| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
 |
PSU: Don't let friends join the MLWA.
| Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
|
|
2004-05-28, 11:57 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||
|
Second Lieutenant
|
So no I am not deciding on which AMD64 to go with, 3400, 3800, fx, etc. I need to decide between:
AMD64 and P4 64 now: Xbit Labs "Starting from August 1, 2004 for $278 Intel Pentium 4 processors with 64-bit registers will officially start to be sold on the 1st of August, 2004, at speed-bins and price-points equal to the ordinary desktop Pentium 4 chips. The product line will contain Pentium 4 at 3.20GHz, 3.40GHz and 3.60GHz priced at $278, $417 and $637 respectively. But on the August, 22, Intel is said to slash the pricing of its 3.40GHz and 3.60GHz chips to $278 and $417. A $637 SKU will join the family of 64-bit Intel Pentium 4 processors with 3.80GHz product introduction. The costs of the Pentium 4 chips with Extended Memory 64 Technology will be equal to processors with no such capability at the same core-clock. The new chips aimed at server and workstation markets will work with i925X or i925XE chipsets and will come in LGA775 form-factor." The i925X launches June 21st. So should be available early July. The P4 2.8c gets a price slash on July 18th. So I could possibly pick up both of these for a good price and oc the hell out of it, who cares if its life is shortened to nothing since I'll be going to a P4 64 a month or so later. And if those chip's oc as well current ones the performance should put them well past AMD. These could spell major problems for AMD in the home performance market unless they can ramp up the speeds faster or drop the prices on FX chips. I guess we'll find out when we start seeing bench's. |
||
|
|
|
2004-05-31, 05:24 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #6 | |||
|
Contributor Major General
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
2004-05-31, 11:49 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #7 | ||
|
Contributor Major General
|
64-bit processors run 32-bit applications with a significant performance increase. This is why AMD 64-bit processors are beating out many of Intels best processors in benchmark tests.
Also, a free 1-year trial (more like beta to be honest) version of Windows XP 64 Operating System for 64-Bit AMD Processors is available for public download. As more and more 64-bit drivers become available (and those existing 64-bit drivers become tuned better), the advantages become even more obvious. 32-bit applications should run even BETTER on a 64-bit OS. Shortly after Win XP 64 is officially released, you should see some 64-bit applications start coming out, (including quite probably some 64-bit ports of existing 32-bit software, though I'm not sure what that involves). All in all, 64-bit currently has a LOT to offer. Performance advantages even just to run 32-bit applications. A 64-bit OS that is currently getting the kinks worked out of it. And 64-bit programs in the not-too-distant future that will take full advantage of the CPUs abilities and run with even larger increases in performance. What is there not to like about it?! My AMD 64 just got a 3DMark03 score of 6,155 and an Aquamark of 45,051. It absolutely destroys any games or software I throw at it without so much as a hiccup. Call me a 64-bit fanboi (which I will admit, I am) but these numbers and buttery-smooth frames dont lie... 64-bit is the way to go. edit- if anyone would like to donate me a small hard drive with which to test this 64-bit Windows, I'd be happy to give you guys a report on how its doing 
Last edited by Electrofreak; 2004-05-31 at 11:52 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
2004-06-01, 12:07 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #8 | ||
|
right. so ... 64bit has a bright future.
i won't disagree one bit on that: it's absolutely true, and i'm absolutely sure i'll be owning one myself. but there's just nothing around now that can take full advantage of it; today you're much better off taking a 32bit parallel processing machine - a dual, or even a quad like mine, if you need power today. in a year or three, i'm sure you'll want to head for 64 - but i don't think it's a realistic buy this week. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2004-06-01, 02:12 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #9 | ||
|
Contributor Major General
|
While I agree that its not likely that I will be running any 64-bit applications on my CPU any time soon, I believe that the performance increases that the 64-bit processor provides when running 32-bit apps is more than enough means to go 64-bit.
Currently the AMD 64 3200+ costs almost the same as Intels 3.2 Ghz 32-bit P4 (within $20 or so), yet it beats the crap out of it in almost every benchmark test. Check out some of the Anandtech.com articles (like THIS ONE) to see what I mean. Just because its a 64-bit CPU doesnt mean I have to run 64-bit apps on it... I just love the extra performance it provides. |
||
|
|
|
|
2004-06-01, 08:24 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #10 | ||
|
Yes i agree, the AMD 64 is very nice right now, especialy for games. And many of them just need to be recompiled allowing for 64 instructions and they will go blazingly fast on a 64 bit system
__________________
 All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. |
|||
|
|
|
|
2004-06-01, 09:29 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #11 | ||
|
Second Lieutenant
|
The reason AMD64's can out perform P4's now is not because of any 64 bit/32 bit emulation performance increases. Its because the chips infastructure is better than a comparable P4 and leaps and bound beyond XP chips.
The onboard memory controller, increased on die caches, hypertransport, etc. The chips themselves are simply better, faster, and more capable of 32 bit or 64 bit performance than older chips. Question is how much better will the P4 64's be. I have a feeling they will use much of the existing P4 arch and just throw in 64 bit instructions. Not a completely new generation of chips like the K8 is. So performance may be fairly close to current P4's and again be out performed for higher end AMD chips. So I will prolly stick with AMD this round and go with a new setup this month hopefully. Need to see what a 3500+ can OC to then decide if a 3800+ will be better. |
||
|
|
|
|
2004-06-01, 03:20 PM
|
[Ignore Me] #13 | |||
while i personally wouldn't go for 64-bit until i could take full advantage of it, this does makes sense from the performance-grubbing point of view, which many of us share here.
__________________
-martyr |
||||
|
|
|
|
2004-06-02, 01:36 AM
|
[Ignore Me] #14 | ||
|
Contributor Major General
|
::nods::
I can see where you are comin from martyr, but I have this attraction to anything new and different. It also happens to be more cost effective as well which is definately a major plus. But yeah, I can understand how you don't want to flaunt technology that isn't being used in the manner for which it is specifically designed (64-bit apps) edit- Daelon, very true what you said. The on-die memory controller is very nice. My CPU FSB is currently at 1302 mhz due to the HTT bus. (217mhz(core speed) x3(HTT bus) x2(double-pumped)) Only problems have been some memory compatibility issues and the like, which AMD has pretty much worked out with their newer chips (i'm lucky that it decided to work with my Kingston HyperX). the on-die controller helps make up for the lack of my chipsets ability to run dual channel, which is solved with socket 939. Wow those new socket 939 chips will blow Intel away. Granted Intel is coming out with their own 64-bit chips in a few months, but I think AMD has a distinct lead in the field that Intel is going to be hard-pressed to catch up with. Last edited by Electrofreak; 2004-06-02 at 01:44 AM. |
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
