amd 's 64-bit proc comes out tommarow !

Incognito · Post by **Incognito** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:05 am

So, who all is purchasing one of these bad boys? Wish i could afford one

nepenthe · Post by **nepenthe** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:56 am

Honestly, I am trying to figure out which is the quicker CPU9s0 the Opteron 200 series or the Athlon64/FX.

shant,
david

vc_wannabe · Post by **vc_wannabe** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:03 am

Well if I knew the price I would say for sure. I plan to buy one, I expect them to cost several hundered. If its into the thousands I wont...

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:24 am

To enjoy a 64bit cpu, apps (and OS's, more importantly) must be optimized. Elsewise you really won't see a difference.

I have xeon and p4 chips on different boxes in a lab - with windows, unless running Oracle or some other app, you don't see any difference at all. That all changes with Linux, however.

As fast as CPUs are now, there is no reason to upgrade to 64 except bragging rights. Give ti a year and it will be worth doing.

Edit: This is a lot like the subject of dual processors on a workstation. I have a dually rig that I'm on right now - most of the apps I run are single threaded and so when they're maxed out, my TaskMgr shows 50% utilitization. The apps aren't written to takae advantage of the other CPU....some do, but most really don't.

Incognito · Post by **Incognito** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 5:49 am

Athlon 64 3200+ $500

Athlon FX-51 $800

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:43 am

Originally posted by cyberskye
To enjoy a 64bit cpu, apps (and OS's, more importantly) must be optimized. Elsewise you really won't see a difference.

I have xeon and p4 chips on different boxes in a lab - with windows, unless running Oracle or some other app, you don't see any difference at all. That all changes with Linux, however.

As fast as CPUs are now, there is no reason to upgrade to 64 except bragging rights. Give ti a year and it will be worth doing.

Edit: This is a lot like the subject of dual processors on a workstation. I have a dually rig that I'm on right now - most of the apps I run are single threaded and so when they're maxed out, my TaskMgr shows 50% utilitization. The apps aren't written to takae advantage of the other CPU....some do, but most really don't.

interesting post and i totally agree with what your saying but as i am looking to get a new rig newy surely i am better buying something that may last longer in real terms than say for example a p4?

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:41 pm

Sure - nothing wrong with being first - it will be more expensive (relatively) now than a year from now, but why not?

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:43 pm

Originally posted by cyberskye
To enjoy a 64bit cpu, apps (and OS's, more importantly) must be optimized. Elsewise you really won't see a difference.

I have xeon and p4 chips on different boxes in a lab - with windows, unless running Oracle or some other app, you don't see any difference at all. That all changes with Linux, however.

As fast as CPUs are now, there is no reason to upgrade to 64 except bragging rights. Give ti a year and it will be worth doing.

Edit: This is a lot like the subject of dual processors on a workstation. I have a dually rig that I'm on right now - most of the apps I run are single threaded and so when they're maxed out, my TaskMgr shows 50% utilitization. The apps aren't written to takae advantage of the other CPU....some do, but most really don't.

Amen

Mytflyguy · Post by **Mytflyguy** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:23 pm

The Webacst states that UT2k4 will be available by Christmas in both 32 and 64 Bit to go with the AMD 64 and Windows 64 now has a Beta out for download and hopes to have the final version out by the beginning of 2004

It seems NVIDIA is teaming up with AMD for this !!!

Ghosthunter · Post by **Ghosthunter** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:55 pm

also dont forget until all other apps are converted to 64 bit apps, all your 32 bit apps will acutally run slower then if it was on a 32 bit chip

I would highly wait at least a year before jumping into it

Mytflyguy · Post by **Mytflyguy** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:59 pm

Supossedly thay have the Emulation to run the older 32 bit apps at the same speed that they always have ... How accurate this is I am unsure ....

I agree waiting until atleast 6 months to a year , preffereably for a second generation to work out any bugs ....

Plus God Knows Windows 64 will need 2-3 Releases to remin stable ...

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:35 pm

Originally posted by Incognito
Athlon 64 3200+ $500

Athlon FX-51 $800

see what i meant

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:37 pm

Supossedly thay have the Emulation to run the older 32 bit apps at the same speed that they always have ... How accurate this is I am unsure ....

I'm sure there is some sort of compatibility mode that they can run in. That consumes resources.

If you look at industry benchmarks for wifi, for example, you see that though an 802.11g WAP can handle both 11M(b) and 54M(g) connections at the same time. When both are connected, speed is significantly degraded for the faster (g) client. This is due to the overhead associated with determining which speed to use.

You may not notice the difference. In the server world - where 64bit Sparc has been around for a while - those ms add up. On a desktop that isn't really using the full potential anyway, you'd probably never know.

I'm not trying to trash the idea, just don't thihnk you'll get dramatic results - epsecially if the other folks you're playing with aren't on 64b architecture - I imagine that might actually adversly affect the experience, but maybe not. Gaming isn't my area

HAve fun,

Skye

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Thu Sep 25, 2003 5:51 pm

yeah caution is warranted but i'm sure things will come up to speed quicker than u realise

tbh i thinking of hl2 and buying summat that will make run good but i dont really dont wanna go intel or buy an outgoing proc

maybe one day legacy wil be gone and devs will raise the standards, bout time methinks; then maybe we will see wot xxxx £s can really do.

still going amd but being patient

currently playing cs w3 mod

tHE_0ne · Post by **tHE_0ne** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 2:21 pm

Originally posted by Incognito
Athlon 64 3200+ $500

Athlon FX-51 $800

Ill wait till they go down

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:32 pm

The Athlon 64 still uses the x86 architecture. Only it has 64bit and 32bit extensions. It will run 32 bit applications just as fast as any other processor.

Mytflyguy · Post by **Mytflyguy** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:44 pm

Yeah I think I remember seeing that somwehere too , that they didn't need a compatability mode ...

cyberskye · Post by **cyberskye** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 5:57 pm

The Athlon 64 still uses the x86 architecture. Only it has 64bit and 32bit extensions. It will run 32 bit applications just as fast as any other processor.

Didn't realize it was still x86...guess the only advantage will be larger addressable memory space, then, as the clocks are roughly the same as what they have out now...won't give that great a jump in performance for most applications at all - just the real memory-intesive applications vs. cpu intensive ones. Databases, CAD, etc won't run much if any faster - 3d games probably will tho.

the extra cache will be a boost for kernel space code, too.

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:08 pm

There are other advantages to 64 bit processors aswell outside of the large ammount of addressable memory space. It's all in the quality of the code and the compilier used.