Mike Sobers spake:


> I wasn't arguing that the 64-bit processors should be twice as fast.  The
> answer to that question is clearly no.  I was trying to explain why
> reasonably intelligent people might ask the question.  It's because some
> integer operations may be doubled up using the extra registry space.  As
> you've pointed out, due to all the bit shifting and underflow/overflow
> error detection, there is clearly no speed increase, and very few
> operations could actually benefit from this approach anyway.  However, I
> think it was an excellent question to ask, and the resulting discussion
> here has been enlightening.  Hopefully we've all learned a lot more about
> how 64-bit computing works, which was the intent to begin with.  Thanks
> for your contribution to the discussion (no sarcasm here).
> 
> Mike

Hi Mike

Thanks, that's a rational view. It seems like sometimes in here stupid
people (like me) aren't allowed to ask stupid questions about stuff they
don't understand, because they promptly get beaten over the head with their
own question. :)

I've always liked the Pov group, cause you get so few elitist and "you're
stupid for even asking that! How can you even -think- that? Explain your
stupidity RIGHT NOW!" type answers in here. Guess that's changing.

But then, that's the POINT of asking a question - why ask a question (or
answer them) if you are omniscent and already know everything about
everything? Must be boring knowing everything about everything - nothing
new to learn or discover...

I just thought 64 is twice 32 , so it's got to be good for -something- and
do -something- better than a 32 bit processor. As you point out, it seemed
logical that -something- is twice -something- else - ok, its the register
sizes. So what? Now I know. No harm done.

-- 
Stefan Viljoen
Software Support Technician / Programmer
Polar Design Solutions

Post a reply to this message