1.3Ghz duron to the AthlonXP @ 2Ghz, they really are that fast, as for ray tracing, I've been playing with POV over the past few days and of the intro scenes that come with the initial package, I've not come up against one that doesn't complete with all the bells and whistles at 1280x1024 in under a minute. This is with an Athlon64 - 3000+ (2Ghz) running BeOS R5 with 512Mb of ram, your milage may vary with windows.
-
mdma wrote:
BURN THE HERETIC!!!!
If I don't die, am I a witch? ;-)
Possibly a duck! :python:
-
I've been reading Microsofts's Technical docs... apparently the x86's FPU (the x87) registers are not saved during a context switch in XP64... this means that you can't use the crappy x86 FPU anymore!!! It took 20 years, but finally they managed to get rid of that peice of junk :-D
This also means that the MMX and 3DNow! instruction sets no longer work.
In future all Floating point work is to be done by the Vector units, SSE and SSE2 :-)
This is good news all around!!! This also explains why we are seeing speed ups in 64bit version of windows when running 64bit apps.
-
Forgive me. I don't keep up with Windows a lot, but I didn't know the 64-bit version of Windows was even publicly available.
Wayne
-
bloodline wrote:
I've been reading Microsofts's Technical docs... apparently the x86's FPU (the x87) registers are not saved during a context switch in XP64... this means that you can't use the crappy x86 FPU anymore!!! It took 20 years, but finally they managed to get rid of that peice of junk :-D
You mean a task context switch? How frequent is that compared to the number of instructions executed between switches? I know the x86 FPU was a {bleep} to code for properly, but register save on context switch is not that big hit. On any x86 from the last 10 years the chances that the registers weren't just moved to/from L1 cache are almost nil.
So now, instead of backing up a handful of x86 FPU registers when a task switch occurs, you instead to back up the vector units register file? These units are far bigger than the old FPU register file - how does that make it faster?
This also means that the MMX and 3DNow! instruction sets no longer work.
In future all Floating point work is to be done by the Vector units, SSE and SSE2 :-)
This is good news all around!!! This also explains why we are seeing speed ups in 64bit version of windows when running 64bit apps.
Buh... surely FPU code designed for sequential execution is not going to run faster in the vector unit, just becasue it is a vector unit.
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
I've been reading Microsofts's Technical docs... apparently the x86's FPU (the x87) registers are not saved during a context switch in XP64... this means that you can't use the crappy x86 FPU anymore!!! It took 20 years, but finally they managed to get rid of that peice of junk :-D
You mean a task context switch? How frequent is that compared to the number of instructions executed between switches? I know the x86 FPU was a {bleep} to code for properly, but register save on context switch is not that big hit. On any x86 from the last 10 years the chances that the registers weren't just moved to/from L1 cache are almost nil.
So now, instead of backing up a handful of x86 FPU registers when a task switch occurs, you instead to back up the vector units register file? These units are far bigger than the old FPU register file - how does that make it faster?
My Bad phrasing... The FPU regs are not saved, but the SSE regs are, so there is no real speed increase there at all.
This also means that the MMX and 3DNow! instruction sets no longer work.
In future all Floating point work is to be done by the Vector units, SSE and SSE2 :-)
This is good news all around!!! This also explains why we are seeing speed ups in 64bit version of windows when running 64bit apps.
Buh... surely FPU code designed for sequential execution is not going to run faster in the vector unit, just becasue it is a vector unit.
The SSE instruction set has been designed to allow better branch prediction and pipelining etc... C compilers are able to pump out SSE code that runs faster than it's x87 equivilent... if there is no x87 on XP64 all fp operations are going to run faster, as all XP64 systems have SSE, and no x87 code is needed.
-
Wayne wrote:
Forgive me. I don't keep up with Windows a lot, but I didn't know the 64-bit version of Windows was even publicly available.
Wayne
The beta is free to download for all from microsoft.com.
See here (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx) to get your own copy. :-D
It times out after a year.
-
My only concern is that the cost of buying the final finished product - the current XP pro edition is something like £150 atm and was well over £200 when it first came out, but that said, I am very curious about what a difference in performance this would have over win2k pro.
-
the_leander wrote:
My only concern is that the cost of buying the final finished product - the current XP pro edition is something like £150 atm and was well over £200 when it first came out, but that said, I am very curious about what a difference in performance this would have over win2k pro.
I'm sure there will be solutions! :-D
-
Piracy is bad, mmkay? :sealed:
-
I believe he was pointing to an official microsoft site for the beta download. I found it on my own actually, but thanks for the link. I just need to figure out how to buy an A64 and mobo..
Wayne
-
Wayne wrote:
I believe he was pointing to an official microsoft site for the beta download. I found it on my own actually, but thanks for the link. I just need to figure out how to buy an A64 and mobo..
Wayne
I though the usual approach was to walk into a shop and ask for one... But I'm not sure how you do it over there :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
I though the usual approach was to walk into a shop and ask for one...
I tried that but they didn't have a clue what I was talking about.
Still, it was a greengrocers....
-
arf!
-
I though the usual approach was to walk into a shop and ask for one...
When one has money, I'm absolutely sure that's the case. I however haven't any so unless I want to run the gauntlet and end up "in the pokey" as it were, my conquest for 64 bits will simply have to wait.
On the bright side, buying one will be cheaper in the future. On the not-so-bright side, there will always be a faster one available later to tempt me. :)
Wayne
-
@ Wayne
You go to a greengrocers for your computer parts? Nice!
America must be a strange and wonderful place indeed, where sellers of fruit and veg also sell AMD64 computers ;-)
-
That was clearly my mistake, then. I forgot I was in the UK :-(
Happens quite a lot these days. Must be that new Campbell's Soup I bought recently...
-
Karlos wrote:
That was clearly my mistake, then. I forgot I was in the UK :-(
Happens quite a lot these days. Must be that new Campbell's Soup I bought recently...
:lol:
-
Karlos wrote:
That was clearly my mistake, then. I forgot I was in the UK :-(
Happens quite a lot these days. Must be that new Campbell's Soup I bought recently...
It's amazing what you can buy in those traditional Asian grocers these days isn't it! ;-)
-
mdma wrote:
Karlos wrote:
That was clearly my mistake, then. I forgot I was in the UK :-(
Happens quite a lot these days. Must be that new Campbell's Soup I bought recently...
It's amazing what you can buy in those traditional Asian grocers these days isn't it! ;-)
I can hear it now:
"I'll have a tin of baked beans, a packet of condoms (ribbed, for her pleasure!;-)), a toilet plunger and an nForce4, dual channel, socket 939 Athlon64 motherboard n'processor please... oh and some toilet roll, cheers"
-
The guy at my local cash'n'carry (great places for fresh fruit/veg/meat/anything you need for a good curry etc.) has the most delightful greeting.
It goes "Hello Please!"
-
Karlos wrote:
The guy at my local cash'n'carry (great places for fresh fruit/veg/meat/anything you need for a good curry etc.) has the most delightful greeting.
It goes "Hello Please!"
:lol:
-
Karlos wrote:
The guy at my local cash'n'carry (great places for fresh fruit/veg/meat/anything you need for a good curry etc.) has the most delightful greeting.
It goes "Hello Please!"
Sounds like he might be related to the bloke who runs my local offy. His post transactional phrase is always "Thankyou please" :-D
-
It's a good thing - the bloke at the shop never fails to make me smile with that one :-)
-
You should visit my local chip shop, run by a nice couple from the far east..
"Cod an` chips twice please"
"You wan rat ?"
"Nope, just cod please"
"No, you wan open or rat!"
"Er, wrapped thanks.."
"Fuk?"
"Huh?"
"You wan wooden fuk?"
I`m just glad I didn`t ask for a coke...
-
And as soon as you leave, they turn to each others and say in the finest oxford english
"So how long do you think we can keep up this pretense tarquin?"
"I don't know old bean, but at least we're paying off that abomidable student loan".
:lol:
-
".. a packet of condoms (ribbed, for her pleasure!)..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
No ways, mate. I turn that inside out and it's ribbed for MY pleasure :-P
-
X-ray wrote:
".. a packet of condoms (ribbed, for her pleasure!)..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
No ways, mate. I turn that inside out and it's ribbed for MY pleasure :-P
Have you ever seen the Barcode on a Condom?
No?
You probably haven't unrolled it far enough then... :-P
-
Oki... I've been using Windows x64 exclusivly for 2 days... I can't migrate from XP yet as Edirol haven't released any 64bit drivers for my FA-101... but, and I know it's just psychological, I really feels like I'm not using a PC. It just feels like a new platform, I think I've been standing too near the microwave :-o
-
bloodline wrote:
Oki... I've been using Windows x64 exclusivly for 2 days... I can't migrate from XP yet as Edirol haven't released any 64bit drivers for my FA-101... but, and I know it's just psychological, I really feels like I'm not using a PC. It just feels like a new platform, I think I've been standing too near the microwave :-o
Well, try SUSE 9.2 amd64 version then, it's even more responsive! :-o
Get the DVD ISO here (http://ftp://ftp.belnet.be/linux/suse/suse/x86_64/9.2/iso/SUSE-Linux-9.2-FTP-DVD.iso)
-
mdma wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Oki... I've been using Windows x64 exclusivly for 2 days... I can't migrate from XP yet as Edirol haven't released any 64bit drivers for my FA-101... but, and I know it's just psychological, I really feels like I'm not using a PC. It just feels like a new platform, I think I've been standing too near the microwave :-o
Well, try SUSE 9.2 amd64 version then, it's even more responsive! :-o
Get the DVD ISO here (http://ftp://ftp.belnet.be/linux/suse/suse/x86_64/9.2/iso/SUSE-Linux-9.2-FTP-DVD.iso)
Yup, it's time to upgrade my SuSE 9.1 partition... Though really I need a new hard drive... hmmmm 250gig S-ATA would be nice....
-
bloodline wrote:
I think I've been standing too near the microwave :-o
Look on the bright side... at least you won`t be able to get your sock pregnant now.. :-D
-
Doobrey wrote:
bloodline wrote:
I think I've been standing too near the microwave :-o
Look on the bright side... at least you won`t be able to get your sock pregnant now.. :-D
I'm not sure I ever considered that as a particularly great risk... but cheers for the heads up there :-D