|
|
giginger
from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2004-03-14 19:01 [#01107998]
Points: 26326 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
Could be good...
|
|
horsefactory
from 💠 (United Kingdom) on 2004-03-14 20:14 [#01108099]
Points: 14867 Status: Regular
|
|
AMD4LYFE
|
|
giginger
from Milky Beans (United Kingdom) on 2004-03-14 20:17 [#01108108]
Points: 26326 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
When I get back to the UK I'll be building a new PC and that'll have an AMD :)
|
|
chaosmachine
from Ottawa (Canada) on 2004-03-14 23:43 [#01108185]
Points: 2330 Status: Lurker
|
|
*yawn*
64-bit computing doesn't really excite me. yet.
|
|
mappatazee
from ¨y¨z¨| (Burkina Faso) on 2004-03-14 23:44 [#01108187]
Points: 14294 Status: Lurker
|
|
AMD led on this one. give it a few years, more apps need to be written in 64 bits to get the advantage
|
|
sneakattack
on 2004-03-15 00:29 [#01108221]
Points: 6049 Status: Lurker | Followup to giginger: #01107998
|
|
To elaborate, not only is intel using an instruction set based off of AMD's, but also they aren't giving any credit. Well at least the good news is that much code built for the amd64 extensions won't need much revision.
I'm writing some scientific stuff right now which will benefit from this, but one thing I don't see people mentioning is that since operations are optimized for word size (uh, redundant comment), many things will take more memory to perform the same operation (for instance loop counters).
Basically it's good news for science people, and server guys panicking about memory limits. Other than that it is slightly hyped.. the again most things are evolutionary improvements, and it's not like this is a regression or anything.
|
|
elusive
from detroit (United States) on 2004-03-15 08:00 [#01108632]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag
|
|
someones gotto make the first leap.
|
|
Messageboard index
|