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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|