64-bit PCs and operating systems:
Worth the investment yet? 

In the relative scheme of things, the PC (Personal Computer, not Politically Correct) is a relative newcomer to business and homes, yet look at how much we depend on them. There has always been a race to get bigger, better and faster PC’s with more storage and input devices than anyone would have thought possible. However, there is a difference in being on the cutting edge of technology, and the bleeding edge of it. Where exactly do 64-bit PC’s fit in the computing picture? Allow me to shed some light on the subject. 

History of PC Processors

In the beginning, there was 8086...and since that time CPUs have gone through many changes. It was IBM that chose Intel's 8088 processor for the brains of the first PC. I know that there are many other processor vendors besides Intel that are in business or have come and gone, but for the purpose of this article, I will address Intel only. The first four generations of Intel processor took on "8" as the series name, which is why technical types refer to this family of chips as the “8088, 8086, 80186,” etc. and continued right on up to the “80486,” or simply the “486.” Here is a chronology of processors, starting with the early ones: 

Intel 8086 (1978): A true 16-bit processor, it contained 29,000 transistors and 20 address lines that could address 1 MB of RAM. The chip was available in 5, 6, 8 and 10 MHz versions.

Intel 8088 (1979)
The 8088 is, for all practical purposes, identical to the 8086. The only difference is that it handled address lines differently than the 8086. Like the 8086, it is able to work with the 8087 math coprocessor chip.  

Intel 80186 (1980)
The 186 was a popular chip. Many 8- and 16-bit versions have been developed in its history. The 186 never found itself in a personal computer.  

Intel 80286 (1982)
A 16-bit, 134,000 transistor processor capable of addressing up to 16 MB of RAM. In addition to increased physical memory support, this chip is able to work with virtual memory, allowing for much expandability. The 286 was the first "real" processor, supported protected mode so the system could multitask, having different programs run separately but at the same time. This ability was not taken advantage of by DOS. It ran at 8, 10, and 12.5 MHz, but later editions of the chip ran as high as 20 MHz.  

Intel 386 (1985 - 1990)
The 386 was a 32-bit processor, so it had twice that of the 286. Containing 275,000 transistors, the 80386DX processor came in 16, 20, 25 and 33 MHz versions. The 32-bit address bus allowed the chip to work with a full 4 GB of RAM and a staggering 64 TB of virtual memory. 

Intel 486 (1989 - 1994)
The 80486DX was a 32-bit processor containing 1.2 million transistors. It had the same memory capacity as the 386 but twice the speed, at 26.9 million instructions per second (MIPS) at 33 MHz. There were also some improvements beyond speed: The 486 was the first to have an integrated floating point unit (FPU) to replace the normally separate math coprocessor (not all flavors of the 486 had this, though).

The Pentium (1993)
Intel changed the name of the processor to the Pentium, a name they could easily trademark. They released the Pentium in 1993. The original Pentium performed at 60 MHz and 100 MIPS. Also called the "P5" or "P54," the chip contained 3.21 million transistors and worked on the 32-bit address bus (same as the 486). It has a 64-bit external data bus which could operate at roughly twice the speed of the 486. The Pentium family included the 60/66/75/90/100/120/133/150/166/200 MHz clock speeds.   

The Pentium Pro (1995-1999)
The Pentium Pro (also called "P6" or "PPro") is a RISC chip with a 486 hardware emulator on it, running at 200MHz or below. While the processor was available for a long period of time, not as many PCs with Pentium Pro chips were sold as you might think.  

Pentium II (1997)
Intel made some major changes to the processor scene with the release of the Pentium II. They had the Pentium MMX and Pentium Pros and wanted a chip that offered the best of both worlds. The Pentium II is kind of like the child of the marriage of a Pentium MMX and Pentium Pro.  One change was the package style; most Pentium-class processors use the Socket 7 interface, Pentium Pros use Socket 8 but the Pentium II uses "Slot 1.” The original Pentium II ran at a 66 MHz bus speed and ranged from 233MHz to 300MHz, with a later release that ran up to 450 MHz. 

Pentium III (1999)
The Pentium III was released with a 450 MHz on a 100MHz bus. It had SSE and extension to MMX that again improved the performance on 3D apps designed to use the new ability. Intel decided to include an integrated "processor serial number" (PSN) right on the chip, designed to be able to be read over a network, even the Internet. End users saw it as an invasion of privacy. Intel eventually allowed the tag to be turned off in the BIOS. The Katmai series of Pentium III chips saw speeds to 600 MHz, but with the release of the Pentium III Coppermine series, speeds of 1+ GHz were possible. 

Pentium IV (2000 - Current)
Pentium IV is a truly new CPU architecture, using NetBurst architecture. NetBurst is made up of four new technologies: Hyper Pipelined Technology, Rapid Execution Engine, Execution Trace Cache and a 400MHz system bus.

OK, enough of the history lesson. The Itanium and Dual-Xeon 64 bit chips have arrived. While you may be ready, there are some things to consider before making the investment in this newly-emerging technology.

A 64-bit Future
Although true 64-bit computing has been around for more than 14 years, it has only been available to those running either high-end mission-critical servers with RISC-based processors such as Sun Microsystem Inc.'s SPARC, IBM's Power and Hewlett-Packard Co.'s PA-RISC. Available in some formats and soon to be found in everything from notebooks, desktops, professional workstations and blade servers, all of these machines will be running on 64-bit architecture. Professionals in 3D design, animation, and engineering… even hard core gamers constantly demand more memory and the high-performance graphics that are enabled by 64-bit addressability.

Gone are the days of sending and receiving email, the budget on a spreadsheet or simply writing correspondence. Computers are being used to store digital images, edit videos and create life-like visualization. With access to more and better memory management, 64-bit computing allows for larger data collections, more precise values in even massive calculations and more comprehensive networking. Microsoft is on board with 64-bit versions of Windows too. But there's a problem-isn’t there always?

Problems
The hardware is arriving in the market, the operating system is there too. Drivers for peripherals are catching up. So what’s the hold up? Well, there are two things that may well be the best reason to hold off on a 64-bit system for now. First, applications support. Many applications will ‘support’ being used in a 64-bit Windows and hardware environment, but they do so in emulation mode. Other applications will not work in a 64-bit environment at all. Very few applications are actually designed on 64-bit architecture for Windows-based systems. The second issue is that while the hardware is there, it is expensive, Some of the hardware that will run the 64-bit versions of Windows are being delivered with the 32-bit versions. Some hardware vendors have gone so far as to indicate that the warranty will be voided if the customer upgrades the system from the 32-bit version of Windows to a 64-bit version.

So, what should you do? Is there a suggestion that can be made? Yes: You should only go with a 64-bit system at this time if you have an application that requires it and supports it. The industry has a way of catching up with new hardware and software releases, sometimes slower than we would like, i.e. the availability of cost-effective PCI-Express Video Professional cards, even though it’s getting impossible to buy a system with an AGP video slot. So the old adage is true: Patience is a virtue!

How can I get more information on this subject?
If you have support with us, ask us. Often, we will have additional suggestions about new solutions or emerging best practices. If you have questions or comments about this article, contact me (JohnBoline@hagerman.com).
 

This page last edited on Tuesday, September 19, 2006