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
|
|||
|
|||
In article , JK wrote:
Stacey wrote: JK wrote: Strontium wrote: What amazes me is that people seem to think that 64bit technology is Mecca. It's been around, for a while, already. It has been around in very high priced servers. Now for the first time it will be available in affordable desktop PCs. With no usable software on the horizon.. The Athlon 64 runs 32 bit software rapidly, and probably even more rapidly when using a 64 bit operating system. 64 bit software is in development. Expect a 64 bit version of Windows for the Athlon 64 and Opteron soon. 64 bit applications might start appearing soon. SuSE is shipping 64 bit Linux. Now that the kernal and GCC are ported everything else will be recompiled quickly. The core Open Source software has been ported to so many platforms, including 64 bit boxes like Alpha and IBM z900 (*), for years, that for most of the code it's just a recompile. The real benefit, as I understand it, will first come very large or very fast databases, like Oracle, which have seen 4 GB as a real limit to effective use of a CPU chip. The real screamers can now use IMDB's (In-Memory DataBases). MySQL just annnounced that they will develop a version optimized to run in a virtual address space. If you don't have to deal with buffers and I/O management the database algorithims can be very different, much simpler, and much faster. But it requires a server redesign and rewrite. Unless you do something like weather forcasting, or big physics at home I can's see anything that will benefit from a 64 bit address space. CPU speed is always good. The silicon real estate needed for 64-bit buses and registers costs $$$ and power and may be better employed in a 32 bit CPU that runs instructions faster, for the same manufacturing cost. If Opteron system runs instructions faster, for the same bucks, buy it. Don't pay a premium for 64 bits unless you have a specific requirement in mind. 16 bits was never enough for general purpose systems, even in the hayday of the pdp-11 it was recognized as a "small" system. It's main usage being unix servers. Why the general consumer would need it, baffles me. Why do we need 32 bit processors? Why not use 16 bit processors instead? Because all apps now are 32 bit. It took years for apps to migrate from 16 to 32 bit. It might take a bit of time for all major software applications to be released in 64 bit, however some may start appearing soon. That is what is nice about Athlon 64 and Opteron. 64 bit applications can run next to 32 bit applications. I doubt, very seriously, that you will have any applications that will even use 64bit.. LOL! Did you say that you doubted 32 bit applications would appear when many were still using 16 bit processors? But why pay a SUPER premium for a platform that has no software yet? I'd give it a year or so and see where things are at and the prices to come down. Super premium? I doubt it. The Opteron 140 looks like it is being priced at under $300 in large quantities. Some of the Athlon 64s will probably be priced much less. -- Stacey -- Al Dykes ----------- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Enlightenment..
thanks for ans my questions. No problem. Looking at AMD's roadmap, it looks like athlon 64 is here to stay on desktop Yep. (Well unless AMD goes bankrupt, Then maybe Apple will take over) Of course 64bit system were avaliable in servers for quite some time but i dont think we all own a server at home! True, not everyone owns a server at home. In addition most servers are not 64bit. It's just that servers have been the area where 64bit has gained the most market penetration. Maybe intel might enable 64bit on their pentium 5! Anything is possible. Hey wait a minute, Intel would prefer a pubilcity stun to knock out AMD... so maybe they will better AMD by pushing out a 128bit processor!! Almost certainly not. The bit number is exponential. 2^32 = 4GB (thus 4GB limit to memory on normal systems). 2^128 = 3.169*10^29 (wow, nobody will have that memory within the next few years, computers will need to be made out of completely new materials). Even the 64bit systems from AMD have a reduced bus so there really isn't 2^64 memory avaliable. Short Answer, 128bit won't be on the desktop for a long time, if ever within your lifetime. Like it or not... AMD is here to stay cos it is just plain cheaper than intel. Very True! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
That's a sad state, of affairs, when AMD has to resort to 64bit to
'compete'. Sad, sad, sad. I said 'bye bye', to AMD. Bye Bye. 64bit is not just a buzz word. To continue expanding the capabilities of home computers 64bit will be needed eventually. 64bit will be coming, why not start introducing it now. The processor will replace current Athlons. Even if you don't use a 64bit OS the 32bit mode still outperforms current processors. It sounds like you have a grudge against AMD that you have to justify by knocking future technology pioneered by the company. Or maybe you feel a need to justify your use of Intel. No matter what your reson, AMD will be offering chips that can outperform Intel and for some reason you don't like that. Please keep it to yourself, I don't think that the people in this group appreciate your complaints without answering the questions. To All: for more info about AMD's 64bit offerings see: http://www.x86-64.org/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I'll speak when and where, I damned well please. You don't like it?
Killfile me. - John stood up, at show-n-tell, and said: That's a sad state, of affairs, when AMD has to resort to 64bit to 'compete'. Sad, sad, sad. I said 'bye bye', to AMD. Bye Bye. 64bit is not just a buzz word. To continue expanding the capabilities of home computers 64bit will be needed eventually. 64bit will be coming, why not start introducing it now. The processor will replace current Athlons. Even if you don't use a 64bit OS the 32bit mode still outperforms current processors. It sounds like you have a grudge against AMD that you have to justify by knocking future technology pioneered by the company. Or maybe you feel a need to justify your use of Intel. No matter what your reson, AMD will be offering chips that can outperform Intel and for some reason you don't like that. Please keep it to yourself, I don't think that the people in this group appreciate your complaints without answering the questions. To All: for more info about AMD's 64bit offerings see: http://www.x86-64.org/ -- Strontium "I thought I'd lost you, somewhere. But you were, never, really ever there at all. And, I want to get free..." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Don't let Strontium draw you into a lengthy mess!
Don't worry. I think this question is done. I've read enough of this group now to realize that talking with Strontium is pointless (e.g XP & Dial Up networking). I've made two posts that should answer all of the questions raised. I see no reason to continue this thread. Thanks |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Strontium wrote: - JK stood up, at show-n-tell, and said: Stacey wrote: JK wrote: Strontium wrote: What amazes me is that people seem to think that 64bit technology is Mecca. It's been around, for a while, already. It has been around in very high priced servers. Now for the first time it will be available in affordable desktop PCs. With no usable software on the horizon.. The Athlon 64 runs 32 bit software rapidly, and probably even more rapidly when using a 64 bit operating system. 64 bit software is in development. Expect a 64 bit version of Windows for the Athlon 64 and Opteron soon. 64 bit applications might start appearing soon. Poor AMD. Has to resort to 64bit technology to even 'touch' the P4 HT. LOL! You are funny. Hyperthreading looks like more hype rather than significant benefit in many instances. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107492,00.asp Sad, sad, sad. What is sad is that Intel doesn't have an affordable 64 bit solution that executes 32 bit software rapidly. It's main usage being unix servers. Why the general consumer would need it, baffles me. Why do we need 32 bit processors? Why not use 16 bit processors instead? Because all apps now are 32 bit. It took years for apps to migrate from 16 to 32 bit. It might take a bit of time for all major software applications to be released in 64 bit, however some may start appearing soon. That is what is nice about Athlon 64 and Opteron. 64 bit applications can run next to 32 bit applications. I doubt, very seriously, that you will have any applications that will even use 64bit.. LOL! Did you say that you doubted 32 bit applications would appear when many were still using 16 bit processors? But why pay a SUPER premium for a platform that has no software yet? I'd give it a year or so and see where things are at and the prices to come down. Super premium? I doubt it. The Opteron 140 looks like it is being priced at under $300 in large quantities. Some of the Athlon 64s will probably be priced much less. -- Stacey -- Strontium "I thought I'd lost you, somewhere. But you were, never, really ever there at all. And, I want to get free..." |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Not everyone has a superiority complex, as you appear to.
Apparently, having opinions that don't agree with yours (regardless of certain facts), makes me invalid. Enjoy your aristocracy. - John stood up, at show-n-tell, and said: Don't let Strontium draw you into a lengthy mess! Don't worry. I think this question is done. I've read enough of this group now to realize that talking with Strontium is pointless (e.g XP & Dial Up networking). I've made two posts that should answer all of the questions raised. I see no reason to continue this thread. Thanks -- Strontium "I thought I'd lost you, somewhere. But you were, never, really ever there at all. And, I want to get free..." |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Light wrote:
Athlon 64 is a desktop cpu. Opteron is the server cpu. Opterons beat Tbreds of the same mhz. So, we can guess that Athlon 64's will do the same. Opteron motherboards are kind of expensive. Athlon 64 motherboards will replace the 32 bit motherboards of today, so should be affordable after a short period. I think AMD64 mobos may even end up cheaper as the AMD64s have on-chip memory controllers so its not something the mobo manufacturer needs to worry about. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Strontium wrote: - John stood up, at show-n-tell, and said: do we need to buy new graphics card? sound card? or harddisk? Ram? No do we need to find hardware which are compatible with 64bit system? No Maybe i can get a copy of window xp 64... Yes but not yet what will happen to my data now if i migrate to a 64bit system? Nothing will moives, mp3, document be affected? No so what happen if i am using a 32bit software in windowxp 64? Nothing or i have to stick to everything 64bit for window xp 64 No Last question...can a 2.0ghz athlon 64 be faster than a athlonxp 2400? Definitely Quite interesting to see that AMD has nothing close to a 3.0Ghz processor. AMD uses a shorter pipeline which means that it has a lower clock speed but does more on each clock so MHz is not a good comparison. The Athlon64s will easily compete with top P4s. That's a sad state, of affairs, when AMD has to resort to 64bit to 'compete'. Sad, sad, sad. I said 'bye bye', to AMD. Bye Bye. I can only assume you are a multi-millionaire who doesn't have to worry about the cost of parts like the rest of us. Personally I'll continue to buy AMD while they keep offering better price/performance. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote:
Strontium wrote: Poor AMD. Has to resort to 64bit technology to even 'touch' the P4 HT. LOL! You are funny. Hyperthreading looks like more hype rather than significant benefit in many instances. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107492,00.asp http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...y/p4-3200.html "Prescott with its larger L1 and L2 caches, enhanced Hyper-Threading technology and higher working frequencies can become a much more attractive buy than Athlon 64." And speaking of hype http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...p4-3200_9.html "We would also like to stress that AMD's current rating system used for processor marking should not be considered a proper comparison criterion. The enhancements introduced in the new Pentium 4, such as 800MHz bus and Hyper-Threading technology, made this processor indisputably faster than Athlon XP 3200+." But your right, running a single application/benchmark isn't going to use HT but try playing a game while you're letting a video clip render and see if you think HT is useless. Oh yea you'll never use an Intel so you'll never know what you're missing. Ignorance is bliss! -- Stacey |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AMD CPU Temp (AthlonXP vs. Athlon64)? | bleekay | General | 1 | December 12th 04 08:11 PM |
Should I go Athlon64 or Barton? | Ian Riches | General | 145 | September 22nd 04 05:04 AM |
Advice/Suggestion/Info CPU comparison Athlon64 v P4 | Bruce M. Whealton | General | 1 | August 27th 04 05:15 PM |
Advice/ideas/info please CPUs Athlon64 v P4 | Bruce M. Whealton | Overclocking AMD Processors | 1 | August 27th 04 10:36 AM |
Cooling Fan for Athlon64 | Vikram | Overclocking AMD Processors | 3 | April 25th 04 09:55 PM |