PDA

View Full Version : Connection speed 32 bit vs 64 bit



MOP
07-30-2005, 11:12 AM
While I was up at 1K at my buddies island I got to play with a brandy new hot computer with 64 bit OS, they have dial up on the island and said that the new computer was much faster on the net then their old one. I said I did not believe that processor or 64 bit made any difference that connection speed was governed by just that connection speed, Liz said that the 64 bit made the difference that it was doulbe the speed of 32 bit. What is the real skinny?

Phil

txtaz
07-30-2005, 11:20 AM
Nope, Dial up is serial. 32, 64, 128 refers to the amount of bits processed on a clock cycle of the CPU not the troughput of a seial port or connection. It's kinda like having a HP600SC in your bayliner. The engine can haul butt, but the bayliner is holding it back.
Wes<<<-----giddy after reading the baby shower thread

MOP
07-30-2005, 02:46 PM
Thanks Wes that is what I was always lead to believe!

Phil

Formula Jr
08-02-2005, 07:43 PM
These days the Bitwidth isn't that important. The way it is setup. And neither is the clock of the CPU. The CPU clock cycles have out run the Bus clock cycles. This is the speed at which the CPU can retrieve and return instructions to and from RAM that isn't in the CPU itself but on the bus.
If your bus clock is running 500 meg/sec, your 2gig/sec CPU is just generating heat 95% of the time.
What would be interesting is if Intel just took a whole wafer and intigrated the ram with the cpu so that the entire thing was just a one giga byte wide set of registers. Now that would be cool. No paging of memory, none of that stuff. The entire programs, including the operating system would be "on" the cpu. And there wouldn't be a fractional clocked bus in the traditional sense.

So nice to not be under "Trade Secrets" contracts anymore.

To be more specific to Phil's question, Its all about the bus speed and the speed of your network connection now. We're buying sports cars and then driving them in stop and go traffic.

lswa
08-09-2005, 01:44 PM
I mostly agree with the above posts, however it is possible that a faster cpu will give you more perceived bandwidth. Much of the cpu time on modern computers is used to deal with virus checking, anti-spyware, firewalls, and anti-adware. Depending on your software you may in fact get faster internet speeds with a faster machine.

txtaz
08-09-2005, 02:22 PM
Iswa welcome to the board. Nice to have another techie around.
Actually both are correct in a sense. Jr, The CPU does more than handle routing, it only deals with 3 of the 7 layers in the stack for communications so pretty much minimal processing. With the advent of independent device electronics, more of the processing power has been handed off to the seperate devices leaving the CPU to crunch numbers and play games. CPU speed is faster than bus speed because the CPU needs to do more than just tranfer bits. The fastest bus is CPU to RAM, then to the peripherials. None the less, it's all faster than a modem, wireless or network connection. So there is the bottle neck.
A Gig of registers??? Damn, remembering 32 is enough for me. I'd hate to see that assembly code. LOL
Cool idea Jr, I have one for you....How about carrying your OS with you and just plug it in when you need something to any box. I'm researching it out and plan on trying it this week.
Wes (always like a good tech discussion)

Formula Jr
08-09-2005, 08:07 PM
Txtaz, this is the wafter idea to a certian degree. The entire envronment is on the "DISK" only in my sense the disk IS the CPU and memory. It just needs an interface of some kind to plug in. A DVD reader would work, but the "disk" wouldn't spin. It would have its own laser and reader in line with the dvd's reader and transmit info back and forth. Its fun to see where the first photonic computers will come from.

The disk as "environment" was tried before in a machine called the Canon "CAT." A Mac like machine
Same idea, just a bit before its time. Too many set resources in rom and it wasn't cross platform.