Opteron 64 or 32 bit?

[Skinner.Daddy]

Hi,

I have an Opteron 146 Skt939). I was asked by a friend if it was 32 or 64bit. I didn't know, is it 32 or 64?

What would the differences be between the 32 and 64 bit Operating systems (namely XP Pro and Vista RC1)?

Thanks guys

 

[Defcon5]

its 64 bit, dunno about the os part

 

[marms]

The driver support for the 64bit versions of windows isn't that great at the minute, when vista's released that might change if the oem's start shipping the computers with the 64bit operating system installed, there's no real benefit now though.

 

[Cob]

Well 64bit XP is based on 64bit Server 2003 and is a far better OS than 32bit XP. It's faster and a lot more stable. Most ppl that have tried it say they wouldn't go back to 32bit XP (myself included). Most of the driver problems have been sorted out, tho some hardware makers have been dragging their heals.

And as for x64 Vista, it isn't much different from x86 Vista. It still has a lot of driver issues atm, but that's mostly because it's still in beta (ok it's at RC2 stage, but they're still working hard on it). Microsoft have said that anybody making drivers for the final version of x86 Vista also have to write drivers for x64 Vista.

 

[FatRakoon]

Well 64bit XP is based on 64bit Server 2003 and is a far better OS than 32bit XP. It's faster and a lot more stable. Most ppl that have tried it say they wouldn't go back to 32bit XP (myself included). Most of the driver problems have been sorted out, tho some hardware makers have been dragging their heals.

And as for x64 Vista, it isn't much different from x86 Vista. It still has a lot of driver issues atm, but that's mostly because it's still in beta (ok it's at RC2 stage, but they're still working hard on it). Microsoft have said that anybody making drivers for the final version of x86 Vista also have to write drivers for x64 Vista.

Not specifically true.

There is no set agreement on the speed issues.

When I first tried it, I tried the Download version, and found it was much quicker. When I bought the proper job, I saw no improvement on speed over XP32 at all. Some have an increase and some actually have a speed loss over XP32.

Its not more stable at all. Its exactly the same. Many many people have PCs that simply dont crash... How can you rate anything as more stable than that?

As for saying that most people wouldnt go back, if you look through the posts regarding it, you will see that in many cases, it was an upgarde so they could not go back more than would not, and you will also find that nearly everyone else has said that XP64 is a waste of time.

Driver support is getting better. TV Cards, Scanners, are the worst hardware for me to use, but pretty much all my software runs just fine on it. he only exception I have, is apps that need to run at system startup... They dont. and some system tools like Anti-viruses etc often need 64Bit versions of themselves, but other than that, its a good OS. I am using it on this PC here right now and its just fine.

 

[mrthingyx]

An Opteron - as with all "64-bit CPUs" (although I'm not sure about Conroe, but the same logic holds) - is in fact a 32-bit CPU with 64-bit extensions tacked onto it.

Which is why they will happily run 32-bit code all day long and do so very well, but why they can also make use of 64-bit coding.

What is the difference between XP Pro and Vista in terms of their operation? Probably not very much. Although Vista will probably have vastly improved, more efficient and effective functional algorithms and be faster on paper, its actual day-to-day user experience will probably be little different. Why? Because the GUI is much more intensive, said processing functions require that much more processor power, etc.; i.e. the software will take advantage of the extra power bequeathed to it (XP ran like a dog on most systems six years ago) and effectively neuter it.

 

[Skinner.Daddy]

Thanks Guys

God it's been awhile since I was in here

 

[Corasik]

An Opteron - as with all "64-bit CPUs" (although I'm not sure about Conroe, but the same logic holds) - is in fact a 32-bit CPU with 64-bit extensions tacked onto it.

Which is why they will happily run 32-bit code all day long and do so very well, but why they can also make use of 64-bit coding.

All 64bit CPUs'? Thats a bit of a generalisation isnt it?

Mips R4000's and DEC Alphas both 64bit workstation CPU's
Merced, true IA64 processor, used software be somewhat 32bit compatible.
UltraSparc, true 64 bit risc processor, but still able to run 32bit Sparc code natively without emulation.

Opteron was a 64bit ground up redesign of K7
Conroe a full 64bit ground up redesign of Pentium 3.

Even the humble EM64 Pentium 4's were a considerable redesign based on Northwood, just not a very efficient one.

You could say that ALL 80X86 processors are 16bit processors, as they are still 100% hardware compatible with the original 16bit 8086, you can still run MSDOS 3.2 on them, and the chips will run in 'Real Mode'

32bit was 'Just and extension, known as 386 enhanced mode'

Opteron, Core 2 Duo, and even the 64bit P4's are 'Native' 64bit processors as they have 64bit registers, a 64 bit wide memory bus, and can execute 64bit instructions in a single clock cycle. If you can think of any other definition that prevents these CPUs being considered true 64bit designs, then I would like to know

The true reason that the X86 architechture scales so well and easily migrates from 16bit, to 32bit, to 64bit, is because its reasonably well designed from the outset, and it uses 'modes' to switch between different ways of operation.

Currently X86 Architecture includes
Real mode, pretty much a hardware emulation of 8086
Protected mode, 16bit with a better memory management, ie 80286 mode
32 bit Protected mode, otherwise known as 386 Enhanced mode
64 bit long mode, also known as AMD64, x86-64 and EM64T

There is also a mode called Virtual mode, but its pretty useless these days as all it provides is virtual 16bit 8086's all within their own protected environment.