A 64-bit processor - who cares? So far, the AMD Athlon64 seems to have inspired about as much excitement as a stripper in a graveyard. There hasn’t been a processor this different in home computing since the 386, yet people are more interested in DVD writers and 6 in 1 media card readers. People! PEOPLE!! 64-bit processing in your PC!
As a brief overview, AMD have made two types of chip; the Athlon64 (for home
users) and the Athlon Opteron (for servers and powerful workstations). Most PC processors made by Intel and AMD are 32-bit processors, meaning that a
total of 4GB of data can be processed in any one “cycle” of the chip. Processors
handle data as 1’s and 0’s, so to find out how much data, say, a 32-bit
processor will process, we calculate 2 to the power of the bit. In this
case it means 2 to the power of 32. A 64-bit processor sounds like this
should double the data addressed to 8GB, but it doesn’t - in fact, we’re talking
about a total of 18EB (2 to the power of 64; 18 exabytes; 18,000 terabytes;
18,000,000 gigabytes)! Imagine having a processor that can handle this
much data at once - video editing, video decoding/encoding, complex graphics,
file compression, massive databases - everything would be quick, slick, and
stupidly fast.
There have been a couple of 64-bit processor released in the past, notably
the legendary Alpha back in 1992, then the Intel Itanium in 2001. Apple’s
G5 is also a 64-bit processor that is available to buy from any PC shop,
although it currently handles only (!) 8GB.
The fuss about the Athlon64 comes mainly from the fact that 32-bit
applications are handled extremely well despite being a 64-bit chip. Backwards compatibility is always important to the initial success of a new
technology - the manufacturers need people to "buy in" at an early stage whilst
software companies examine how best to use it. At the same time, the
average user will not invest into a technology that only runs a fraction of
current games and applications. The Intel Itanium, a 64-bit processor,
will run 32-bit applications at a slower rate than less powerful 32-bit
processors; AMD have been cautious to avoid this scenario, probably recognising
that the whole of the PC home market will not adapt just to meet the needs of
this new chip.
In essence, the x86 command set is the key to AMD’s hopes. x86 is
similar to a language, used by the processor to communicate with operating
systems. For example, you will see different versions of Linux and Windows
NT for different processors - the different command set/language used by
the processor is the reason why. Other 64-bit processors (namely the
Itanium) handle 32-bit x86 commands by using a translator. This is far
from a perfect solution and is the cause of its poor performance on 32-bit
applications. AMD use two modes, called legacy and long, to run
applications. Legacy mode will make the Athlon64 give out performance
similar to an Athlon XP, using none of the advantages promised with a 64-bit
chip but assuring compatibility of current and past software. Long mode
will unleash the full force of the 64-bit architecture upon the user;
unfortunately, there is nothing to do this yet, although Microsoft and
developers of Linux operating systems have promised something soon. Having
a "cross-over" of new technology running old software will undoubtedly win many
users over, as long as AMD stresses that this compatibility exists; most
consumers are uncomfortable with having new technology if there is the
possibility that support dries up, and at worst are unaware that the Athlon64
actually runs programs such as Windows XP to the same standard as Pentium4s and
AthlonXPs.
Until Microsoft releases their Athlon64 version of Windows, the full
potential of the chip is like a shadow; it is there but you cannot touch
it. I have been fortunate enough to have access to an Athlon64 3200+;
performance (with regards to games and image manipulation) is about as good as
any other high-end system, so you won't be truly amazed immediately. If
you're thinking of spending some wedge on a complete system, it would be wise to
think to the future and buy an Athlon64 system rather than spending the same
amount of money on a high-end (but limited) P4 or AthlonXP. If you're
looking to upgrade your system, it may be wise to wait for now - the chip alone
costs £350.00 at present, and you won't be seeing your money's worth for a few
months.
If you need to take a peek at the Athlon64, take a wander over to www.amd.com and check out their in-depth
articles.
Come on Microsoft, get moving! More news as it happens.
