If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I read recently that MS expects the number of deployments of XP64 bit to be
in the millions in the first year. Secondly, that MS will be aggressively moving apps it markets over to 64bit. IE 64 bit is the future, it is here in h/w and the s/w is coming. S/W vendors that do not move across quickly will get lost in the rush so expect some new Big Names. H/W vendors that do not provide 64 bit drivers promptly will be in the shyte. The good thing about the AMD 64 bit implementation is the ability to run 32 bit systems. The bad thing about it is the ability to run 32 bit systems. If you need a system Now then buy what you can Now. The old formular of 1 step down from the best has always worked well for me IE a Winchester 3500 on an SLI motherboard would be a good bet. (There used to be 1 very sharp price increment between fastest and 2nd fastet). The "best" system now tends to last the longest into the future - so long as the componentry is good. - Tim "aether" wrote in message ups.com... Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction. Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not, when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel), would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat
cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever. Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards available. In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means? Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more 'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel EM64T' -- right? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed" wrote in message ... On 1 Mar 2005 23:23:34 -0800, "aether" wrote: Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever. Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards available. In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means? Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more 'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel EM64T' -- right? I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64. When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and 32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under a 32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit applications and operating systems. Ed I am not sure about the Intel offerings, but the AMD 64bit chips do not experience performance degradation when executing 32bit code. If the new Xeon/P4 chips will be anything like the Itanum implimenations, you can expect horrific 32bit performance. ( 32cpu cycles to execute 1 32bit instruction, as opposed to the native 64bit RISC implimenation where its nearly a 1:1 ration of clock cycle to instruction execution for native 64bit code). I have been working with the 64bit Itanium 2 systems from HP ( entry, midlevel, and superdomes) ... i like the systems, but not a fan of the lack of 32bit performance, since nearly every 64bit app has 32bit code in it somewhere. I have been working with 2003 enterprise IA64 and Datacenter IA64. Havent been able to play with the enterprise linux platforms yet. - NuTs |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"NuTCrAcKeR" wrote in message ... "Ed" wrote in message ... On 1 Mar 2005 23:23:34 -0800, "aether" wrote: Well, congratulations guys, you've succeeded in making me somewhat cautious again. No matter, I must get this computer built. I've been through this before. It seems hesitation only brings other, better things on the horizon. If you wait, you wait forever. Besides, I've a feeling real utilization of the 64-bit CPU won't take place until 2007. At that time, if I'm still breathing air, I'll simply upgrade the CPU, as I intend on buying one of the better boards available. In any event, could anyone clarify what 'Support Intel EM64T' means? Compatibility with a 64-bit OS and software? This is surely more 'future proof' than Intel CPUs currently out that don't 'Support Intel EM64T' -- right? I would sure hope so, since EM64T is just a copy of AMD's x86-64. When you boot up with a 64-bit OS you can mix-and-match 64-bit and 32-bit applications, running in legacy mode (32-bit apps running under a 32-bit OS) they remain fully compatible with today's existing 32-bit applications and operating systems. Ed I am not sure about the Intel offerings, but the AMD 64bit chips do not experience performance degradation when executing 32bit code. If the new Xeon/P4 chips will be anything like the Itanum implimenations, you can expect horrific 32bit performance. ( 32cpu cycles to execute 1 32bit instruction, as opposed to the native 64bit RISC implimenation where its nearly a 1:1 ration of clock cycle to instruction execution for native 64bit code). I have been working with the 64bit Itanium 2 systems from HP ( entry, midlevel, and superdomes) ... i like the systems, but not a fan of the lack of 32bit performance, since nearly every 64bit app has 32bit code in it somewhere. I have been working with 2003 enterprise IA64 and Datacenter IA64. Havent been able to play with the enterprise linux platforms yet. Dead right. I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application, but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64, I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!. Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real 'killer' for 90% of users. Best Wishes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Hamlett" wrote in message ... Dead right. I have a couple of 64bit systems, because of having a single large application, which needs over 8GB of 'flat' memory space. Since we had the source, it was relatively easy to generate this as a 64bit application, but at the same time I have dozens of 32bit applications. With the AMD64, I can run a 32bit copy of XP, as a 'virtual OS', inside a 64bit Linux, and get performance in this that is as good as a native 32 bit processor!. Intel are launching their third vesion of 64bit procssor, and for some things the processors are superb, but the performance in 32 bit, is a real 'killer' for 90% of users. Don't confuse the Itanium processors, which are 64-bit processors, with the new 64-bit Pentium processors, which are 32-bit processors that also perform 64-bit operations natively. Itanium processors do not perform 32-bit operations as quickly as they perform 64-bit operations. 32-bit processors with 64-bit extensions should be essentially equally fast at both (depending upon how you measure). DS |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Could anyone tell me if this motherboard
(http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159) supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but what of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the board (http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/...es=1&model=262), and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm thinking that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
aether wrote:
Could anyone tell me if this motherboard (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159) supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but what of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the board (http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/...es=1&model=262), and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm thinking that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros. All socket 939 boards support Dual Channel. Thats the reason they aren't socket 754. Ben -- A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups. I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Pope wrote:
aether wrote: Could anyone tell me if this motherboard (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159) supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but what of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the board (http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/...es=1&model=262), and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm thinking that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros. All socket 939 boards support Dual Channel. Thats the reason they aren't socket 754. Ben -- A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups. I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... Gotcha. Thanks! |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Don't look now, but I've got another question.
Will this memory (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...tCode=80097-20) function on this motherboard (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159)? The reason I ask, is that it states for the memory on the Zipzoom site that: *Note 1: HyperX is high performance memory and may not be compatible with your computer. Please check your system specifications to ensure compatibility. *Note 2: Kingston's HyperX kits are designed and tested to meet dual channel architecture requirements such as those found on chipsets and motherboards like NVidia's Nforce2, and Intel's Canterwood and Springdale." I'm hazarding a guess, but I think if it works on an Nforce2 motherboard, it'll work on an Nforce4 board. Again, just making sure. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Remove the question mark at the end of the second link.
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159 It's the AN8 nForce4 motherboard. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter? | aether | Asus Motherboards | 65 | June 17th 05 09:56 PM |
matter of aesthetics latitude d800 | Bill | Dell Computers | 0 | December 10th 03 03:38 AM |
Does Video Memory Size Matter? | Carol Fieldus | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | October 31st 03 11:00 AM |
Does choice of PCI-slot matter with Windows 2000 installed in ACPI mode? | Bernd Bubis | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | September 24th 03 02:20 AM |
Hercules or Sapphire 9800 non-pro? Does it matter? | i d o r u | Ati Videocards | 4 | September 6th 03 04:54 PM |