Is it ture??

[akuma23911]

My friend says not need to buy the AMD 64 bits CPU because there is not 64 bit windows or software has been released, so you don't need to waste your money on AMD64, just buy 32 bit cpu. IS it ture?

 

[raretech]

AMD 64bit cpus are very fast at 32bit applications, in many cases faster than Intel's offerings. Not to mention they're cheaper. So for these reasons, your friend is wrong.

He is right that there isn't a released 64bit windows or 64bit windows software, but that ignores how fast the 64bit processors perform at 32bit applications.

<i>Forget AMD and Intel, those are for fanboy lusers. The C3 is where it's at. Via Rulez!</i>

 

[Ned_Flanders]

its TRUE, not TURE!

_______________________
"In the US and A there are many jobs. For Men: Accountant, Life Guard, and Sportsman. For Women...Prostitute"

 

[pitsi]

I am very interested if he could be kind enough to explain what he means by "waste your money on AMD64". Athlon 64s cost about the same as Pentium 4, while offering the same performance (they win benchmarks, they lose some others). Plus, you get the additional bonus for 64-bit when that becomes available. If you ask me, I don't even care if it never becomes available. It's not like I paid extra for it or sacrificed any point of 32-bit performance for getting it!

 

[pat]

Well... I'm typing this reply right now with the beta of WinXP 64 bits, running firefox browser. With standard windows xp, this machine is very fast, so I dont think I wasted my money.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[DonnieDarko]

do you notice any slow downs with win64?

Watch out for the <b><font color=red>bloody</font color=red></b> Fanboys!

AMD64 2800+ :: MSI Neo-Fis2r :: 512mb Kingmax ddr400 :: Sapphire 9800pro 128mb :: 10K WD Raptor

Addicted, finally.

 

[ZER0]

you know that your a64 would run 32 bit xp faster than 64 right?

 

[pat]

Yes, but to be honest, I doesnt feel any slowdown right now. Maybe later when I'll experiment much more. But for now, it is as snappy as the 32 bits version.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[raretech]

Is that true? Is it really slower?

<i>Forget AMD and Intel, those are for fanboy lusers. The C3 is where it's at. Via Rulez!</i>

 

[pat]

Slower..well..I think that it is just not yet optimized...it is still in beta version so I dont expect performance nor full stability or compatibility. But as for now, well, it is fun to play with and it is even rock stable for now..not one single crash. I surf the internet, email, messenger, copying files over the network I did in order to access the internet and installed some 32 bits apps... Now, I'M looking for 64 bits apps that could be used with.

I setup a dual boot system so I always have my 32 bits windows at hand if I need to do something urgent or critical!

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[endyen]

I bought the A64 3200+ because it is the fastest gaming chip at that price. I may spend the extra money to get win64, but only if it means better perf where and when I want it.

 

[addiarmadar]

That was the original rumor but the was debunked quickly. there are clear results even in the 32 bit world of major performance leaps. Your benches on a a64 3200 will be much higher than athlonXP 3200.



<i><font color=red>Only an overclocker can make a computer into a convectional oven.</i></font color=red>

 

[TechMan]

In my experience, I don't notice any performance gap between running 32-bit apps in WinXP-64 and Win2K. I also have a dual-boot setup and can boot up to either OSes. In theory, though, there should be some performance hits because the 64-bit OS runs 32-bit apps in emulation mode. One time, a virulent virus attack on our server forced me to install Borland Delphi 7 on WinXP-64 and I did my 32-bit programming there. It saved my day and I was able to switch into the Win2K environment later on without any hitch.

In 32-bit Win2K, my AMD64 3000+ is tops especially in MS Visual Studio and other compilers.

Very true, not much 64-bit software presently. But also very true, you can run your 32-bit apps on either WinXP-64 or any 32-bit Windows. Your only problem in the 64-bit OS is that you'll need 64-bit drivers for your devices.

 

[pat]

You're right about the drivers. If only I could have a 64 bits printer driver for my i560 and the ATI multimedia center so I could do all I need to do right now.

I guess I will have to wait a bit more...

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[El_Jefe_77]

Hey, same here,
I know that ATI has 64bit drivers though... no multimedia? ill have to look into it.

Im going a 64 3000 or 3200 in 2 months so I cant wait I mean, in a year when people are buying dual core 64's and things are going quick, an a64 regular machine 754 will be flying fine and probably cost less than 400 dollars to build... i cant imagine Intel really making a board/chip/ram setup running fast with the up and comming 64 bit chip for under 900 dollars at the same moment.

I wish intel didnt go to trash after the p4 came out. id never have considered AMD until I clocked my 1.2 tualatin as goign considerably faster and of course massively cooler than my friends 1.6 p4.

 

[raretech]

<i>I wish intel didnt go to trash after the p4 came out</i>

I blame Itanium and whoever is preaching it inside Intel. It's like they have myopic vision and can't see a future without it. Hey Intel, howabout giving a damn about high performance chips for the rest of us who don't have several grand to drop on a single chip?

<i>Forget AMD and Intel, those are for fanboy lusers. The C3 is where it's at. Via Rulez!</i>