Is WinXP Pro 64-Bit Edition a True 64-Bit OS?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Santosh Kumar, Jun 3, 2005.

  1. Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and Opteron processors?

    Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit processors?

    Santosh Kumar
     
    Santosh Kumar, Jun 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Santosh Kumar

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Intel was lying to you.

    Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a 64 bit OS that will use the registers allocated to 64 bit, but will also run in legacy mode, running 32 bit software in 32 bit WOW mode.

    There are significant differences between the Intel EM64T and AMD Athlon 64 processors.

    You can research it yourself, but to make a long story short, AMD is currently far ahead of Intel in the 64 bit processor game. Intel still hobbles their EM64T processors to either a 533 or 800 MHz front side bus, as opposed to AMd which puts the memory controller on the processor chip and uses Hypertransport to handle communications between the processor and the AGP/RAM/PCI-E busses. This Hypertransport is a high-speed parallel communications protocol that is nominally 2GHz, much faster than anything Intel has to offer. Intel also insisted on including the worthless Hyperthreading on their EM64T chips. In everyday usage, Hyperthreading is a waste.

    I suggest you do a little on-line research, and you will see that clearly AMD is the best choice.

    NOTE: To all the whining Intel Fanboys - - don't even bother posting your replies, as they will be ignored. I used to only buy Intel procs, until they stopped being a leader and an innovator in the field. My AMD Athlon64 based computers run rings around anything Intel makes, and that is OOB.

    Bobby


    "Santosh Kumar" <> wrote in message news:%23983qP$...
    Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and Opteron processors?

    Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit processors?

    Santosh Kumar
     
    NoNoBadDog!, Jun 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Yes, full 64-bit registers. About the only thing that you could complain
    about is that at this point it doesn't use a full 64-bits of address space
    (do the math, that would be well beyond the 16 Terrabytes that it does use.)
    And that's not likely to be a limitation for a while yet.

    I've done quite a bit of research on this, including talking to people with
    access to future versions of chips from both companies. Each processor has
    some places where it's better, some where it's worse. Personally, I really
    like the NUMA architecture that you get in a multi-Opteron environment
    because of the HyperConnect. But then Intel seems to be able to squeeze a
    good deal more cache directly on the chip.


    --
    Charlie.

    Santosh Kumar wrote:
    > Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true
    > 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for
    > computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and
    > Opteron processors?
    >
    > Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in
    > that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel
    > offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the
    > AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit
    > processors?
    >
    > Santosh Kumar
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jun 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Its a full 64bit OS. Not sure who you spoke to at Intel but they are wrong.
     
    Joseph Conway [MSFT], Jun 3, 2005
    #4
  5. The people I spoke to at Intel were at Pre-Sales Technical Support.

    They told me that only "Longhorn" (the next version of Windows) will be the true 64-bit OS with true 64-bit processing.

    And when I called Microsoft Tech Support, even they didn't seem to know very much. Couple of the Microsoft Tech Support Reps (who I assume didn't know very much) seemed to agree with Intel... but probably because they simply did not know.

    It's too bad that misinformation is not illegal (or enforced if it is)....

    Santosh Kumar

    ""Joseph Conway [MSFT]"" <> wrote in message news:...
    Its a full 64bit OS. Not sure who you spoke to at Intel but they are wrong.

    "NoNoBadDog!" <no_bsledge@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message news:uLr%23Cj$...
    Intel was lying to you.

    Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a 64 bit OS that will use the registers allocated to 64 bit, but will also run in legacy mode, running 32 bit software in 32 bit WOW mode.

    There are significant differences between the Intel EM64T and AMD Athlon 64 processors.

    You can research it yourself, but to make a long story short, AMD is currently far ahead of Intel in the 64 bit processor game. Intel still hobbles their EM64T processors to either a 533 or 800 MHz front side bus, as opposed to AMd which puts the memory controller on the processor chip and uses Hypertransport to handle communications between the processor and the AGP/RAM/PCI-E busses. This Hypertransport is a high-speed parallel communications protocol that is nominally 2GHz, much faster than anything Intel has to offer. Intel also insisted on including the worthless Hyperthreading on their EM64T chips. In everyday usage, Hyperthreading is a waste.

    I suggest you do a little on-line research, and you will see that clearly AMD is the best choice.

    NOTE: To all the whining Intel Fanboys - - don't even bother posting your replies, as they will be ignored. I used to only buy Intel procs, until they stopped being a leader and an innovator in the field. My AMD Athlon64 based computers run rings around anything Intel makes, and that is OOB.

    Bobby


    "Santosh Kumar" <> wrote in message news:%23983qP$...
    Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and Opteron processors?

    Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit processors?

    Santosh Kumar
     
    Santosh Kumar, Jun 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Santosh Kumar

    Yves Leclerc Guest

    Intel's 64 bit chips are the ones "emulating" 64 bit processors. AMD 64s when using Windows XP 64bit, is the true 64bit OS setup.


    "Santosh Kumar" <> wrote in message news:%23983qP$...
    Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and Opteron processors?

    Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit processors?

    Santosh Kumar
     
    Yves Leclerc, Jun 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Santosh Kumar

    Paul Smith Guest

    "Santosh Kumar" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > They told me that only "Longhorn" (the next version of Windows) will be
    > the true 64-bit OS with true 64-bit
    > processing.


    > And when I called Microsoft Tech Support, even they didn't seem to know
    > very much. Couple of the
    > Microsoft Tech Support Reps (who I assume didn't know very much) seemed to
    > agree with Intel... but
    > probably because they simply did not know.


    I don't believe any of them seem to realise that Microsoft have just shipped
    x64 Edition.

    I hope Microsoft didn't just spend all that time redeveloping a 32-bit OS.
    :cool: Hey if it was a 32-bit OS all our drivers would still be working. ;-)

    --
    Paul Smith,
    Yeovil, UK.
    http://www.windowsresource.net/

    *Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
     
    Paul Smith, Jun 3, 2005
    #7
  8. Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Jun 3, 2005
    #8
  9. I totally agree! my AMD ATHLON 64 is swish swish swish! click and the program
    comes out in a flash! really fast. When i went to an intel powered pc wow, i
    got impatient! AMD was relaly smart to put the memory controller on the chip,
    saves lots of time i guess! now i really wonder how well windows 64bit will
    do with me!

    "NoNoBadDog!" wrote:

    > Intel was lying to you.
    >
    > Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a 64 bit OS that will use the registers allocated to 64 bit, but will also run in legacy mode, running 32 bit software in 32 bit WOW mode.
    >
    > There are significant differences between the Intel EM64T and AMD Athlon 64 processors.
    >
    > You can research it yourself, but to make a long story short, AMD is currently far ahead of Intel in the 64 bit processor game. Intel still hobbles their EM64T processors to either a 533 or 800 MHz front side bus, as opposed to AMd which puts the memory controller on the processor chip and uses Hypertransport to handle communications between the processor and the AGP/RAM/PCI-E busses. This Hypertransport is a high-speed parallel communications protocol that is nominally 2GHz, much faster than anything Intel has to offer. Intel also insisted on including the worthless Hyperthreading on their EM64T chips. In everyday usage, Hyperthreading is a waste.
    >
    > I suggest you do a little on-line research, and you will see that clearly AMD is the best choice.
    >
    > NOTE: To all the whining Intel Fanboys - - don't even bother posting your replies, as they will be ignored. I used to only buy Intel procs, until they stopped being a leader and an innovator in the field. My AMD Athlon64 based computers run rings around anything Intel makes, and that is OOB.
    >
    > Bobby
    >
    >
    > "Santosh Kumar" <> wrote in message news:%23983qP$...
    > Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and Opteron processors?
    >
    > Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit processors?
    >
    > Santosh Kumar
     
    =?Utf-8?B?QWFyb25fUEg=?=, Jun 3, 2005
    #9
  10. x64 OS contain a bunch of 32-bit binaries and even some 16-bit (showing
    MS-DOS 16 in the version sig. verifier tool), yet I suspect what was most
    critical for 64-bit significance was ported by RTM.
    As far as IA64 (Itanium), do a find "zzzz" 5GB.txt in a 5GB file, and then
    do the same under x64, just to see who has the true 64-bit OS...
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXM=?=, Jun 3, 2005
    #10
  11. Santosh Kumar

    James Park Guest

    I'm seeing this being said in a lot of places. I've also read that AMD isn't
    a "real" (whatever that means) 64-bit processor either. I've yet to read
    anything from a credible source. The closest thing I've seen to one is a
    Windows Server guy saying that AMD's implementation was ahead of Intel's
    (though he didn't go into specifics). If anybody could point me to
    definitive read, that'd be great.

    "Yves Leclerc" <> wrote in message...
    > Intel's 64 bit chips are the ones "emulating" 64 bit processors. AMD 64s
    > when using Windows XP 64bit, is the true 64bit OS setup.
     
    James Park, Jun 3, 2005
    #11
  12. Santosh,

    Do some research on a function called "thunking", It was originally
    developed by Microsoft to allow 32 bit programs to function correctly with
    some of the 16 bit interfaces for Windows 95. (Actually WfW 3.11 was the
    first to use it).

    Intel may be referring to the fact that several functions in x64 use
    thunking and work within the WOW64 to complete their actions.

    Several of the libraries used on my ATI AIW Radeon 9600 on x64 are thunked.

    This may be why Intel is saying its not a "true" 64 bit OS as compared to
    Solaris, Linux64 or AIX.

    MS took alot of static when they called Win95 a 32 bit OS, when actually
    only about 30 to 40 percent of it was actually functioning at a 32 bit level.
    Win98 it moved up farther and WinME even more. How much thunking is actually
    required on x64 to function normally has not been tested.


    "Santosh Kumar" wrote:

    > Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and Opteron processors?
    >
    > Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit processors?
    >
    > Santosh Kumar
     
    =?Utf-8?B?RWR3YWxlbmk=?=, Jun 4, 2005
    #12
  13. Santosh Kumar

    Paul Nutt Guest

    "Aaron_PH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I totally agree! my AMD ATHLON 64 is swish swish swish!


    Not that there's anything wrong with that! ;)
     
    Paul Nutt, Jun 4, 2005
    #13
  14. I have a NUMA question for you. There is a disagreement here over whether the
    32bit version of XP Pro is NUMA aware. Or is it just the 64bit version? Thanx!
    --
    Derrill Perrier
    Calgary Canada ||+||


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

    > Yes, full 64-bit registers. About the only thing that you could complain
    > about is that at this point it doesn't use a full 64-bits of address space
    > (do the math, that would be well beyond the 16 Terrabytes that it does use.)
    > And that's not likely to be a limitation for a while yet.
    >
    > I've done quite a bit of research on this, including talking to people with
    > access to future versions of chips from both companies. Each processor has
    > some places where it's better, some where it's worse. Personally, I really
    > like the NUMA architecture that you get in a multi-Opteron environment
    > because of the HyperConnect. But then Intel seems to be able to squeeze a
    > good deal more cache directly on the chip.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    >
    > Santosh Kumar wrote:
    > > Does Microsoft Windows XP Professional 64-Bit edtion support true
    > > 64-Bit processing (i.e. utilizing the full 64-bit CPU registers for
    > > computiations) in hardware as avaialable with the AMD Athlon64 and
    > > Opteron processors?
    > >
    > > Or (as alleged by Intel to me over the phone) not a true 64-Bit OS in
    > > that it only supports 64-bit memory extensions (i.e. what Intel
    > > offers with their EM64T) but treats a 64-Bit processor such as the
    > > AMD Athlon64 (or even the Intel Itanaium / Intanium 2) as 32-bit
    > > processors?
    > >
    > > Santosh Kumar

    >
    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?dmlydHVhbCBEZXJyaWxs?=, Jun 15, 2005
    #14
  15. Santosh Kumar

    RCSea Guest

    I got that joke, even if no one else did.

    :)


    "Paul Nutt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Aaron_PH" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I totally agree! my AMD ATHLON 64 is swish swish swish!

    >
    > Not that there's anything wrong with that! ;)
    >
    >
     
    RCSea, Jul 31, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ocbwilg
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    788
    ocbwilg
    May 10, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?V2VyZXdvbGY=?=

    DirectX 9.0c in WinXP Pro 64-Bit Edition

    =?Utf-8?B?V2VyZXdvbGY=?=, Aug 28, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,147
  3. Man-wai Chang

    Is 64-bit WinXP faster than 32-bit WinXP?

    Man-wai Chang, Apr 22, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    838
    Man-wai Chang
    Apr 23, 2006
  4. Alpha
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    774
    Fermin Rodriguez
    Feb 2, 2009
  5. abhijit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    510
    abhijit
    Jan 18, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page