You ever read something and feel like you came away learning or gaining nothing at all? That's kind of like how I felt after I got done reading this. The guy more or less lives in a fanciful world of 64-bit this and that, when you compare it to his list of "64-bit CPUs". What he fails to note is that a majority of the 64-bit CPUs he mentioned are highly specialized in what they do, and you really can't compare as some of them aren't necessarily general purpose such as the x86 architecture. The same argument can be made for video hardware. When the video hardware is highly optimized for doing one task, processing video, it can do it very well. It doesn't have to worry about doing anything else like a standard x86 CPU does. It's not running your OS, it's drawing stuff on a screen. A very similar thing exists with all of the CPUs the guy mentioned in the article. Some of them are highly optimized for scientific or database work. They do that very well. But probably can't handle 3D Gaming all that great. And that's the problem I have with this guy's article. Even towards the very end, he still fills his article with these hopes and dreams of crazy uber 64-bit setups that do so much more work than currently exist. Want to know the reality of 64-bit computing for x86? It offers no substantial performance boosts, filesizes are bigger, memory usage is higher (2GB of ram on an x64 machine is not the same as 2GB in x86), as such, the system can overall seem slower as it has to cache more from the HD. Any attempts at making it appear better are nothing more than companies rehashing graphics here or there on more up-to-date systems.