64-bit or not?
15 Nov 2008 8:09:00 UTC
Topic 194032
(moderation:
Hey!
I just found out that my processor is 64-bit, at least, I think. No clue why I was under the impression that it was not.
This is my processor type:
15/11/2008 09:02:50||Processor: 2 GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9300 @ 2.50GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6]
According to CPU-Z it supports 64-bit. So I thought it would be handy to install the 64-bit boinc client, but it said my processor type wasn't supported. Got me wondering if it is 64-bit now or not. Also I'm not sure if my Windows Vista is 64-bit version, I think not, but I don't understand why they'd put a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit system. When I run winver it doesn't say anything about the type of OS (32-bit or 64-bit).
Anyone got a clue if my system is 64-bit or not? And also if it is, but has the wrong OS, would it be good for crunching to switch to 64-bit? For Einstein mainly, but maybe for other projects too?
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: It's obviously about this system: http://einsteinathome.org/host/1615446
EDIT 2: From reading that page I assume my Windows version is 32-bit since it says x86?
64-bit or not?
)
some one else can probably better answer this, but i think this thread will be insightfull Message from server: platform 'windows_x86_64' not found
seeing without seeing is something the blind learn to do, and seeing beyond vision can be a gift.
RE: Anyone got a clue if my
)
There are 3 things that need to align in order to benefit from 64-bit computing:
* OS also needs to be 64-bit one. I don't know about Vista, but Windows 2003 server says it's x64 if it's 64-bit (see
this host). Yours doesn't so I guess your Vista is 32-bit
* application needs to be 64-bit. ATM there are projects that have 64-bit app, but majority (including EAH) serves 32-bit app instead of 64-bit one.
As to the benefits of 64-bit computing: it really depends. If computing is mostly integer with big numbers, then it's obvious that 64-bit would benefit. If computing is mostly real numbers (Floating Point) then it depends on coding itself. The most conservative way is to use god ol' FP arithmeitcs that is available on all intel processors since 80486 (except for SX variant) and compatibles. Faster would be to use MMX/SSE SIMD instructions, but these have low precision. Better way would be to use SSE2/SSE3/SSSE3/SSE4 SIMD instructions, but those are realtively new and not present on all of them (eg. recent Intel processors have SSSE3/SSE4 while AMD feature SSE3). Precision is good though.
Any of FP variants above don't make any difference when they are run under 32 or 64-bit environment: neither regarding speed nor precision. What it does make difference is that CPU support for 64-bit computing largely correlates to avaialbility of at least SSE2 instruction set. Which means that if project developers create 64-bit apps, they can rely on availability of SSE2 instructions. Some of projects create applications that combine different execution paths (for different instruction sets mentioned before) and thus benefit from newer CPUs even when in 32-bit mode. Some projects don't and if those projects offer 64-bit apps, then there might be speed gains in 64-bit computing.
Bernd with help of some other great coders has developed a SSE2 varsion of code that runs as 32-bit app. Windows version is in beta testing while Linux variant is in production already for a while.
To conclude: decision about changing your Vista with 64-bit one needs to base on information about projects you want to run and how good their 64-bit apps perform compared to their 32-bit counterparts. It also depends on what kind of usage computer gets apart from running BOINC. Sometimes you're (still) better off running 32-bit OS.
Metod ...
Although I have a 64 bit CPU
)
Although I have a 64 bit CPU I am running a 32 bit Linux version on it. The reason? Most BOINC apps and most Mplayer plugins are 32 bit only. So, although I could download a 64 bit Linux distro, I am still using a 32 bit version.
Tullio
RE: Although I have a 64
)
If you make sure the IA32 libraries are installed on your Linux-64 system, you can run BOTH 32 AND 64-bit programs. The major consideration would be HW drivers that run under 64-bit. The video driver on my WinXP-64 system sucks big time, but my Linux box doesn't have any problems because all it does is sit and crunch.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
RE: Hey! I just found out
)
Even with 64-bit processors, most new computers come with the 32-bit version of Windows pre-installed. Most likely, you're running the 32-bit version.
I'm not sure why that is, unless Microsoft is still having compatibility problems with the 64-bit versions.
RE: RE: Although I have a
)
I have 64-bit Ubuntu running on one of my machines. After I installed the ia32 libraries, I could get 32-bit programs running like a champ.
Later, I found out that the 64-bit version of openSUSE 11 comes with ia32 libraries built-in, so it's even easier to deal with.
Thanks for the information
)
Thanks for the information everyone.
I'm a bit hesitant to install 64-bit Windows, though I'd really like to roll back to XP. I'm just afraid of driver problems etc...
RE: Thanks for the
)
XP Pro-32 works fine on a 64-bit system--just doesn't take advantage of the 64-bit features. Access to SSE2 and above is still usable depending on what the CPU has in it (doesn't require a 64-bit OS).
XP Pro-64 works fine too for everything I'm doing (video capture/editing mostly), but I don't do any gaming on it. I do have occasional glitches in the video driver, but rarely fatal.
Ubuntu-64 with the IA32 libs installed is perfect for a crunch-only box, although there are probably distros available that are more optimized for crunching.
Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.
RE: RE: Thanks for the
)
Yea I was thinking of installing XP Pro-64. I only do the standard computer tasks on it anyway (Word, MSN, Internet, etc.) since it's a laptop ^^
If your system is capable of
)
If your system is capable of Vista and is 64-bit compatible, why not run Vista x64? Most OEM installs of Vista are 32-bit, but this isn't any fault of Microsoft.
It's important to understand where the real problem with Vista lies - drivers. Microsoft has done all it can to promote stable, reliable drivers but there's only so much they can do. Since the release of Vista, over 80% of Vista crashes (i.e. BSOD) have been the result of nVidia drivers. I'm currently running Vista x64 on two systems and I've had no troubles with stability, programs, or crashes. Mind you, these have been home-built computers with quality hardware in mind.
I've also had the unfortunate incident of trying to install Vista x64 on a Toshiba laptop that didn't have the proper drivers. Toshiba's only reply is that they don't support 64-bit on that particular model (even though there's no good reason why it wouldn't work).
Long story short - I'd recommend Vista x64. I found it to be far better than XP x64, and you'll have no trouble running both 32-bit and 64-bit apps (including Power Apps). The list of software that doesn't work on Vista is very small - see here. That being said, make sure you can get the drivers for it BEFORE you format. Vista is a significant improvement over XP IMO.