Support of multiple core 64 bit processors and 4GB RAM

Paul J Gans wrote:

The amount of memory that in principle can be addressed
depends on the CPU chip. Most address memory more or
less directly so that a 32 bit CPU could address 4,394,967,295
or 4 gigabytes of memory.

A 64 bit CPU can, in principle, address 1.8x10^(16) gigabytes
of memory.

However, the memory controller chips often do not implement
all the address lines needed. So while today almost any
machine will do 4 gigs, most will NOT do the full 64 bit
capacity of the CPU. If the G5 can only address 8 GB, it
has used only 33 bits of memory addressing.

Going to 36 bits would give 64 Gb, which would probably hold
most of us for a year or two.... ;-)


It is possible to address more physical memory than virtual memory.

For instance, many VAX computers support 32-bit virtual addresses, but
34-bit physical addresses. Itanium processors today support 64-bit
virtual addresses and 53 or 55-bit physical addresses depending on the
chip. Now, no system has been built with sufficent memory slots, power,
etc. to actually install 2^55 bytes of memory. Not to mention the cost
involved.


--
John

John Reagan wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

The amount of memory that in principle can be addressed
depends on the CPU chip. Most address memory more or
less directly so that a 32 bit CPU could address 4,394,967,295
or 4 gigabytes of memory.

A 64 bit CPU can, in principle, address 1.8x10^(16) gigabytes
of memory.


Where did you[previous OP] get that?

2^64 = 16 EB (exabytes). That is MUCH MUCH bigger than anything we will
have a use for today.

A 32-bit processor is :

2^32 = 4GB (gigabytes).

A 16-bit processor is :

2^16 = 64K (kilobytes)

An operating system and processor can not usually address the entire
theoretical range due to the fact that some memory is reserved for various
things.


For instance, many VAX computers support 32-bit virtual addresses, but
34-bit physical addresses. Itanium processors today support 64-bit
virtual addresses and 53 or 55-bit physical addresses depending on the
chip. Now, no system has been built with sufficent memory slots, power,
etc. to actually install 2^55 bytes of memory. Not to mention the cost
involved.


Indeed, this is correct.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Bill wrote:
"ray" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:23:33 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

Just wondering if there is image processing software which can make
full
use of 64 bit processors with more than one core (i.e. Core 2 Duo,
Core
2 Quad or equivalents from AMD) and which can use more than 4GB RAM
(I
know for instance of mainboards which take 8GB RAM)? Intel is
planning
to have a processor with 32 cores by 2009.

As I understand, MS - even with the new 'vista' only handles 4gb.

Vista 32-bit all editions is limited to less than 4gigs. Vista 64-bit is
limited to less than 16 or 128gigs depending on edition.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...sta_ff_x64.asp

Geez, how stupid is that? There is a *hardware* limit of
course but there is no reason why the OS can't discover
that limit and use it.

---- Paul J. Gans

--
--- Paul J. Gans

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:33:41 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

Vista 32-bit all editions is limited to less than 4gigs. Vista 64-bit is
limited to less than 16 or 128gigs depending on edition.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...sta_ff_x64.asp

Geez, how stupid is that? There is a *hardware* limit of
course but there is no reason why the OS can't discover
that limit and use it.

But then there wouldn't be as much of an incentive to upgrade to
Vista2010. The current desktop boxes with their 2GB and 4GB limits
are rapidly being replaced by 8GB capable computers. Several years
from now that limit will again be raised, and what do you want to
bet that to utilize their new capabilities, Vista will have to be
upgraded or replaced? I won't mind having to get that upgrade very
much, as Vista2010 will be a much more secure, stable platform.

Bill wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
Yes, and the funny thing (well, to me) is that most of this power will
be used to move windows around the screen! LOL!
Not by all of us.

Of course not: I am not disputing that some people have uses for that
power (simulations, numerical work, image processing etc). But look at
how much the memory, processor etc requirements of Windows have
increased over the years. We now have computers that are ridiculously
more powerful than the ones in 1990 (say), and in every house, too (in
rich countries). And, on average, what does all this computing power
do? It moves windows around. I mean, looking at specifications that
some people quote, they have more processing power than a Cray XMP.
It's funny.

It really is funny because family and friends ask me all the time what I
recommend they buy, and the vast majority of them just want to surf,
email, print a few things, etc., but they all think they need the newest
and most powerful computers to do it.

And some of these people STILL have the habit of single-tasking and
don't leave windows open on the screen - they close one, and open
another, then close that one and re-open the first one again...duh. They
still don't get it, even when I show them my desktop with at least half
a dozen programs running 24/7 and more when I'm actively using the
computers.

The people who buy the most powerful computers for home use are gamers.

Generally yes...or number crunchers like me.


I often multi-task, but then I don't leave applications open when I
don't need them. I don't generally have more than one application open
at a time, unless one of them is working on something in the background,
like moving files around, or backing up to another HD, or downloading
something lengthy.

In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:


I often multi-task, but then I don't leave applications open when I
don't need them. I don't generally have more than one application open
at a time, unless one of them is working on something in the background,
like moving files around, or backing up to another HD, or downloading
something lengthy.

Working on web pages is prime multitasking territory, frequently on my
mac I have a web browser, text editor, photoshop open at the same time.

Sometimes I like streaming music off the net while I am working. I
always know my CPU is working if the fan starts running continuously

I have a humble G4 with 512MB of ram.


--
Would thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or
a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere
in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian".

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:05:26 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

The people who buy the most powerful computers for home use are gamers.

Generally yes...or number crunchers like me.

I often multi-task, but then I don't leave applications open when I
don't need them. I don't generally have more than one application open
at a time, unless one of them is working on something in the background,
like moving files around, or backing up to another HD, or downloading
something lengthy.

I often have several apps. not just open, but working
simultaneously. Even so, the CPU Usage normally bounces around
between 2% and 7%. A couple of weeks ago I became alarmed when one
of the computer's fans suddenly turned on. The fans normally spin
so slowly that they aren't heard. I eventually tracked it down
using the Task Manager. It turned out to be a wild email process
left in some unstable state, probably looping perpetually, out of
control. It came back to me that about 20 or 30 minutes earlier the
email program crashed/shut down just as I hit a key on the keyboard.
According to the Task Manager the CPU Usage was up to over 50%, and
as soon as I killed the zombie email process the % usage dropped
back down to the normal low rate. I figured that it was a good time
to reboot.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
John Reagan wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote:

The amount of memory that in principle can be addressed
depends on the CPU chip. Most address memory more or
less directly so that a 32 bit CPU could address 4,394,967,295
or 4 gigabytes of memory.

A 64 bit CPU can, in principle, address 1.8x10^(16) gigabytes
of memory.


Where did you[previous OP] get that?

2^64 = 16 EB (exabytes). That is MUCH MUCH bigger than anything we will
have a use for today.

A 32-bit processor is :

2^32 = 4GB (gigabytes).

A 16-bit processor is :

2^16 = 64K (kilobytes)

An operating system and processor can not usually address the entire
theoretical range due to the fact that some memory is reserved for various
things.

I may have done my math wrong. 2^64 is clearly right.

But I believe that I went on to say that the actual amount
of physical memory that can be addressed is determined by
the number of address lines actually implemented.

For instance, many VAX computers support 32-bit virtual addresses, but
34-bit physical addresses. Itanium processors today support 64-bit
virtual addresses and 53 or 55-bit physical addresses depending on the
chip. Now, no system has been built with sufficent memory slots, power,
etc. to actually install 2^55 bytes of memory. Not to mention the cost
involved.


Indeed, this is correct.

I agree.


--
--- Paul J. Gans

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:33:41 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

Vista 32-bit all editions is limited to less than 4gigs. Vista 64-bit is
limited to less than 16 or 128gigs depending on edition.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...sta_ff_x64.asp

Geez, how stupid is that? There is a *hardware* limit of
course but there is no reason why the OS can't discover
that limit and use it.

But then there wouldn't be as much of an incentive to upgrade to
Vista2010. The current desktop boxes with their 2GB and 4GB limits
are rapidly being replaced by 8GB capable computers. Several years
from now that limit will again be raised, and what do you want to
bet that to utilize their new capabilities, Vista will have to be
upgraded or replaced? I won't mind having to get that upgrade very
much, as Vista2010 will be a much more secure, stable platform.

grin

--
--- Paul J. Gans

Little Green Eyed Dragon wrote:
In article ,
Ron Hunter wrote:


I often multi-task, but then I don't leave applications open when I
don't need them. I don't generally have more than one application open
at a time, unless one of them is working on something in the background,
like moving files around, or backing up to another HD, or downloading
something lengthy.

Working on web pages is prime multitasking territory, frequently on my
mac I have a web browser, text editor, photoshop open at the same time.

Sometimes I like streaming music off the net while I am working. I
always know my CPU is working if the fan starts running continuously

I have a humble G4 with 512MB of ram.

RAM prices for these machines is on the increase due to how old they
are; I just bought some for my son's machine. You'll be pleased with
doubling your RAM at the least.

--
john mcwilliams