Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: 64 bit version

  1. #41
    Very good friend of the forum Virchanza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    863

    Default

    OK before I begin, I don't want to sound like a guru, but I would like to share the experience I have working with different "bitness" machines.

    Firstly, I wanna define "bitness". If someone tells me that a particular machine is 32-Bit, then that could mean one of two things:
    1) The CPU's registers are 32 bits wide.
    2) Memory is addressed in chunks of 32 bits at a time.

    For the purpose of this post, let's just assume that bitness means both of these, i.e. a 32-Bit machine has 32-Bit registers and also 32-Bit chunks of memory.

    In my most recent year of college, I did an embedded systems project. I had to make a portable electronic Connect4 game. I chose an 8-Bit microcontroller made by PIC. With this particular chip, if I wanted to add two 8-Bit numbers, it could be done in one instruction:

    ADD a,b

    If I wanted to play around with 16-Bit numbers, then I would have to use two memory chunks, and perform two instructions:

    ADD a[0],b[0]
    ADD a[1],b[1]

    So in this respect, you can say that on this chip, 8-Bit arithmetic is twice as fast as 16-Bit arithmetic. (In fact it's actually a little more than twice as fast when it comes to doing comparisons).

    In my Connect4 game however, the largest number I ever had to deal with was 48, so I never needed to use 16-Bit arithmetic. If I had chosen a 16-Bit CPU of identical specs, my Connect4 game wouldn't run any quicker because it's still executing the same amount of instructions.

    Now, let's say I drank some of that "squishy 100% syrup" stuff and decided to make "Connect 4000". On my 8-Bit CPU, two instructions would have to be executed every time I want to add, subtract, whatever. However, if I had a 16-Bit CPU, only one instruction would be needed. So in that case, the 16-Bit CPU would be faster.

    Today, most CPU's are 32-Bit. If you ask a 32-Bit CPU to add two 64-Bit numbers together, it will perform two instructions on two chunks of memory. However if you ask a 64-Bit CPU to do the same thing, it'll only perform one instruction.

    Now the thing about 32-Bit is that you can represent a pretty damn big number with 32 bits, the maximum value being 4.2 billion. Now just think to yourself... how often do you use numbers greater than 4.2 billion?

    So there's the first benefit of 64-Bit over 32-Bit:
    If you're dealing with numbers bigger than 4.2 billion, then you're executing half the amount of instructions that a 32-Bit machine would.
    There's another thing though. Let's say you have 2 megabytes of memory that you want to copy to another part of memory. A 32-Bit machine will do this 32 bits at a time. A 64-Bit machine will do this 64 bits at a time.

    So there's another benefit of 64-Bit over 32-Bit:
    For operations on large sections of memory, you'll get things done twice as fast
    If you have a program that doesn't deal with numbers greater than 4.2 billion, and if your program doesn't do operations on large sections of memory, then I don't think you'll see a difference between a 32-Bit CPU and a 64-Bit CPU.

    For instance, the password generator I wrote recently wouldn't run any better on a 64-Bit CPU because it dealt with small numbers and didn't do any operations on large sections of memory. However, there are quite a few algorithms that benefit from having a "bigger bitness" CPU.

    Remember when I was talking about the Big Number library for C called "GMP"? Well if you use that to deal with ridiculously big numbers, then a 64-Bit CPU is way better than a 32-Bit CPU. They have some info about it on their own website http://gmplib.org/32vs64.html (for anyone who's hesitant to click on links, it's actually a nice light interesting read).

    And just one final thing... the whole thing about "porting" a program from 32-Bit to 64-Bit. When I got into programming, it wasn't long before I took a liking to portable programming. If a program is written properly with portability in mind, then you won't need to port it. For instance, when I'm writing a program in C, you'll see me use integer types such as "uint_fast64_t". What this does is ask the compiler to choose the fastest integer type for doing 64-Bit arithmetic. So if my program is compiled for a 64-Bit machine, it'll use a 64-Bit integer type instead of using two 32-Bit integer types. No need to play around changing the code for the "next generation".

    But alas, you have some really bad programmers out there who unnecessarily take the flexibility and portability out of their code. Microsoft are particularly bad at this. I almost vomit any time I have to take a look through <windows.h>.

    When I want to write a portable algorithm, I think about the following:
    1) Will it run on a machine that has a 9-Bit byte? (They have existed)
    2) Will it run on a super computer where a byte is 64 bits?
    3) Will it run on a machine where there's "padding" in the integer types (some supercomputers can don't integer arithmetic, instead they do floating point arithmetic and just pad any integer values with zeroes after the decimal point).

    So anyway, at the end of it all, the more bits the better (assuming the CPU can still run at the same speed). I'm reminded of cars a little bit here. If someone said to me, "Would you prefer a larger capacity engine or more efficient combustion"?, it's say "Both!". Similary, if I had a 32-Bit CPU and someone asked me "Would you like a 64-Bit CPU or would you like a 32-Bit dual-core"? then I'd have to say "Both!" as well!

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    916

    Default

    The problem here doesn't lie in the fact that 32bit is better than 64bit, obviously anyone who has a brain or two would say 64bit is better than 32bit because of the higher number.

    The real problem here is that there are lacking driver/software support. Unless if you want to convert all 32bit driver/software to 64bit you can but I can guarentee you it'll be a big job in which I am sure nobody dares to do singlehandedly.

    A car fitted with bigger capacity does not necessarily mean swapping engine and/or its internals. It also means any other running gear that transfer's the engine power onto actual wheel/s may also need upgrading in order to handle the extra load. A 64bit leap from 32bit leap is a very big leap. Its not impossible, just like swapping the car's engine + internals to a bigger capacity but its alot of work.

    Thorin: I agree, but I'm making a point here that people always expect/demand better yet they fail to see the basics. 64bit is still too young before we will see backtrack to be running on 64bit.

  3. #43
    Very good friend of the forum Virchanza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hatake_kakashi View Post
    The real problem here is that there are lacking driver/software support. Unless if you want to convert all 32bit driver/software to 64bit you can but I can guarentee you it'll be a big job in which I am sure nobody dares to do singlehandedly.
    Currently Backtrack runs on machines that have the x86 instruction set. I'm not very familiar with the x86 instruction set, but let's pretend that it adds two 32-Bit integers by doing the following:

    Code:
    add32 a, b
    In order to add two 64-Bit numbers, it would have to perform two operations as follows:

    Code:
    add32 a[0],b[0]
    add32 a[1],b[1]
    Now let's say we have a C algorithm that adds two 64-Bit integers together. It might look something like as follows:

    Code:
    long long unsigned Add(long long unsigned a, long long unsigned b)
    {
        return a + b;
    }
    
    /* Stupid, I know, but bear with me */
    Using a 32-Bit version of gcc, this will be compiled to:

    Code:
    add32 a[0],b[0]
    add32 a[1],b[1]
    However if we use a 64-Bit version of gcc, this will be compiled to:

    Code:
    add64 a,b
    So if you have a 64-Bit-capable* CPU, and you have the source code for something like Aircrack, then all you have to do is compile it with a 64-Bit compiler (assuming of course that Aircrack was written properly), this will make sure that the 64-Bit CPU instructions get used.

    * = I say 64-Bit-capable because today's 64-Bit CPU's are actually just x86 that have extra instructions for performing 64-Bit operations.

  4. #44
    My life is this forum thorin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Today, most CPU's are 32-Bit. If you ask a 32-Bit CPU to add two 64-Bit numbers together, it will perform two instructions on two chunks of memory. However if you ask a 64-Bit CPU to do the same thing, it'll only perform one instruction.
    This is over simplified due to the fact that modern processors have include extended instructions sets and registers for 64bit and 128bit processing (in the form of MMX, MMX2, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!, etc) in various forms starting back in 1997 (IIRC).

    The problem here doesn't lie in the fact that 32bit is better than 64bit, obviously anyone who has a brain or two would say 64bit is better than 32bit because of the higher number.
    The problem is bigger than that. People also see that 32bit applications function "better" or "faster" on modern 64bit CPUs, however, they incorrectly attribute this performance benefit to the fact that the CPU is 64bit. In fact the bit'dness of the CPU is irrelevant, the actual things affecting the performance of 32bit apps on 64bit CPUs are:
    • Clock Speed
    • Improved branch prediction
    • Improved/increased amounts of L1, L2, L3 cache
    • Additional MMX/SSE etc instructions
    • Multiple cores
    • Better power handling
    • Improved manufacturing technology(ies)
    • etc
    all of which are part of the normal evolution of CPUs.
    I'm a compulsive post editor, you might wanna wait until my post has been online for 5-10 mins before quoting it as it will likely change.

    I know I seem harsh in some of my replies. SORRY! But if you're doing something illegal or posting something that seems to be obvious BS I'm going to call you on it.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •