A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Overclocking AMD Processors
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bye bye AMD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #72  
Old October 4th 03, 11:56 AM
Darthy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:04:09 GMT, "Toby Groves"
wrote:

In article , rstlne
?.?@?.? writes
The Athlon 64 FX-51 is now the highest
performing desktop x86 CPU you can buy.

Unless, of course, you're doing audio or video encoding,
or using it for Seti@home.

Then the P4 kicks it's butt.

AMD REALLY needs to work on their cache to speed things up.



What?
Seti@Home
What?
Go back and rethink that statment
HUGE Numbercrunching by a 64 bit processor is slower than a 32 bit processor
Go back and rethink that statment


A 64 bit processor running 32 bit code in that instance. It would seem
you're just the kind of gullible customer AMD wants, blinded by science.


Hmmm ... benchmarks were done with WindowsXP-32bit...

So the AMD 64 2.2Ghz CPU (Same as AMD 32bit 2.2Ghz CPU (3200) ran
circles around the 32bit version.... hmmmm

32bit programs wont take advantage of the CPU (Just like they don't
take advantage of the P4 with HT).. but the 64bit system does move its
butt faster...


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!
  #73  
Old October 10th 03, 09:21 PM
Eric Witte
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A 64 bit processor running 32 bit code in that instance. It would seem
you're just the kind of gullible customer AMD wants, blinded by science.


32-bit code twice as fast in terms of IPC.

Eric
  #74  
Old October 11th 03, 08:09 PM
Supertimer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Darthy wrote:

"Toby Groves" wrote:

A 64 bit processor running 32 bit code in that instance. It would seem
you're just the kind of gullible customer AMD wants, blinded by science.


Hmmm ... benchmarks were done with WindowsXP-32bit...

So the AMD 64 2.2Ghz CPU (Same as AMD 32bit 2.2Ghz CPU (3200) ran
circles around the 32bit version.... hmmmm

32bit programs wont take advantage of the CPU (Just like they don't
take advantage of the P4 with HT).. but the 64bit system does move its
butt faster...


Nice comparison above. Don't forget to mention that the
Athlon 64 3200+ costs about the same as the XP 3200+
so, in effect, you are getting the 64-bit potential "for free."

The Intel fans are just plauged by sour grapes. It is
so obvious. The 64-bit side is an added benefit. The
32-bit performance itself is enough for a person
selecting to build a new computer to choose the 64
over the XP. One would be foolish not to.
  #75  
Old October 12th 03, 12:12 AM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nice comparison above. Don't forget to mention that the
Athlon 64 3200+ costs about the same as the XP 3200+
so, in effect, you are getting the 64-bit potential "for free."

The Intel fans are just plauged by sour grapes. It is
so obvious. The 64-bit side is an added benefit. The
32-bit performance itself is enough for a person
selecting to build a new computer to choose the 64
over the XP. One would be foolish not to.


Not Really free..
You need a new chipset for it.. But anyone building a new system (new mobo &
processor) will def find this a nice option, esp if they were considering
something like a 3200+ barton

I am just curious how this line of non FX amd64 chips will work out
I mean, I really dont see the difference between the 64 and 64fx boards..
Okay we have a 754pin vs 940pin with another socket change coming next year
but they are the same chipsets..
If users could buy a athlon64 (nonfx) chip to go in a board that would
support FX chips then I bet they would sell like hotcakes.. That's one of
the great things about the cureent athlon and athlon XP range.. they can all
plug into the same damn boards AND WORK.. But I guess they will take the
intel road, if you want a current processor then you will ahve to buy a new
motheboard that has a diff socket.. sigh


  #76  
Old October 16th 03, 01:21 PM
Dark1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rstlne" .@. wrote in message
...
Nice comparison above. Don't forget to mention that the
Athlon 64 3200+ costs about the same as the XP 3200+
so, in effect, you are getting the 64-bit potential "for free."

The Intel fans are just plauged by sour grapes. It is
so obvious. The 64-bit side is an added benefit. The
32-bit performance itself is enough for a person
selecting to build a new computer to choose the 64
over the XP. One would be foolish not to.


Not Really free..
You need a new chipset for it.. But anyone building a new system (new mobo

&
processor) will def find this a nice option, esp if they were considering
something like a 3200+ barton

I am just curious how this line of non FX amd64 chips will work out
I mean, I really dont see the difference between the 64 and 64fx boards..
Okay we have a 754pin vs 940pin with another socket change coming next

year
but they are the same chipsets..
If users could buy a athlon64 (nonfx) chip to go in a board that would
support FX chips then I bet they would sell like hotcakes.. That's one of
the great things about the cureent athlon and athlon XP range.. they can

all
plug into the same damn boards AND WORK.. But I guess they will take the
intel road, if you want a current processor then you will ahve to buy a

new
motheboard that has a diff socket.. sigh


Although I'm personally extremely disappointed in AMD for using multiple
sockets when I know it could have been done without going there, I will say
that it doesn't change much. Even with the Duron/Tbird/XP you had to buy a
new motherboard to get in on a significant performance increase. It just
wasn't about the socket before, it was about the northbridge/FSB speed
jumps.. When I went from a 1700+ XP to a 2500+, I had to get a motherboard
that would support the new 166/200FSB..
With the 64, you can (or hopefully provided they don't keep changing sockets
after 2k4) take advantage of faster mem just by swapping the CPU since the
mem controller goes with it..
Personally, I'm ust going to wait for DDR2 to get a hold and supported in
the next generation before going 64.. until winXP 64 bit is released there's
not much reason for any of us to bother anyway..


  #77  
Old October 17th 03, 01:55 AM
Dark1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Of course, of course...
I've given linux a run or two myself, just eventually tired of every new
proggy I installed becoming a new adventure.. Grew up with an M$ based
understanding of running a computer, I guess I'm an old dog who can't learn
new tricks..


"baskitcaise" wrote in message
...
Dark1 wrote:



Although I'm personally extremely disappointed in AMD for using multiple
sockets when I know it could have been done without going there, I will

say
that it doesn't change much. Even with the Duron/Tbird/XP you had to

buy a
new motherboard to get in on a significant performance increase. It just
wasn't about the socket before, it was about the northbridge/FSB speed
jumps.. When I went from a 1700+ XP to a 2500+, I had to get a

motherboard
that would support the new 166/200FSB..
With the 64, you can (or hopefully provided they don't keep changing

sockets
after 2k4) take advantage of faster mem just by swapping the CPU since

the
mem controller goes with it..
Personally, I'm ust going to wait for DDR2 to get a hold and supported

in
the next generation before going 64.. until winXP 64 bit is released

there's
not much reason for any of us to bother anyway..



There are some O/S`s that can use it now

No flames please just pointing out a fact.

--
Mark
Twixt hill and high water.
N.Wales, UK.
Email is spam trap try baskitcaise at gmx dot co dot uk



  #78  
Old October 17th 03, 09:54 AM
rstlne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There are some O/S`s that can use it now

No flames please just pointing out a fact.

--
Mark
Twixt hill and high water.
N.Wales, UK.
Email is spam trap try baskitcaise at gmx dot co dot uk


Yea.. Most understand that..
but the big thing is windows (or rather a microsoft) os.. if MS says it's
not worth the time and effort then that will instantly kill software
companys porting applications, services, and games to the system..
if that happens then you would have to consider if it's worth buying the
system.. Kinda like buying a nice cruiseship to go down that little creek to
go down a small creek


  #79  
Old October 17th 03, 10:43 PM
baskitcaise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rstlne wrote:


Yea.. Most understand that..
but the big thing is windows (or rather a microsoft) os.. if MS says it's
not worth the time and effort then that will instantly kill software
companys porting applications, services, and games to the system..
if that happens then you would have to consider if it's worth buying the
system.. Kinda like buying a nice cruiseship to go down that little creek to
go down a small creek


Yep agree fully with you there, the old chicken and egg syndrome again, bloat
forces faster bigger systems then the systems overtake for a while while the
software tries to catch up, and then start all over again.

--
Mark
Twixt hill and high water.
N.Wales, UK.
Email is spam trap try baskitcaise at gmx dot co dot uk
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.