Is this the end for x86?

[Crininja]

Right than, I just wanna say this emulator is the BOMB. Seeing SSB:M on my PC brought a small tear of joy to my ear. All it needs is that frame limiter plus better sound (I know, GC sound is not well documented). I can't believe i'm saying this... but it's running wayyy too fast i'm on my computer!

 

[Toasty]

Seeing SSB:M on my PC brought a small tear of joy to my ear.

I know the feeling! The first thing I did when I couldn't hear any sound coming from the emulator was check for wax in my eyes!

 

[[SS] Starscream]

I think i have finally had enough with broken emulators and this pc is not good enough and that one is ok for emulation, along with this game works ok and that one might not work so good.

The games work perfectly every time on the gamecube and it is alot less stress and feeling bad about games never working right on anything else.

Good work team getting it to work as much as you did but i'd rather just play the games in real time.

 

[Danny]

I think i have finally had enough with broken emulators and this pc is not good enough and that one is ok for emulation, along with this game works ok and that one might not work so good.

The games work perfectly every time on the gamecube and it is alot less stress and feeling bad about games never working right on anything else.

Good work team getting it to work as much as you did but i'd rather just play the games in real time.

Thats true, aren't Gamecube's and there games going pretty cheap on ebay now too?

All the same this is still a fantastic achievement from the Dolphin team, breathtaking even.

 

[FlotsamX]

Meh, it ****es me off that I have to upgrade my computer every year to do what I actually want to.

2 GB RAM...

The best processor on the general market...

A $200 graphics card...

1 TB of storage...

I'm NOT spending another $7,000 for just a 64-bit operator. >.<

 

[Doomulation]

You just need a 64-bit processor, a motherboard that supports it and, of course, a 64-bit OS. Doesn't total for $7000.

 

[x_orange90_x]

definately not 7g's, but a hefty fee can be expected. not really worth it if u have a GameCube and ENJOY it. i on the other hand enjoy emulators more than the consoles. u can eliminate 100-200 dollars by *obtaining* a 64bit OS , that is if ur a naughty person who pirates. im entertained enough right now playing the Guitar Hero port, Guitar Zero. its fun and fairly accurate. plus its easier than emulating the real thing on PC.

 

[NepSquare]

Still see his point though, if he had a P4 with a 478 mobo, then he'd have to upgrade the: PSU, memory, gfx card (most likely he had an AGP), mobo and the proc itself to just run a dual-core system.

But that's an investment you'd need for just running windows lately, let alone gaming and emu projects. (I hate the reference of broken emu's)...

Anywho, to get back on topic... I think developers (not only software/emu author's, MonopolySoft, and adventurours the like) will start focussing more on 64bits and multithreaded optimizations/applications, it's the path we all are heading towards to. Let's face it: we demand smaller/better/stronger hardware because the software is getting bigger, fatter and more complicated.

Emu's are just one step ahead of them, the community is trying new ways to get the most out of your hardware, this is the center now. So...
I feel lucky somehow, that the only software worth upgrading for, is being written by people with efficienty in mind.

'N

 

[metsfan]

You can run 32 bit applications in a 64 bit OS of course. It's not even slower.
The only thing which needs to be 64 bit are the drivers.

You are wrong wrong wrong. My friend could not install zone alarm on his computer, as well as other programs because they did not have 64 bit versions. In addition, his sound card experienced massive problems. We reformatted his computer with 64 bit, sound still didnt work, then we reformated it again with 32 bit windows and the sound works fine. After this experience, im stickign with 32 bit xp until they refine vista.

 

[Doomulation]

You are wrong wrong wrong. My friend could not install zone alarm on his computer, as well as other programs because they did not have 64 bit versions. In addition, his sound card experienced massive problems. We reformatted his computer with 64 bit, sound still didnt work, then we reformated it again with 32 bit windows and the sound works fine. After this experience, im stickign with 32 bit xp until they refine vista.

No, he is right right right.
32-bit does work on under x64 and it works just as fast as in x86 too.
Drivers need to be 64-bit, and usually they're still buggy. Especially for Vista. Considering the majority doesn't use 64-bit yet either, that makes it even more buggier since it gets less development time than 32-bit.
Note: I'm not implying 64-bit is better than 32-bit.

 

[x_orange90_x]

wow. this has become anything but help... so how is that 32bit version of Dolphin coming along? nicely, i hope! anyway, you are both right and wrong. 64bit OS's are written differently, therefore a program made for 32bit ONLY, will not hesitate to report an error when started on a 64bit OS. and as far as drivers, Doom is right, they are much much different and lousy at that. im not positive, but i think you can install a Virtual Operating System (from microsoft, just cant think of the name) and then install XP 64bit or whatever and be able to emulate 32bit programs on that (i read very little of this when someone before asked about running something different on 98). i feel that Intel should have allowed users to dual boot 32bit and 64bit, instead of having to change it in the BIOS and reinstall the OS. my brother's Pentium D has 32 and 64bit support, but he has to change that in his BIOS accordingly. but i can see why thats not possible, because both versions have completely different instruction sets in which the CPU has to pick one or the other.

 

[HyperIris]

i feel that Intel should have allowed users to dual boot 32bit and 64bit, instead of having to change it in the BIOS and reinstall the OS. my brother's Pentium D has 32 and 64bit support, but he has to change that in his BIOS accordingly. but i can see why thats not possible, because both versions have completely different instruction sets in which the CPU has to pick one or the other.

your brother has a strange computer, right?

Windows xp 32bit and windows xp 64bit can install on one HDD and dual boot without any modify in BIOS.

And, windows xp 64bit can run 32bit application very nice.

x64 arch only extend x86, NOT "completely different instruction sets"

 

[x_orange90_x]

no, its not strange. its typical. changing from 32 to 64 requires other changes too. the BIOS changes other settings too when 64bit is enabled. its not as simple as choosing a 32 or 64 bit OS at startup, then restarting and choosing the other. the processor works differently under each setup, hence the reason for BIOS changes. what your saying is equivalent to installing Mac OS and expecting it to boot without changing anything else. thats an undoubtedly inaccurate assumption. thats like asking a Chinese Interpreter to translate Spanish without the use of a handbook.

 

[x_orange90_x]

Excerpt from http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php?showtopic=19039 :

"The way that 64-bit OS's allow 32-bit applications to run, is part emulation, part virtual computer (WoW means Windows on Windows) and part capability of the 64-bit processor (both AMD and Intel(*cough* also AMD *cough*)) to not balk when it sees a 32-bit instruction. Note: not all 64-bit processors can handle 32-bit instructions, and therefore no 32-bit application will run (there may be some 32-bit applications which would have to conform very strictly, though I'm not sure of even that). An example of that would be the Intel Itanium2."

do u see that, "part emulation, part virtual computer"!!!??!?!

hmm, 32-bit instruction, interesting...does that means there are 64-bit instructions? o yea, i already knew that. that is why i said "different instruction sets"

 

[Toasty]

its not as simple as choosing a 32 or 64 bit OS at startup, then restarting and choosing the other.

Yes it is. Don't know why your brother's doesn't work that way but mine does. (Maybe a weird BIOS or some Intel-specific quirk?) Am dual-booting 32-bit Windows XP and 64-bit Ubuntu and switching between them is as simple as rebooting the computer. I can also install 64-bit Windows by itself, then install 32-bit Windows by itself - all with no need to touch the BIOS. x86-64 is an extension of x86 as well. As long as we're quoting sources:

x86-64 is a 64-bit superset of the x86 instruction set architecture. The x86-64 instruction set natively supports Intel's x86 and was designed by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), who have since renamed it AMD64. This architecture has also been adopted by Intel under the name Intel 64 (formerly known as Yamhill, Clackamas Technology (CT), IA-32e, and EM64T).[1] This leads to the common use of the names x86-64 or x64 as more vendor-neutral terms to collectively refer to the two nearly identical implementations.

You might be thinking of Intel's IA-64 architecture, which is very different from x86, but you'll only find that architecture in Itanium processors AFAIK.

 

[HyperIris]

Excerpt from http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php?showtopic=19039 :

do u see that, "part emulation, part virtual computer"!!!??!?!

hmm, 32-bit instruction, interesting...does that means there are 64-bit instructions? o yea, i already knew that. that is why i said "different instruction sets"

you are talking about IA-64, yes, "part emulation, part virtual computer"

but.....

WHO use Itanium for gaming or office?

wo are using AMD64 or Intel EM64T or simple called x64,

which all new Pentium4, Core Duo, AMD64 CPU supported.

that is Windows xp x64, support 32bit app naturally!

BTW:

I use windows xp x64 since 2005.10

all game run ok, all 32bit app ok, and I'm a programmer using a lot of asm.

 

[Doomulation]

AFAIK, the OS signals the processor if it wants to use 64-bit or 32-bit legacy mode, so no BIOS change is necessary.
x64 is just x86 with a few new instructions, larger registers and a few more registers. But as you might understand, everything needs to be as it was when there was 32-bit processors to guarantee all 32-bit apps run. Thus, in legacy mode, all registers are 32-bit (not 64-bit as in x64), the additional registers and instructions cannot be used.
Now, I'm not an expert, some few details may be wrong, but that's the general idea. I believe Windows is emulating a 32-bit environment in 64-bit for 32-bit apps.

 

[x_orange90_x]

Doom, u are using an AMD, correct? most aspects of your last post are accurate, because they pertain to an AMD. AMD and Intel used to (long time back, in the days of K6 and earlier) be nearly identicle. now-a-days, they are absolute enimies and do all they can to differ their technology from one another, such as pin/socket type, clock speeds (such as AMD's idea to make the FSB the same as the core clock), and an older technology, Intel's Hyper-Threading and AMD's Hyper-Transfer. they are so hard to keep up with now because of all of their new technologies. i credit them both, they both have such amazing features. and a side note, what has happened with AMD and ATI, are they doing anything togethar, or is AMD just enjoying the thought of owning them? lol. i think they would make a good team though. anyway, how are u enjoing the Dolphin emu as of now? i am amazed at the progress just recently, and to think there were people who thought the early builds were as good as emulation could get!

 

[Toasty]

AMD and Intel used to (long time back, in the days of K6 and earlier) be nearly identicle. now-a-days, they are absolute enimies and do all they can to differ their technology from one another

So basically what you're saying is that because Intel hates AMD they have decided to deny customers a key feature of 64-bit processors, forcing them to reconfigure their BIOS just to switch between 32-bit and 64-bit modes? Somehow, that just doesn't seem like a good way to increase market share to me...

There are admittedly some very big differences between AMD and Intel processors, but to say they are doing everything to make their processors different from each other is just wrong. If that were true, Intel would probably still have only 32-bit processors. Heck, they'd probably still be trying to find ways to speed up their NetBurst chips. AMD users would be stuck without MMX, SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 featured processors. Intel wouldn't be making plans to have an integrated memory controller like AMD.

Intel and AMD are doing everything possible to include the features that the other has and then even more on top of that. Alienating their competition's ideas and breakthroughs and doing "all they can to differ their technology from one another" would be very foolish. Sure, the underlying mechanisms that get things done have some significant differences, but they both aim to implement the same architectural interface. (They both "behave" the same way.)

Anyway, I checked on my dad's PC and his Intel (C2D E6600) processor also does just fine with 64-bit and 32-bit OS's side-by-side. No changes in the BIOS required at all. I'm not denying that your brother's PC has to be tweaked to get different OS's to work (I'm sure there's a good reason for it), but that doesn't mean that most PCs do.

 

[admiraljonb]

i'm sorry to be the one to say it, but x86=32bit and x64=64bit.

I believe Microsoft is causing this confusion. When they started the 64-bit operating system, they called it x64 (for whatever reason). I read somewhere that this is not actually the processor architecture. the 32-bit one being x86_32 and the 64-bit one being x86_64. I believe this is also why you can run a 32-bit operating system on a 64-bit processor. I'm not completely certain though. If I'm correct though, you can blame Microsoft for this