Be careful jumping to 64 Bit

A few months ago, I decided that it was time for me to upgrade my desktop PC. Unfortunately, my knowledge of all-things-hardware has been reduced to a simple rule: if the numbers are higher, it must be faster and better.

Don't get me wrong, I used to know all the ins-and-outs. I was down with SIMMs, DDIMS, EDO, busses, this, that -- but they all seem to have gone the way of the telegraph. No matter, the stuff now makes much more sense -- you got your 5400, 7200, and 10000 RPM hard drives with 66, 100, 133, etc transfer rates. PC100, 133, 150 and 2400, 2600, 3200 RAM modules. The bigger, the better.

So naturally, I picked up a AMD 3000 64Bit CPU and an ECS 755-A Motherboard. That's right, twice as many bits as my old processor. I popped the new components in and fired 'er up, all excited to be cruizin' in 64.

Just imagine my disappointment when my upgrade didn't end up doubling my speed. In fact, it didn't even produce make that big a difference from my old AMD 2400 processor. But then I actually thought about it -- software needs to be specially written to utilize the double-wide instructions. That's probably what Windows XP 64 Bit would come in.

Finally, just this past weekend, I popped in a new SATA hard drive (it had bigger numbers, so it must be better) and installed the RC1 of XP 64 Bit. And ooooh boy -- it sure did fly. The context (right-click) menus showed up instantly (unlike on the 32 bit OS). Of course, it may have something to do with the fact that no software was installed ... so I thought I'd correct that and install some software.

And that's where I gave up. All of my software exists as ISO images on a network fileshare. I mount them as virtual CD drives and just go from there (you would be amazed how insanely fast VS.NET installs that way). Because drivers need to be specially written to operate on Windows 64, none of the virtual CD (D-Tools, ImageDrive, or even the MS one). Sure, I could go to the bookshelf and get the physical CD ... but if I'm already having trouble at this point, I'm not sure if it's worth learning what else won't work down the line.

So, if you're considering upgrading to 64 bit ... don't do what I did ... think about it first ;-).

Published Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:04 PM by Alex Papadimoulis

Comments

Thursday, January 20, 2005 4:46 PM by Gabe Halsmer

# re: Be careful jumping to 64 Bit


An AMD fx57 3000+ vs. an Athlon 2400+? I imagine the CPU power has doubled, even in 32-bit mode. But that's just the CPU power. I think you noticed a speed increase when you upgraded to a 7,2000 rpm SATA hard-drive. The Athlon 2400+ was probably more then enough speed for the apps you run, so more CPU power wasn't noticed. But you specifically mentioned the right-click context menu...of a folder or drive in windows explorer? Yeah that's definitely hard-drive speed.

Remember boys and girls that CPU speed is measured in nanoseconds, while memory speed is in microseconds. And hard-drive speed is in milliseconds. So if you want to make your PC faster, a hard-drive upgrade can make the most difference in some cases.

BTW, if you want real speed and can afford the price of a small house, get some solid state disks. $130,000 for a 64GB hard-drive that runs at 1.5GB/sec. Wow!
Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:20 PM by Jason

# re: Be careful jumping to 64 Bit

You aren't going to see alot of performance difference from 32 bit to 64bit unless you are using in excess of 4GB of memory or inducing register pressure. The extra performance from Athlon 64 to its predecessors is mostly archicture, things like an on die memory controller..

Good reading:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=1884&p=2
Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:26 PM by Christophe Lauer [MS]

# re: Be careful jumping to 64 Bit

Yep, think about 64-bit in terms of "more resources" and not in terms of "more computing power". More ressources means more memory, which translates in more users per server for Exchange or Terminal Services scenarios, more inbound TCP/IP connections in a Web server scenario, more file handles, and more data in memory for a Database, BI/OLAP scenario.

All this indirectly can finally translate in better performances, but that's not the primary point.

A ton of good information about 64-Bit Windows here:
http://www.microsoft.com/seminar/events/series/msdn64bitwin.mspx
(a dozen of on-demand webcasts)

Regards,
/CL
Thursday, January 20, 2005 6:41 PM by SBC

# re: Be careful jumping to 64 Bit

I too am looking forward to exploring the 64bit .NET world. Have most of the hardware components in place - hopefully soon..
My recent posting about the AMD chip and the WIN OS to go with it -
http://weblogs.asp.net/sbchatterjee/archive/2004/12/22/330010.aspx
Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:53 AM by Mr. Ed

# re: Be careful jumping to 64 Bit

I recently upgraded several systems to Athlon64. What's the absolute best part of going to Athlon64? Cool 'N Quiet. Less clock => less heat => less fan => less noise. After tons of heat problems with Athlon XP chips, I'm a happy camper now.

# Christophe Lauer, Blog Edition : Une approche plutôt naïve des plates-formes 64 Bits...

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)