Is my CPU 32-bit or 64-bit based?

[Discord]

Now this is the big quetion, which frankly is yet to be answered.

Does my processor work in 32-bit or 64-bit mode? I looked under System, in DXDIAG and even in the BIOS prefs but the only message I keep getting is "Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2250 @ 1.73GHz (2 CPUs)". The thing is that the laptop is fairly new and I wouldn't mind running a 64-bit Vista on it, however, that'd only make sense if I have a 64-bit CPU. Can anybody help?

[Rostum]

All Core 2 Duo processors feature EM64T, which is essentially Intel's version of AMD64, making it 64-bit compatible. Though, Vista 64-bit has a lot of software and driver incompatibilities, unless they've fixed a lot of that recently?

So no, it's not 64-bit compatible as it's just Core Duo.

[Discord]

All Core 2 Duo processors feature EM64T, which is essentially Intel's version of AMD64, making it 64-bit compatible. Though, Vista 64-bit has a lot of software and driver incompatibilities, unless they've fixed a lot of that recently?

So no, it's not 64-bit compatible as it's just Core Duo.

Alrighty, thanks!

[o_O]

I'd avoid 64 bit environments altogether. As Omecle said, you're going to get major stability and compatibility issues, since many hardware developers have completely neglected 64 bit OSes thus far.

[Discord]

Hehe, well, the question was a general one and yes, getting Vista now ain't the best idea.

I think they'll catch up on 64-bit soon enough.:)

[Rostum]

Yeah I plan on buying a whole new computer at the end of this year. Hopefully by then Vista will be good.

[MecaKane]

What's the deal with core duos anyway, they're like expensive but slower clockspeeds than even dual core AMDs! Are they like straight up double their clock speeds or something?

[Yamaneko]

The old P4s were designed around the NetBurst architecture which stressed high clock speeds. AMD really beat them in the niche gamer market because they were focusing on improving processes per clock cycle and power consumption. So that's why you had things like an Athlon XP 3000+ being on 2.17GHz stock, but able to compete with a 3GHz P4 from Intel. With Yonah (Core Duo), and later with Merom, Woodcrest and Conroe, Intel CPUs have been made with clock cycle efficiency in mind (as well as power consumption). So you end up seeing a Core Duo 2.0GHz beating out a P4 3.0+GHz machine very easily. It's all around better design philosophy and why Intel is back on board with hardcore gamers. AMD still has the price advantage, but that won't matter eventually.

[Discord]

The old P4s were designed around the NetBurst architecture which stressed high clock speeds. AMD really beat them in the niche gamer market because they were focusing on improving processes per clock cycle and power consumption. So that's why you had things like an Athlon XP 3000+ being on 2.17GHz stock, but able to compete with a 3GHz P4 from Intel. With Yonah (Core Duo), and later with Merom, Woodcrest and Conroe, Intel CPUs have been made with clock cycle efficiency in mind (as well as power consumption). So you end up seeing a Core Duo 2.0GHz beating out a P4 3.0+GHz machine very easily. It's all around better design philosophy and why Intel is back on board with hardcore gamers. AMD still has the price advantage, but that won't matter eventually.

At this point we all open our mouthes and say "Woooooooooooooow!". Respect for the knowing all of that, mate.:cool: