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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
aether wrote:
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. It should be fine. 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... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Pope wrote:
David Schwartz wrote: "aether" wrote in message roups.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? I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting 64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support. It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games, the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete. If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year. I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that. Ben And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool dude, smoked stogies). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
signmeuptoo wrote:
Ben Pope wrote: If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year. I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that. And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool dude, smoked stogies). Dual Processors are going into socket 939 in under 6 months, that hardly sounds like a socket thats gonna die soon. When did Socket A come into existance? 5 years ago? And it's still going. OK, so you've had socket 754 and 939 introduced. How long was 754 around before 939 came out? Not very long... there weren't that many people who bought a 754 and were unable to do the research and find out that it was gonna die pretty quick. So AMD made a mistake. However, socket 754 will be around in the cheap market for some time too. There's talk of a DDR2 CPU (new socket, over 1000 pins), but thats not gonna be for a year or so. Thats hardly that many sockets, look at what Intel are doing... 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... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start being
coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released.. There arent many out there right now, but until then, all programs run in 32 bit, regardless of weather or not you have a 64 bit processor installed. -- http://www.techfreakz.com - PC Enthusiasts "signmeuptoo" wrote in message ink.net... Ben Pope wrote: David Schwartz wrote: "aether" wrote in message groups.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? I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting 64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support. It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games, the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete. If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year. I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that. Ben And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool dude, smoked stogies). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
writes:
Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start being coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released.. There arent many out there right now, but until then, all programs run in 32 bit, regardless of weather or not you have a 64 bit processor installed. Unless you want to use an alternative OS (Linux, BSD, Solaris). Since there are a lot of programs whose source is also available making them 64-bit is just a recompile away. Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main thing. P.S. Could you please not top-post? -- David Magda dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca, http://www.magda.ca/ Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"David Magda" wrote in message ... Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main thing. That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However, there is very little currently existing software that can significantly benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with numbers larger than a hundred thousand. DS |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I think David has a point, if it's speed your looking for but you dont
want to risk it use Parallel boards instead. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
David Schwartz wrote:
That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However, there is very little currently existing software that can significantly benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with numbers larger than a hundred thousand. In the case of x86 64-bits, the real gain is to be had from the additional registers, and the onboard memory controller (in some cases). Also some unrecompiled 32-bit apps can gain from having additional address space specifically devoted to them and not shared with the OS, which now has its own address space well out of the way of these apps. Yousuf Khan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... I think David has a point, if it's speed your looking for but you dont want to risk it use Parallel boards instead. what? please elaborate. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
While for the most part that may be true for the majority of users, there
are applications where the added memory and address space would make a significant difference, most notably where massive amounts of data requiring extremely accurate calculations are slugged around. There are also a significant number of businesses whose data mining operations, and on occasion regular database requirements, would benefit from the extra hard memory. Of course, a lot of those applications are already using existing 64-bit hardware and operating systems, so Microsoft and its toy operating system isn't going to be making a great deal of headway there. "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... David Schwartz wrote: That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However, there is very little currently existing software that can significantly benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with numbers larger than a hundred thousand. In the case of x86 64-bits, the real gain is to be had from the additional registers, and the onboard memory controller (in some cases). Also some unrecompiled 32-bit apps can gain from having additional address space specifically devoted to them and not shared with the OS, which now has its own address space well out of the way of these apps. Yousuf Khan |
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 04:38 AM |
Does Video Memory Size Matter? | Carol Fieldus | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | October 31st 03 12:00 PM |
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 |