metadigital Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 That's the only thing, isn't it? " OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Oh, I am sure there is more. Direct X 10 is supposed to be a part of Vista. Hmmm... In any case I will see how it goes soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angshuman Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 So, what's Vista suppose to improve exactly? One thing that I'm really looking forward to is its promised focus on limited user accounts. Personally, I have always used Limited accounts on my Windows machine, and I have never faced any virus or security problems (obviously). However, switching to Admin mode on XP for administrative and installation tasks is a big hassle. It's not as easy as doing a "sudo" on a Linux system. Bulk of the reason for the perceived security vulnerability of Windows platforms is the fact that Limited accounts are inconvenient AND under-advertised to the average user. Several applications flat-out refuse to function under non-Admin mode (Far Cry), and many others bitch and crib (NWN). Therefore, most people end up running their systems as Administrators. Can you imagine running a Linux system exclusively as root? Well, Vista's supposed to fix all that. My understanding is that it will not only make sure all application programs are able to execute with limited privileges, but also provide nice hooks to quickly switch to Admin mode for common administrative tasks (a.k.a. "sudo"). I've also heard that the Terminal/Shell is a lot more feature-rich, unlike the god-awful afterthought-ish Command Prompt that has been a staple of all Windows distributions till date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaguars4ever Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 A fern is what a fern does. I have decided to download the 64bit version since I have a 64 bit processor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I too have a 64-bit processor, Hades. But will any of our software/games run faster even though the source code of said software/games is not coded to take advantage of 64-bit tech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Windows should be more stable in 64bit mode, as it is written in 64bit with multiple threads. Other apps will just run in 32bit mode, until updated 64bit versions are released. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angshuman Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 A fern is what a fern does. I have decided to download the 64bit version since I have a 64 bit processor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I too have a 64-bit processor, Hades. But will any of our software/games run faster even though the source code of said software/games is not coded to take advantage of 64-bit tech? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 even when the software IS coded to take advantage of 64-bit technology it won't necessarily run faster. the primary improvement is resolution in results. if anything, 64-bit will be comparitively slower, actually, since the data bandwidth requirements will immediately double. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Well, the download is complete. Now I need a blank DVD. Um... can anyone lend me the money for one. I'm kind of broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 (edited) even when the software IS coded to take advantage of 64-bit technology it won't necessarily run faster. the primary improvement is resolution in results. if anything, 64-bit will be comparitively slower, actually, since the data bandwidth requirements will immediately double. taks Though things like SIMDs have more bits to perform multple instructions with. The biggest advantage IMO is memory. Edited June 9, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 It is said that Vista will make better use of larger RAM and make good use of Flash RAM. That remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I remember me and Ender bashing Vista because of cruddy OpenGl support, but what game uses openGL now? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anything Carmack related it seems. I know NWN was OpenGL. Though I believe Carmack himself is impressed with the improvements DirectX had made. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The chief reason why Carmack stays with OpenGL is that it is infact multi-platform whereas DirectX is strictly limited to windows systems. This is one of the reasons behind why there will be no Linux version of NWN2. ( and as a graphics whore/artist extraordinaire, I still think the D3 engine is extremely impressive ) DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyCrimson Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I'm still getting used to XPPro. I won't be switching anytime soon...and by that I mean years. But it's nice of Hades to be a guinea pig for the rest of us. If he can find the change for a DVD that is. Look under the couch yet? " “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 It is said that Vista will make better use of larger RAM and make good use of Flash RAM. That remains to be seen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't think programs will every consistently use more than 4 GB of RAM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Don't know much about it to tell the truth. I know how to put stuff in the computer and fiddle around with connections and drivers but the whys and hows are completely above my head and between my knees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 (edited) 32-bits = 2^32 which is roughly 4 billion or 4,000,000,000 unique numbers, which means you can easily jump to 4 billion different bytes in memory. 64-bits = 2^64 which is roughly 18,000,000,000,000,000,000. Assuming we still use bytes as our smallest unit (which I don't think will ever really change), that's about 18 ExaBytes (18 EB) of data that can be addressed in main memory. Edited June 9, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Whoa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Just the thing for latest GPU and PPUs! OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Really? Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Yes! We'll have enough physics processing to CONTROL THE EARTH'S WEATHER! Like in Superman 3, with Richard Prior! OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted June 9, 2006 Author Share Posted June 9, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Errr, there's also no reason why databandwidths would necessarily immediately double. Much of the instructions a CPU deals with doesn't even need to leave the die itself. I'm pretty sure memory already has a 64-bit interface. Or did it go up to 72 with the new DIMMS? The only place I can see there being a cause for a large bandwidth requirement is if everything suddenly needed 64-bit blocks. I imagine that a word of memory will move up to 8 bytes. But not everything is word aligned. Loading in a string will be faster, because it can read in twice as many characters. But you're still going to need to read in the whole string even in current 32-bit systems, so it's not like there's any real bandwidth savings there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angshuman Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Errr, there's also no reason why databandwidths would necessarily immediately double. Much of the instructions a CPU deals with doesn't even need to leave the die itself. I'm pretty sure memory already has a 64-bit interface. Or did it go up to 72 with the new DIMMS? The only place I can see there being a cause for a large bandwidth requirement is if everything suddenly needed 64-bit blocks. I imagine that a word of memory will move up to 8 bytes. But not everything is word aligned. Loading in a string will be faster, because it can read in twice as many characters. But you're still going to need to read in the whole string even in current 32-bit systems, so it's not like there's any real bandwidth savings there. While the application-perceived Virtual Address space is 64 bits, the actual Physical Addresses that go out to DRAMs are 48 bits wide. Data Bandwidth however, is a different issue. Off-chip bandwidth used to be, and still is, 128 bits from the CPU to the DRAM system. This is exactly equal to the block size of the on-chip L2 cache. On-chip, Intel and AMD have different cache configurations. I'm not sure about the bus widths and block sizes used between the cores and caches. Within the cores themselves, different ALUs (Integer, x87, SSE etc.) and their associated bypass networks have different Operand, Result and Bypass bus widths. My guess is that on the newest microarchitectures, the Integer networks are all 64 bits wide, but I'm not sure if this was the case on Intel's first few tacked-on 64-bit implementations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Could you get a link of stuff such as the DRAM interface (wherever you learned about it being 48-bits) This is news to me and I'd like to read up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angshuman Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Doh... slight mixup... In past and current AMD and Intel implementations, Virtual Address is 48 bits wide and Physical is 40 bits. Other integer operations are full 64 bits. Intel's newest implementations (beginning from Yonah and Conroe, I believe), will have a full 64-bit Virtual Address, but the Physical Address will remain 40 bits wide. References: Intel, AMD. I'm pretty sure the off-chip Data bus is 128 bits wide. This and Physical Address width are limited by pin count, something that is not easy to expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 That would explain why some quick looking around had the latest DIMMs at 72-bit, since they have more pins. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now