• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

x86 Processor.

F

facattack

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
960
Location
Bucks County, PA
Current 32-bit processors are called "x86", right? The wiki isn't much help explaining things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86

So Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 and early dual cores 32-bit?

I think I started reading about "64-bit" with the release of Windows Vista and Windows 7. What governs this "64-bit"nes?

Is the distinction of 32bit or 64bit just an OS one at this point?

The only reason I know about x86 is that I used to have Ubunutu on a secondary partition and was always downloading the files listed as "x86" and "Debian" without knowing the reasoning why.

BTW, I had a little craze years back with buying new Linux OSes that were boxed. I think I got Corel Linux, Debian Linux, and Red Hat Linux at different times. None of which were compatible the computer I had.


EDIT: Oh, I'm understanding it a little. I always thought it strange how the Apple computers in my college's art department were all called "Power PC". This was circa 2000 or just a couple years shy of that. I understand now that current Apple computers use Intel processors while the Power PC was made partly by IBM????? That confuses me to no end.

I'm so out-of-date on computer knowledge!
 
Last edited:
32-bit was introduced with the Intel 386 in the PC world. It has some limitations such as being able to address only a little over 3 gigs (I've found most 32-bit systems can't address more than 3.2 gigs) of ram. 64-bit supports far more than that, a few hundred Terabytes or something like that, more than anyone will ever need in this decade.

One plus of 32-bit is you can run 16-bit programs with no problems. 64-bit lacks support for 16-bit programs, however you can run 32-bit programs with no problems.
 
32-bit systems can physically handle 4GB of memory. The ~3.2GB limit is an OS limit - Windows reserves part of the 4GB space for the video memory and for it's own use.
 
8086 (16bit), 80186 (16bit), 80286 (16bit), 80386 (32bit), 80486 (32bit), then the Intel marketing department got a hold of the 80586 and turned it into the Pentium brand (32bit). Hence x86 to refer to the architecture in general. x86_64 came a bit later.
 
As far as 16 bit programs support in 64 bit, Virtual Machines are your best friend.
 
It's mainly to do with the address bus as hinted at, but many (if not all?) 64-bit systems don't have 64 physical address lines, or at least not enough slots, so we still bump up against RAM size limitations in servers quite often, for example many Dell 11G servers can take only 192GB.
 
Haha! I have Windows XP, Pentium D processor, and 3 gig of RAM.

Funny how the hard drive holds 1tb but does the 3 GIG of RAM mean only 3 gigs of info at a time can be accessed?

This computer runs fine and all but the bummer is the video card: NVIDIA Geforce 8400 GS with 256 MB of Video memory. Gosh, I shoulda kept the newer video card when I'd bought it a few months ago, but got broke and needed the money back... hehe.

So I should be looking for a GTI card now?
 
facattack said:
Haha! I have Windows XP, Pentium D processor, and 3 gig of RAM.

This computer runs fine and all but the bummer is the video card: NVIDIA Geforce 8400 GS with 256 MB of Video memory. Gosh, I shoulda kept the newer video card when I'd bought it a few months ago, but got broke and needed the money back... hehe.
Click to expand...

Ok, this is bringing context to the D3 issue. Dude, time to buy a new system. NetBurst is 10 years old. It's all good if you want to keep it around as a "vintage system," but if you want to run latest games, it's time to upgrade.
 
Facattack:

If you're going to spend any money at all, and you're not doing vintage, you at least want a dual core processor. Check Tiger, Newegg, Fry's, Micro Center, eBay, and look look for a cheap cpu/mobo bundle deal. A lot of the deals have video onboard and that will put you ahead of the game until your ready for a decent video card. Also, check and see if the board has IDE/floppy support. Most high end mobo's don't these days.
 
Pentium D is dual core, but not all that fast, and very power hungry. Only the later Presler steppings support x64, but its doubtful that the period motherboards will take more then 4GB. The Core2Duo was a huge leap in terms of speed and efficiency.
 
facattack said:
But Pentium D is dual core.... ain't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a dual core. But it is comparatively slow and the memory bus was inadequate to keeping both CPUs filled. The fastest Pentium D is half the speed of current Core I3 and the Pentium D uses twice the power. Even the (cheapest current gaming chip) $60 Pentium G620 is about 50% faster than the fastest Pentium D. CPUs have improved over the years.
 
facattack said:
But Pentium D is dual core.... ain't it?
Click to expand...

I had a system with the most expensive, fastest NetBurst-based CPU, the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. Essentially a Pentium D with HyperThreading turned on (dual physical cores each with two "virtual" cores, so it appeared to the system as four total cores.) It drew 130 Watts running at 3.73 GHz. (And I ran it overclocked to 4.0 GHz most of the time, drawing well above of 150 Watts, the whole computer drawing an average of 200 Watts at idle, 400 Watts at load.)

I replaced it with the ultra-low-end Core 2 Duo-based "Pentium Dual-Core" E2180. 2.0 GHz, 65 Watts at load. (And, since it was being relegated to server status, removed the power-hog video card and reverted to onboard graphics.)

Total system power usage dropped from 200 Watts at idle to 100 Watts at load. For CPU-dependent tasks (like DVD ripping/video encoding, it's most common CPU-intensive task,) it was slightly faster. CPU benchmarks for two threads were about 5% faster. (four threads were about 10% slower as HyperThreading could make the Extreme Edition CPU pull ahead.)

The Pentium D is a horrendously inefficient, power hog of a CPU. Dump it for any use other than "wanting to have a system from that era."
 
I'm paying off credit cards as it is. A slow process.

I'm thinking that I do more internet than anything else. The games I can run, I get bored of fast. I have OnLive which theoretically allows me to play games I don't have compatibility with. Their selection seems a bit skimpy at times. *sighs*
 
All this p4D hate. It really isnt that bad of a processor as they make it out to be and still quite capable of most modern games, provided its 800fsb and DDRII. Downside is you will have to run most them on lower settings. Don't bother upgrading if its 533 fsb though, get a new pc.

My sons pc is a 3ghz/800fsb p4d (P930) on a p35 chipset board, paired with an ati 4850 with 2 gigs of 1033fsb gskill ram. Plays modern warfare 3 just fine on med settings. Yes its not the most power efficient, I'll totally agree there... Alot of the older chipsets just sucked hard, like the i945. If you put a p4d on a more modern board, it really is a decent cpu. Netburst arch is heavily dependent upon memory bandwidth. Remember it was designed for rambus, not ddr, which most people used. Give it some DDRII or DDRIII and its faster then ya'll give it credit for. :(

Put it a different way... think of the 386. What happened when the dx was given a slower memory bus, ie SX 16-bit? It slowed to a crawl right? Apply that to p4 netburst and sdram/ddr.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, I have an Intel D955Xbk motherboard (complete - in the box w/ all of the original goodies) which has a 3.4 GB Intel 950 SL9K8 chip and 2 GB of Corsair DDR2. The board is probably one of Intel's best efforts, and in its defense it has a both, a PCIE video slot as well as the PCIE x 16 variety - also 3 PCI slots and a mini-riser. The board supports IDE and floppies as well as 8 onboard SATA ports. It runs Xp decently and starts to drag its tail a bit with Vista. I found driver implimentation to be a slight problem with VISTA but not insurmountable (never got around to W7 nor do I intend to). Compared to anything newer in my stable, its a dog. I wouldn't recomend this setup as a jumping off place for anyone just getting started. Around the 1st of the year I needed to redo my nephew's pc and was able to to score an AMD 960 for under $100 on sale at the local Mico Center, and they tossed in a Gigabyte 78LMT-S2P mobo, which had a $69.99 tag, for FREE! It runs Hawk just fine. I don't think you could get this particular good deal online from the Micro Center, but almost anytime that you walk into the store they have some sort of clearance going on. So, if I was facattack I would reccomend setting up a small change can and regularly feeding it. Of couse if that Pentium D has a sentimental attachment, that's a different story. And no, lazy, I don't think it's P4D hate but just normal progression. Personally, I don't dislike any computer or why would I be on this forum - However most folks do favor some more than others don't you think.
 
facattack said:
I'm paying off credit cards as it is. A slow process.

I'm thinking that I do more internet than anything else. The games I can run, I get bored of fast. I have OnLive which theoretically allows me to play games I don't have compatibility with. Their selection seems a bit skimpy at times. *sighs*
Click to expand...

But Pentium D is plenty fast for running most emulators :D
You have a DELL box, which means no mother board will fit in that case (DELL and their pesky NIH syndrome)
If you upgrade, it's an all-new-box thing.

Learn my lesson about CC long ago... never carry a balance, EVER.
 
Gee, all this talk about fancy CPUs.

I'm still running XP on my main machine, a Abit IS7-E, a 2.4GHz Socket 478 P4 with 2GB of DRAM. Works fine for browsing, reading email and software development. I fished the mobo out of a scrap pile some years ago, repaired it and it's been 100% ever since.

Given that my DSL connection tops out at 1.5Mb/sec down, is there any particular reason for me to upgrade? If I do any waiting, it's for downloads, not for CPU.

(I also have an Athlon 64+ system set up that I host Kubuntu on, but almost never use otherwise).

If I did upgrade on a budget, what should be my target?
 
Last edited:
Chuck(G) said:
I'm still running XP on my main machine, a Abit IS7-E, a 2.4GHz Socket 478 P4 with 2GB of DRAM. Works fine for browsing, reading email and software development. I fished the mobo out of a scrap pile some years ago, repaired it and it's be 100% ever since.
Click to expand...
Got a quick question. When you say repair, would that be recap? The reason I ask is that I've got a K7S5A that slowly died and I'd like to repair it if it's not too difficult and recapping is something I could handle. By slowly dying I mean that over a period of 6 months to maybe one year it got progressively harder and harder to boot until finally it just wouldn't. During that period, however, after it booted it would run fine until I would shut it down. That would be after a day, a week or even more some times. I really hated to turn it off. :) Does this sound like a recapping candidate or would it more likely be some other issue? Actually, I've got two of them but I don't know how the second met its end.
 
In this case, it was because some idiot managed to burn the 3V trace from the PSU connector clean off the board. 10 minutes and a bit of wire fixed that. I've never had an issue with the caps on the board.

But recapping motherboards of this era is still pretty easy--the affected ones are through-hole electrolytics. But that's only if it's the problem--if you don't see signs of swelling or venting, it's probably not the capacitors.

Doing simple things such as re-seating the CPU can work wonders. Other things to look out for are malfunctioning fans on southbridge chips, mis-seated cards, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top