AMD64 - Don't you really need WinXP 64bit with it?

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:19:31 +0100
"The Old Man" wrote:

Hi,

I noticed that the AMD 64 is due out soon, people are reciveing prices
already that are cheaper than the XP 3200+. Despite the chip being
backwards compatible with 32 bit OS and software, wouldn't you really
need a 64 bit version of XP to get the best out of the CPU? Plus then
in theory 64 bit programs? By the time 64 bit software is available
surely the AMD 64 would be oldhat?

The AMD 64-bit chips have been out for a while. The Opterons outperform
32-bit chips on many benchmarks even with 32-bit Windows--it appears
that the Athlon-64 chips may not but so far nobody has tested a
production sample so we don't know for sure. The x86/64 architecture
allows 64-bit programs to be run from a 32-bit operating system, so
there is no need to upgrade the operating system in order to use the
64-bit capabilities of the processor.

In any case, 64-bit software _is_ available. It is called "Linux" and
was ported to x86/64 some time ago. And before anybody says that Linux
was not "optimized for 64-bit", that was taken care of with the Alpha
port many years ago, and refined with the Itanium port. 64-bit
computing is not new, what makes x86/64 unique is that it looks like it
may be the first 64-bit architecture that stands a chance of replacing
x86.

Further, if you have an MSDN operating system subscription you should be
getting the beta of XP for the AMD 64-bit chips soon if you haven't
already, with the production release expected early next year. Bear in
mind that there is no real trick to porting Windows to a new
architecture--NT was designed to be portable and there was a 64-bit
version for the Alpha from the start, and there's a recent 64-bit port
to the Itanium, so most of the hard work for the x86/64 port had already
been done. It would be nice if Microsoft just started providing all
three versions in the same box like they did with NT, but I suspect that
that's too much to hope for and they're going to end up with some kind
of Byzantine pricing scheme.

Graham

--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Hi,

I noticed that the AMD 64 is due out soon, people are reciveing prices
already that are cheaper than the XP 3200+. Despite the chip being backwards
compatible with 32 bit OS and software, wouldn't you really need a 64 bit
version of XP to get the best out of the CPU? Plus then in theory 64 bit
programs? By the time 64 bit software is available surely the AMD 64 would
be oldhat?

Graham

The AMD 64 FX is currently the best home processor available. In order to
take full effect of a Windows environment the 64 bit version of Windows is
due the 1st quarter of 2004. The 64 bit beta of Windows is available for
beta testers. Several game manufacturers have 64 bit games in the pipeline
or are developing patches. The people who make Unreal Tournament are working
on a 64 bit patch.

regards

B
"The Old Man" wrote in message
.. .
Hi,

I noticed that the AMD 64 is due out soon, people are reciveing prices
already that are cheaper than the XP 3200+. Despite the chip being
backwards
compatible with 32 bit OS and software, wouldn't you really need a 64 bit
version of XP to get the best out of the CPU? Plus then in theory 64 bit
programs? By the time 64 bit software is available surely the AMD 64 would
be oldhat?

Graham

B wrote:

The AMD 64 FX is currently the best home processor available.

Because? Any tests to back up this claim? Sure 64 bit WILL be the way to go
but is their any advantage TODAY to be the first person to buy into this?
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:
B wrote:


The AMD 64 FX is currently the best home processor available.


Because? Any tests to back up this claim? Sure 64 bit WILL be the way to go
but is their any advantage TODAY to be the first person to buy into this?

www.aceshardware.com

--
Michal Rosa
This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
Now playing: [winamp not running]

"Michal Rosa" wrote in message
...
Stacey wrote:
B wrote:


The AMD 64 FX is currently the best home processor available.


Because? Any tests to back up this claim? Sure 64 bit WILL be the way to
go
but is their any advantage TODAY to be the first person to buy into
this?

www.aceshardware.com

--
Michal Rosa
This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
Now playing: [winamp not running]


Thanks for the info. The AMD 64 FX was in fact the CPU I was referring to
rather than the Opteron. If MS are going to release a 64 bit version of
Windows XP, there has to be a major incentive, I guess enhanced performance
and secondly even greater stability. It the requirements placed on the home
user that interest me I guess as this is a CPU aimed for the home market as
opposed to server business environment.

Graham.

I just read that a beta version exists now and Win XP-64 could be realized
the first quarter of 2004.



"The Old Man" wrote in message
.. .

"Michal Rosa" wrote in message
...
Stacey wrote:
B wrote:


The AMD 64 FX is currently the best home processor available.


Because? Any tests to back up this claim? Sure 64 bit WILL be the way
to
go
but is their any advantage TODAY to be the first person to buy into
this?

www.aceshardware.com

--
Michal Rosa
This message was written entirely with 100% recycled electrons.
Now playing: [winamp not running]


Thanks for the info. The AMD 64 FX was in fact the CPU I was referring to
rather than the Opteron. If MS are going to release a 64 bit version of
Windows XP, there has to be a major incentive, I guess enhanced
performance
and secondly even greater stability. It the requirements placed on the
home
user that interest me I guess as this is a CPU aimed for the home market
as
opposed to server business environment.

Graham.

Michal Rosa wrote:

Stacey wrote:
B wrote:


The AMD 64 FX is currently the best home processor available.


Because? Any tests to back up this claim? Sure 64 bit WILL be the way to
go but is their any advantage TODAY to be the first person to buy into
this?

www.aceshardware.com



Looks like many of the benchmarks are back and forth as ussual. I see no
"best home processor avalible", especially considering what they are asking
for them (and what MS is going to want for a 64 bit OS). Once again it
looks like it depends on the applications which processor is on top.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=15

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=16

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...lon_64-35.html

BTW when I'm looking at a site that when benchmark numbers tie they place
the AMD (or the P4) on top every time, they are trying to make one look
better than the other. I'm not saying that this new AMD chip isn't a really
good one, just statements like "The best home processor availible" is BS
and misleading. Then again if you're a foaming at the mouth AMD zealot I
guess it doesn't look that way?
--

Stacey

I am one and proud of it. AMD has been doing for many years what Intel could
have been doing all along. That is build a good processor at a reasonable
price. Give the Mother Board manufacturers a chance to tweak their boards
for the Athlon 64 before you come to an AMD group and start spouting off.



good one, just statements like "The best home processor availible" is BS
and misleading. Then again if you're a foaming at the mouth AMD zealot I
guess it doesn't look that way?
--

Stacey

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:03:53 -0400, Stacey wrote:

Looks like many of the benchmarks are back and forth as ussual. I see no
"best home processor avalible", especially considering what they are asking
for them (and what MS is going to want for a 64 bit OS). Once again it
looks like it depends on the applications which processor is on top.

You can't tell anything by any of the benchmarks except how well the 64bit
AMD chip runs in 32bit mode. And personally I don't care what MS wants for
it's 64bit OS. I've already got a 64bit OS that's both more stable and a
hell of a lot cheaper. It's called Linux, and it's 64 bit OS is already
here.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=15

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=16

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20...lon_64-35.html

BTW when I'm looking at a site that when benchmark numbers tie they place
the AMD (or the P4) on top every time, they are trying to make one look
better than the other. I'm not saying that this new AMD chip isn't a really
good one, just statements like "The best home processor availible" is BS
and misleading. Then again if you're a foaming at the mouth AMD zealot I
guess it doesn't look that way?

The FX series target market is the workstation, not the home market. Not
that that makes much difference. Amd targets the home market with the
Athlon 64. And the Athlon 64 3200+ stays pretty close or beats the P4 3.2
and the XP 3200+ in most apps, wile still at 32 bits. Run at 64 bit it
will fly by both of them. Try to put this into perspective. It offers
32bit compatability with great performance, but it's really won't shine
until it's run at 64 bit. Expect 20-40% improvement over 32bit apps.

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