It's true that I can't imagine anyone running a 32-bit operating for tasks requiring a dedicated GPU. But the real question is perhaps what this means for 32-bit programs on a 64-bit system. If I understand Windows' graphics architecture correctly, programs using the GPU need to load a client-side DLL from the driver (the ICD), which needs to match the program in question. Do these new drivers still include a 32-bit ICD, or are old games and programs impossible to run going forward?
They don't exist in a vacuum though. As soon as a single 32 bit application is opened, you need to load in and keep in memory all the 32 bit libraries associated.
So even if each 32 bit app is more efficient, going fully 64 bit is a net win since you can just keep that single set of libraries in memory.
In the case of Linux, a lot of distros don't even include 32-bit binaries as part of the default install. The Debian branch including Ubuntu is a case in point. If you want to run 32-bit applications, you've got to also download and store the supporting binaries which bloats the OS a tad. It's better to recompile for 64-bit if possible.
What does "efficient" even mean? There is numerous examples where 64-bit is unquestionably faster. The only marginally negative effect anyone could even come up with is that 64-bit uses a tad bit more memory, but that difference is practically negligible.
All pointers are a factor of two bigger (8 bytes vs. 4) so it makes quite a difference to RAM usage, which affects RAM bandwidth required, system costs more as it needs more RAM, etc. Having said that, there doesn't seem any point in turning the clock back and running 32-bit code at the present point in time.
Well that might make sense if you are making 1 trillion IoT devices that have to cost 35 cents each but on the desktop and even on mobile phones how much more will be the cost increased? Five dolla?
That's why we need the x32 ABI - best of both worlds. Sadly compatibility is not perfect, it's still in Debian Ports but there seems to be not that much effort to get issues in e.g. LLVM fixed for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI
64-bit OSes typically target a higher feature set than 32-bit OSes do. A 32-bit OS targeting all of the newest instructions would be better in many cases than a 64-bit operating system.
Honestly, I think it's impressive just how long AMD (now) and NV (last December) continued supporting these edge cases. No real case could have been made against this move even years ago.
Pretty sure the only reason 32-bit continued to be supported was because of Win 7 Pro support contracts. Once Win7 support was dropped by M$ they were free to stop supporting drivers for it.
Where this will eventually bite is when MS updates the driver model and the next feature update can't install without one. This has already happened with a few Intel Atom chips using 3rd party GPUs instead of Intel's in house design. Those systems got moved to a consumer equivalent of a W10 LTSB version that will get 10 years of security fixes but no new features.
When the same thing happens with Intel's drivers, we'll see the beginning of the end for 32 bit Windows.
It good idea because it reduces development costs, but there are applications that because of large amount of installations are still 32 and would have severe issues going to 64 but because of compilers and 3rd party libraries dependencies
Fortunately for .them integrated graphics card is good enough from them and similarly embedded windows has longer lifespan
Where do you see a lot of 32 bit operating systems still in use that would use a discrete video card? Virtually every new machine is using a 64 bit OS, with the only exceptions being where someone has some OLD software(which won't support a new video card anyway, or need driver updates).
What some people may have missed is that 32 bits is inherently limited to 4GB worth of memory, and while there can be workarounds, for the most part, you need to have video memory sitting below the 4GB mark. This was entertaining back when 4GB was at the high end of what people would have in their computers because you would see a person with 3GB of memory, a 2GB video card, and then seeing under 2GB of RAM available for programs(because that video memory has to sit below the 4GB line).
Obviously a different system architecture might not have this limitation than what we have in the "PC" world, because a fresh look would KNOW that needing to have video and other card memory sitting in the same "addressable" space as main system memory would be a big limitation.
So, how many video cards are being made that have less than 4GB of video memory on them these days? That is why I suspect that AMD has made the decision not to bother spending resources for OLD cards where the tradeoffs are not worth it.
Thank you for the info! I am a designer by myself and I believe that this update will help to create cool games and players will be able to make a small deposit at this site https://wageringadvisors.co.uk/best-10-deposit-cas... and only for 10 pounds get big winnings. Thank you for the information!
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
22 Comments
Back to Article
TheGiantRat - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
32-bit OSes, apps and drivers make no sense from 10 years ago.StevenD - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
32 is a bit useful in some situations. But any system powerful enough to make good use of a dedicated graphics card requires 64 bit.Dolda2000 - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
It's true that I can't imagine anyone running a 32-bit operating for tasks requiring a dedicated GPU. But the real question is perhaps what this means for 32-bit programs on a 64-bit system. If I understand Windows' graphics architecture correctly, programs using the GPU need to load a client-side DLL from the driver (the ICD), which needs to match the program in question. Do these new drivers still include a 32-bit ICD, or are old games and programs impossible to run going forward?Zingam - Sunday, October 28, 2018 - link
In what situations?In controllers - yes, on the desktop and even on mobile phones, I don't think so.
lilmoe - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
64 bit OSs are better. 32 bit apps are more efficient.tipoo - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
They don't exist in a vacuum though. As soon as a single 32 bit application is opened, you need to load in and keep in memory all the 32 bit libraries associated.So even if each 32 bit app is more efficient, going fully 64 bit is a net win since you can just keep that single set of libraries in memory.
PeachNCream - Monday, October 29, 2018 - link
In the case of Linux, a lot of distros don't even include 32-bit binaries as part of the default install. The Debian branch including Ubuntu is a case in point. If you want to run 32-bit applications, you've got to also download and store the supporting binaries which bloats the OS a tad. It's better to recompile for 64-bit if possible.nevcairiel - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
What does "efficient" even mean? There is numerous examples where 64-bit is unquestionably faster. The only marginally negative effect anyone could even come up with is that 64-bit uses a tad bit more memory, but that difference is practically negligible.stephenbrooks - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
All pointers are a factor of two bigger (8 bytes vs. 4) so it makes quite a difference to RAM usage, which affects RAM bandwidth required, system costs more as it needs more RAM, etc. Having said that, there doesn't seem any point in turning the clock back and running 32-bit code at the present point in time.Zingam - Sunday, October 28, 2018 - link
Well that might make sense if you are making 1 trillion IoT devices that have to cost 35 cents each but on the desktop and even on mobile phones how much more will be the cost increased? Five dolla?III-V - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
You efficiently throw away 8 registers.GreenReaper - Sunday, October 28, 2018 - link
That's why we need the x32 ABI - best of both worlds. Sadly compatibility is not perfect, it's still in Debian Ports but there seems to be not that much effort to get issues in e.g. LLVM fixed for it:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI
lmcd - Sunday, October 28, 2018 - link
64-bit OSes typically target a higher feature set than 32-bit OSes do. A 32-bit OS targeting all of the newest instructions would be better in many cases than a 64-bit operating system.nismotigerwvu - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
Honestly, I think it's impressive just how long AMD (now) and NV (last December) continued supporting these edge cases. No real case could have been made against this move even years ago.linuxgeex - Sunday, October 28, 2018 - link
Pretty sure the only reason 32-bit continued to be supported was because of Win 7 Pro support contracts. Once Win7 support was dropped by M$ they were free to stop supporting drivers for it.Gigaplex - Sunday, October 28, 2018 - link
Windows 7 extended support doesn't end until 2020.PeachNCream - Monday, October 29, 2018 - link
January 2020, so not very deep into the year. That means ~14 months from now.DanNeely - Monday, October 29, 2018 - link
Where this will eventually bite is when MS updates the driver model and the next feature update can't install without one. This has already happened with a few Intel Atom chips using 3rd party GPUs instead of Intel's in house design. Those systems got moved to a consumer equivalent of a W10 LTSB version that will get 10 years of security fixes but no new features.When the same thing happens with Intel's drivers, we'll see the beginning of the end for 32 bit Windows.
HStewart - Saturday, October 27, 2018 - link
It good idea because it reduces development costs, but there are applications that because of large amount of installations are still 32 and would have severe issues going to 64 but because of compilers and 3rd party libraries dependenciesFortunately for .them integrated graphics card is good enough from them and similarly embedded windows has longer lifespan
Targon - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
Where do you see a lot of 32 bit operating systems still in use that would use a discrete video card? Virtually every new machine is using a 64 bit OS, with the only exceptions being where someone has some OLD software(which won't support a new video card anyway, or need driver updates).Targon - Saturday, November 3, 2018 - link
What some people may have missed is that 32 bits is inherently limited to 4GB worth of memory, and while there can be workarounds, for the most part, you need to have video memory sitting below the 4GB mark. This was entertaining back when 4GB was at the high end of what people would have in their computers because you would see a person with 3GB of memory, a 2GB video card, and then seeing under 2GB of RAM available for programs(because that video memory has to sit below the 4GB line).Obviously a different system architecture might not have this limitation than what we have in the "PC" world, because a fresh look would KNOW that needing to have video and other card memory sitting in the same "addressable" space as main system memory would be a big limitation.
So, how many video cards are being made that have less than 4GB of video memory on them these days? That is why I suspect that AMD has made the decision not to bother spending resources for OLD cards where the tradeoffs are not worth it.
Robb Drek - Sunday, October 18, 2020 - link
Thank you for the info! I am a designer by myself and I believe that this update will help to create cool games and players will be able to make a small deposit at this site https://wageringadvisors.co.uk/best-10-deposit-cas... and only for 10 pounds get big winnings. Thank you for the information!