64 v 32 bit CPU

crustyteacup wrote on 8-11-04 http://club.cdfreaks.com/showthread.php?t=117362 (the intel one has to boot into 32bit mode, like an emulation mode and only runs around 1Ghz when dealing with 32bit code,
& I’ve heard that Intel 64 bit are 30% faster when running a 64 bit app. but 30% slower when running a 32 bit app. the new 64 bit CPUs do have twice as big L2 cache. As I want Photoshop 8 CS to run a lot better than at present, I realy can’t decide tween 64 & 32. If it runs slower in 32 bit mode then the extra cache would be to no advantage wouldn’t it? & I believe Photoshop CS 8 would run on 32 bit.

Try this link and see if it answers some of your questions. I’m running Photoshop 8 CS and it runs well with my setup but it needs memory, the more the better.

Thanx pipemanid, that was interesting but I still want to find out more.Are thry youor rigs below your message,I hope not,I was thinking 1 or 2GBs of memory but the main systems got 3GB.

in that thread i think i was referring to the old Itanium 2 which never got a general release i think apart from in the server and workstation markets. Now intel have new CPU’s with 64bit support but i haven’t seen there performance with 32bit apps yet but you’re probably right.

I have built a system for a friend using the Athlon 64 3000 939 chip and the performance increase compared to my Athlon XP chip is huge. I would reccomend taking the 64 bit path. Also if you are using Photoshop then 512 MB memory is just not enough. Get atleast 1 Gig of Dual Channel memory and you will notice a big performance boost compared to 512 MB

Photoshop really needs more than 1 GB of memory to run at acceptable speeds. Both of my main rigs run at or above 2 GB. My dual P3 rig runs it OK but a little slow.

i have an amd atlhon 64 bit, i can run games etc so well on it :smiley: so happy with it!

I’m thinking of going with P4 S775 3.2GB 64 bit, though I don’t know if Photoshop or any progs. I use can use 64bit (I suspect not) & my XP OS can’t, I don’t know if the extra L2 cache will be of any benefit. I’m still interested in peoples opinions, thanx.

I’ve now got a system with a P4 3.2GHz (640).

Compared to AMD’s of similar plus-ratings, the test results often depend on how each test favours certain CPU features.

Where hyperthreading works, Intel soars.
Where the 2Mb cache really bites, it helps the Intel.

With SSE & SSE2 support added to later AMDs, one of the old Intel advantages (application supports SSE but not 3Dnow) is gone.

Where the Intel’s cache and HT don’t come into play, you can expect it to trail an AMD of the same rating, even further behind one of the same price.

With both annoucing dual-core processors, maybe support for muliple CPU’s (and inherently, hyperthreading) will improve - oversimplifying a bit, as for GOOD hyperthreading, execution unit dependencies need to be taken into account.