PDA

View Full Version : Considering AMD Athlon64


RobB
November 18th 04, 06:02 PM
I presently owned an Intel P4 2.53 GHz based system and plan on upgrading.
I use my PC primarily for gaming and Internet. I have read the pros and
cons regarding Intel/ADM processors and for my purposes, I'm leaning towards
ADM. The only concern I have is when it comes to the Internet. ADM
Athlon64's are slower when it comes to office applications content creation,
video and audio encoding and general multitasking than a 'matching' Pentium
4 processor and I'm not sure if that includes general Internet usage such as
having multiple web sites open, streaming video, music, etc.



Therefore, ADM is the way to go for gaming, just not sure about the Internet
usage part.

Mike
November 18th 04, 09:22 PM
slower than a matching P4?
is that comparable P4 similarly priced?

"RobB" > wrote in message
...
>I presently owned an Intel P4 2.53 GHz based system and plan on upgrading.
> I use my PC primarily for gaming and Internet. I have read the pros and
> cons regarding Intel/ADM processors and for my purposes, I'm leaning
> towards
> ADM. The only concern I have is when it comes to the Internet. ADM
> Athlon64's are slower when it comes to office applications content
> creation,
> video and audio encoding and general multitasking than a 'matching'
> Pentium
> 4 processor and I'm not sure if that includes general Internet usage such
> as
> having multiple web sites open, streaming video, music, etc.
>
>
>
> Therefore, ADM is the way to go for gaming, just not sure about the
> Internet
> usage part.
>
>

Wes Newell
November 18th 04, 09:23 PM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:02:13 -0500, RobB wrote:

> Therefore, ADM is the way to go for gaming, just not sure about the Internet
> usage part.

General Internet usage requires very little cpu power. The limits are your
internet bandwidth, not the cpu. You won't notice any difference between
any of your choices, including your old P4.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

jpsga
November 18th 04, 10:25 PM
"RobB" > wrote in message
...
>I presently owned an Intel P4 2.53 GHz based system and plan on upgrading.
> I use my PC primarily for gaming and Internet. I have read the pros and
> cons regarding Intel/ADM processors and for my purposes, I'm leaning
> towards
> ADM. The only concern I have is when it comes to the Internet. ADM
> Athlon64's are slower when it comes to office applications content
> creation,
> video and audio encoding and general multitasking than a 'matching'
> Pentium
> 4 processor and I'm not sure if that includes general Internet usage such
> as
> having multiple web sites open, streaming video, music, etc.
>
>
>
> Therefore, ADM is the way to go for gaming, just not sure about the
> Internet
> usage part.
>
>
Well RobB, we are just beginning to see post questioning the merits of the
jump to 64 bit processors. These people appear to be disappointed. The
disappointment came from their not being able to define and measure just
what was important to them.

In the main, the people who have posted had expectation levels that were
very high relative to what they got from the expensive CPU's and high speed
memory. They did get a very big increase memory band width up to around
6400MB/s. I believe that you now enjoy a memory band width of around
3500MB/s. I very nice number and it is not an over all performance bottle
neck. Since digital bandwidth is the memory speed tines the number of bytes
fetched it is easy to see that a 128bit (16 bytes ) fetch at DDR400 will be
a max of 6400 MB/s. Max for eight bytes is 3200MB/s.

Their complaint that the system doesn't 'feel' any faster generally stems
from the storage. They are using a Seagate or even a single Maxtor Diamond
MAX 9 instead of RAID 0. Some switched to a single SATA drive only to find
150 MB/s is a marketing ploy. They have all this system band width waiting
for things to load from C:. Instead of loading programs and data from RAID 0
at 90 to 100 MB/s they loading at 30 to 50 MB/s just as they were with the
old 32 bit system

If they want a better Internet speed performance they have to go to DSL or
cable. The streaming file speeds that are available to the user depend upon
his connection speed. There is no enhancement when a 64 bit processor is
used.

Multiple open web sites is a matter of how much RAM is installed and the OS.

If they want better gaming they should look at their AGP. More on-card
memory and faster D to A converters are the key. Again 64 bits is no help
since the AGP is a 32bit unit as is the gaming software.
..
The popularity of the AMD 64FX in 939 pins comes from its forward looking
architecture . When a true 64 bit operating system becomes available the FX
will run it. You may have to change boards, but that is cheaper than a new
CPU and memory.

JPS

Wes Newell
November 19th 04, 11:24 AM
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:25:34 +0000, jpsga wrote:

> The popularity of the AMD 64FX in 939 pins comes from its forward looking
> architecture . When a true 64 bit operating system becomes available the FX
> will run it. You may have to change boards, but that is cheaper than a new
> CPU and memory.
>
Just curious what you consider a true 64 bit OS since there has been one
already available for about 2 years or more now.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

stephen voss
November 20th 04, 09:58 PM
> Well RobB, we are just beginning to see post questioning the merits of the
> jump to 64 bit processors. These people appear to be disappointed. The
> disappointment came from their not being able to define and measure just
> what was important to them.

One of the problems is people run their athlon 64 systems using
windows xp and are annoyed because they are not seeing vast improvements.

I would say this guy is better off using his existing computer and
getting a better video card.

jpsga
November 21st 04, 01:49 AM
"Wes Newell" > wrote in message
news:[email protected] .net...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:25:34 +0000, jpsga wrote:
>
>> The popularity of the AMD 64FX in 939 pins comes from its forward looking
>> architecture . When a true 64 bit operating system becomes available the
>> FX
>> will run it. You may have to change boards, but that is cheaper than a
>> new
>> CPU and memory.
>>
> Just curious what you consider a true 64 bit OS since there has been one
> already available for about 2 years or more now.
>
> --
> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Great question. I will consider the coming Windows XP 64 'true' if it has
the seamless 32bit emulator that we will all live with for several years.
At the same time it will perform standard OS tasks useing 64 bit registers
where there is an advantage.

JPS

Carlo Razzeto
November 21st 04, 04:15 AM
"jpsga" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
>
> "Wes Newell" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected] .net...
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:25:34 +0000, jpsga wrote:
>>
>> Just curious what you consider a true 64 bit OS since there has been one
>> already available for about 2 years or more now.
>>
>> --
>> Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
>
> Great question. I will consider the coming Windows XP 64 'true' if it has
> the seamless 32bit emulator that we will all live with for several years.
> At the same time it will perform standard OS tasks useing 64 bit registers
> where there is an advantage.
>
> JPS

Solaris is now available and Linux has been available for a while in 64b.

Carlo

Grew
November 21st 04, 03:08 PM
I agree that a new video card eg 6800GT would give a boost to gaming. I did
that first Ti4400 to 6800GT and got a good boost. However, I then went from
an Athlon TB 2600 to an AMD64 3000+ S939 in an MSI K8N Neo2 and saw an even
greater boost of speed all round. I oc the 1.8GHz 3000+ to 2.4GHz which 3800
levels and it really does feel faster and that using presently a single SATA
drive. In part, I suppose it depends where you are starting from. My point
however is that going from 2600TB to an AMD64 3800 under WinXP does yield a
tangible difference and at a great price. It also offers a good upgrade path
for the CPU and the OS to 64bit (early next year). I think I will get a few
years out of this platform. Hopefully by then the next lot will be much
better with dual cpu cores and dual graphics cards etc.


"stephen voss" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> Well RobB, we are just beginning to see post questioning the merits of
>> the jump to 64 bit processors. These people appear to be disappointed.
>> The disappointment came from their not being able to define and measure
>> just what was important to them.
>
> One of the problems is people run their athlon 64 systems using
> windows xp and are annoyed because they are not seeing vast improvements.
>
> I would say this guy is better off using his existing computer and
> getting a better video card.