Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
  1. #1
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    515

    AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Hello all.

    I was recently talking with a friend about upgrading his computer, and he asked about the AMD 64bit CPUs. I told him that it seems like a wasteof $$ right now to buy a 64bit CPU when there is not a 64bit Windows OS (non-beta) out that will utilize the CPU's ability. And that any attempt to "future-proof" your computer is a waste of money, because by the time your 64bit CPU can be utilized, you will be able to buy it then for half the cost (and likely twice the performance).

    Am I wrong? I know people are getting nice benchmarks with their new AMD64s, but that seems to be the fact that they run 200-300mhz faster than most 32bit AMDs are clocked at. How would my CPU (sig) do when I finally get it up to 2.6-2.7ghz against a AMD64?

    Thanks all for your help, forgive me if Iím really missing something.
    Motherboard: DFI NFII Ultra Infinity 6/19 Official Bios 1.9v | CPU: AMD Mobile XP2600+ Barton IQYHA:0401MPMW @ 2.50 Ghz (227x11) 1.7v | HSF: SLK-947U lapped / 92mm Panaflo H1A w/ RPM / AS5 | Memory: Buffalo/Winbond 1GB (2x512) PC3200 CH-5 @ 11-3-3-3-2.0-13-15-7xauto-e-e-f-e / cpc on / DC / 1:1 3.3v | Graphics Card: eVGA 6800GS 256MB 400/1100 Unlocked to 16x1,6vp / FW82.12 1.5v| Drives: WD 74GB Raptor / Seagate 200GB 7200.7 / NEC 3500AG DVD-RW / LiteOn 52x32x52 | Network/Sound: on-board | PCI Card: WinFast TV2000 XP Deluxe | PSU: Enermax EG475AX-VE | Case: Antec SX1040B | Cooling: Vantec Nexus 205 / 4 Cooler Master 80mm 32CFM Blue LED Fans (2 intake / 2 exhaust) | Temps: 30C idle / 41C load @ 20C room temp | OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 | Benchmarks: PCMark2002: 7708/7387/1412 / 3DMark05: 5533 | Stability: Prime95, 3DMark & Memtest86 tested for 24 hours each | Display: ViewSonic LCD VX922 w/ 2ms Response | Speakers: Logitech Z-340

  2. #2
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Yermo, CA, USA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    9,946

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by jnuw
    Hello all.

    I was recently talking with a friend about upgrading his computer, and he asked about the AMD 64bit CPUs. I told him that it seems like a wasteof $$ right now to buy a 64bit CPU when there is not a 64bit Windows OS (non-beta) out that will utilize the CPU's ability. And that any attempt to "future-proof" your computer is a waste of money, because by the time your 64bit CPU can be utilized, you will be able to buy it then for half the cost (and likely twice the performance).

    Am I wrong? I know people are getting nice benchmarks with their new AMD64s, but that seems to be the fact that they run 200-300mhz faster than most 32bit AMDs are clocked at. How would my CPU (sig) do when I finally get it up to 2.6-2.7ghz against a AMD64?

    Thanks all for your help, forgive me if Iím really missing something.

    In My mind You are wrong, These cpus have a much better fatter pipe to the memory and therefore are faster.


    Your AMD 32bit cpu will by only marginally faster than mine, My next cpu is a 939 cpu, I'm looking at a 3500 90nm 2.2Ghz cpu, Some of these will go to 3.0Ghz with the right ram and air cooling, My 2 32bit cpus are crunching like mad 24/7 and They are not as fast as the 64bit cpus, even with a 32bit OS As a 32bit OS can process 32bit instructions faster in a 64bit cpu as the 64bit cpu should be able to handle twice what an equivalent 32bit cpu can.

  3. #3
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    991

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    The A64 is a great CPU regardless of rather it is used for 32 bit or 64 bit apps. This has been documented. With a quality 64 bit O/S like Linux, the A64 really shines. Some day when Intel gets a cobbled 64 bit X86 CPU to market, MICROSUCKS will release the A64 O/S "upgrade" they have been sitting on for a year waiting for Intel to get their act together. In the meantime smart consumers are migrating to Linux and game mfgs. are starting to write 64 bit games for Linux, as the hand writting is on the wall...

    So to answer your question, no A64 run in 32 bit O/S's isn't a waste as it delivers the best performance and value of any X86 CPU available.

  4. #4
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    170

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Honestly, I think this debate has been discussed ad nauseum over the past year. If the performance benefits of upgrading to an A64, just doesn't seem worth it to you, because there isn't a "Microsoft" 64-bit operating system yet, to that I say "to each their own, be happy".

    I personnally feel the performance difference vs cost of upgrading and your actual computer needs and usage are far better considerations for upgrading than whether or not, Microsoft has a working 64 bit OS yet.
    Last edited by MariusDelirious; 11-30-2004 at 07:55 AM.
    Intel Core 2 Dou E7500 2.93ghz
    Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3P
    Windows 7 Professional 64-bit SP1
    G.SKILL PI Black 8GB (4 x 2GB) RAM
    EVGA GTX 560 1024mb
    3X Western Digital 640gb SATA HDD (32mb cache)
    X-FI XtremeMusic + Logitech 5300e 5.1 Spkrs
    CD-DVD-RW
    Antec Nine Hundred Case
    Antec TruePower Trio 650 PSU
    Dell 23 inch WS LCD - SR2320L

  5. #5
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Yermo, CA, USA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    9,946

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beenthere
    The A64 is a great CPU regardless of rather it is used for 32 bit or 64 bit apps. This has been documented. With a quality 64 bit O/S like Linux, the A64 really shines. Some day when Intel gets a cobbled 64 bit X86 CPU to market, MICROSUCKS will release the A64 O/S "upgrade" they have been sitting on for a year waiting for Intel to get their act together. In the meantime smart consumers are migrating to Linux and game mfgs. are starting to write 64 bit games for Linux, as the hand writting is on the wall...

    So to answer your question, no A64 run in 32 bit O/S's isn't a waste as it delivers the best performance and value of any X86 CPU available.
    Please leave the not ready for Prime Time OS out. Consumers, That's wishful thinking, As the Linux OS may install easily, But You still need to unpack any driver or 3rd party program(Firefox on Linux) with the CLI, All operations like installation, unpacking and running of programs should be just point and click, not find this, type Its location and save, That is what the PC is for, To do mundane tasks. So unless You are a Nut(Geek) and I think most aren't(and I hope You aren't either), I'll use Windows XP Pro sp2 as It's easy to use and all My PCs run It 24/7, When Linux is as easy to use as Windows XP Pro, Then I'll look at It again, Until then It's a server OS and for number crunching Windows works great, Linux is only faster when crunching using a windows program(seti) with wine and It's still not as fast as seti@home is when running under Windows XP. Me and Others will wait and watch. Please don't tell Me Linux is faster, Cause It isn't. And If You hate windows too bad, It's a Windows world and Yes I use Firefox 1.0, See My sig.

    Oh and for all to read the Windows XP 64bit OS is supposed to be releashed in the 1st quarter of 2005 from what I've read.

  6. #6
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Age
    38
    Posts
    396

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by jnuw
    Hello all.

    I was recently talking with a friend about upgrading his computer, and he asked about the AMD 64bit CPUs. I told him that it seems like a wasteof $$ right now to buy a 64bit CPU when there is not a 64bit Windows OS (non-beta) out that will utilize the CPU's ability. And that any attempt to "future-proof" your computer is a waste of money, because by the time your 64bit CPU can be utilized, you will be able to buy it then for half the cost (and likely twice the performance).

    Am I wrong? I know people are getting nice benchmarks with their new AMD64s, but that seems to be the fact that they run 200-300mhz faster than most 32bit AMDs are clocked at. How would my CPU (sig) do when I finally get it up to 2.6-2.7ghz against a AMD64?

    Thanks all for your help, forgive me if Iím really missing something.
    Your way off man, The best part about A64's is has nothing to do with it being 64bit compatible, its the onboard memory controller that does wonders for smooth gameplay. Buying a SocketA system at this point is a big waist of money.
    Athlon64 3200+ @ 2200Mhz AutoV | K8NSNXP-939 | Corsair TwinX 1024 PC3200LL | ATI 9800 Pro | Audigy 2 ZS | 2 WD 80gig 8meg SATA in Raid-0 on nvidia | Pioneer 16x/40x Slot Load | Plextor 24x | Samsung 1200NF | WinXP Pro | Classe Audio Sound System

  7. #7
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    5,358

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoom314
    In My mind You are wrong, These cpus have a much better fatter pipe to the memory and therefore are faster.


    Your AMD 32bit cpu will by only marginally faster than mine, My next cpu is a 939 cpu, I'm looking at a 3500 90nm 2.2Ghz cpu, Some of these will go to 3.0Ghz with the right ram and air cooling, My 2 32bit cpus are crunching like mad 24/7 and They are not as fast as the 64bit cpus, even with a 32bit OS As a 32bit OS can process 32bit instructions faster in a 64bit cpu as the 64bit cpu should be able to handle twice what an equivalent 32bit cpu can.
    You're right about the memory controller making all the difference, but wrong assuming that a 64-bit CPU were somehow able to handle twice the amount of data when set up against a 32-bit CPU: When running 32-bit code, it works like a 32-bit processor with 32-bit registers and is totally unable to benefit of its 64-bit registers.
    If AMD wanted to it could make a 32-bit processor (actually it already has, the Sempron 3100+, but AMD also halved its cache, which affects the performance) for S754 (and why not 939) that would perform equally as an A64 (with clock frequency and amount of cache being the same on both chips) running any software under the current version of WinXP (or any other 32-bit OS).
    So, basically buying a '64-bit' processor for WinXP is a waste if you buy it for the 64-bits, but as AMD doesn't offer 32-bit variants of its fastest processors, there's no way to avoid that 'waste' if you want to have the best performing processors for today, even for a 32-bit environment.

  8. #8
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Yermo, CA, USA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    9,946

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pehu
    You're right about the memory controller making all the difference, but wrong assuming that a 64-bit CPU were somehow able to handle twice the amount of data when set up against a 32-bit CPU: When running 32-bit code, it works like a 32-bit processor with 32-bit registers and is totally unable to benefit of its 64-bit registers.
    If AMD wanted to it could make a 32-bit processor (actually it already has, the Sempron 3100+, but AMD also halved its cache, which affects the performance) for S754 (and why not 939) that would perform equally as an A64 (with clock frequency and amount of cache being the same on both chips) running any software under the current version of WinXP (or any other 32-bit OS).
    So, basically buying a '64-bit' processor for WinXP is a waste if you buy it for the 64-bits, but as AMD doesn't offer 32-bit variants of its fastest processors, there's no way to avoid that 'waste' if you want to have the best performing processors for today, even for a 32-bit environment.
    But in any case It's still a faster cpu.

  9. #9
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    991

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Linux is a fine O/S. Yes it's still a GEEKS O/S. That is because the Linux distro mfgs. are dumb at marketing. It's not the O/S that needs work, it's many of the DISTROS that aren't really ready for Prime Time. You are 100% correct that you shouldn't need to go here and there to get drivers, patches or other Linux "fixes". Unfortunately you have to do the same thing with MICROSUCKS Windoze O/S's too, unless you install an O/S after 10-15 Service Packs, Hot fixes, security updates, etc. Then you get hacked everyday with Spyware/Adware/SPAM...

    MICROSUCKS is good at marketing (or lying depending on how you look at it) and Linux is good as an O/S. Maybe the Linux folks should hire the MICROSUCKS liars, I mean marketing people, and then scrap MICROSUCKS and polish up Linux. The World would be a MUCH better place with open source and NO MICROSUCKS !!! Oh, BTW Linux 64 just wallops Windoze 64 like you wouldn't believe. And did I mention that most of the Internet is Linux powered??? It ain't because it's just cost effective, it's because Linux is a much better O/S.

    ...and that is precisely why the hand writing is on the wall !

  10. #10
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    mtl,canada
    Age
    41
    Posts
    37,286

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    (edits : i like the ) bandwith myself..thats the killer..and teh procs power itself,even in 32bit mode...if teh sempron didnt have teh cache neutred i wouldve hit em up instead of 2800's
    Last edited by _dangtx_; 11-30-2004 at 04:26 AM.

  11. #11
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Yermo, CA, USA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    9,946

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beenthere
    Linux is a fine O/S. Yes it's still a GEEKS O/S. That is because the Linux distro mfgs. are dumb at marketing. It's not the O/S that needs work, it's many of the DISTROS that aren't really ready for Prime Time. You are 100% correct that you shouldn't need to go here and there to get drivers, patches or other Linux "fixes". Unfortunately you have to do the same thing with MICROSUCKS Windoze O/S's too, unless you install an O/S after 10-15 Service Packs, Hot fixes, security updates, etc. Then you get hacked everyday with Spyware/Adware/SPAM...

    MICROSUCKS is good at marketing (or lying depending on how you look at it) and Linux is good as an O/S. Maybe the Linux folks should hire the MICROSUCKS liars, I mean marketing people, and then scrap MICROSUCKS and polish up Linux. The World would be a MUCH better place with open source and NO MICROSUCKS !!! Oh, BTW Linux 64 just wallops Windoze 64 like you wouldn't believe. And did I mention that most of the Internet is Linux powered??? It ain't because it's just cost effective, it's because Linux is a much better O/S.

    ...and that is precisely why the hand writing is on the wall !
    I don't get hacked at all, I have the latest AV program and My anti spyware is up to date, My browser is in My sig. And that is Microsoft and not MICROSUCKS. For a server ok, Elsewhere for the moment forget It. As to distros I've only tried Mandrake 10.0 and earlier, I'll pass. Oh and not all of the internet is using Linux, Don't forget Solaris, Unix, FreeBSD(Which has DirectX support I've read, Weird yes, But MS admitted It), etc.

    And SPAM? MSN and I eat that for breakfast....

    Oh and I said I didn't like the fact that Many things have to be done by way of the CLI. Not where The files are on the web.

  12. #12
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    221

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beenthere
    Linux is a fine O/S. Yes it's still a GEEKS O/S. That is because the Linux distro mfgs. are dumb at marketing. It's not the O/S that needs work, it's many of the DISTROS that aren't really ready for Prime Time. You are 100% correct that you shouldn't need to go here and there to get drivers, patches or other Linux "fixes". Unfortunately you have to do the same thing with MICROSUCKS Windoze O/S's too, unless you install an O/S after 10-15 Service Packs, Hot fixes, security updates, etc. Then you get hacked everyday with Spyware/Adware/SPAM...

    MICROSUCKS is good at marketing (or lying depending on how you look at it) and Linux is good as an O/S. Maybe the Linux folks should hire the MICROSUCKS liars, I mean marketing people, and then scrap MICROSUCKS and polish up Linux. The World would be a MUCH better place with open source and NO MICROSUCKS !!! Oh, BTW Linux 64 just wallops Windoze 64 like you wouldn't believe. And did I mention that most of the Internet is Linux powered??? It ain't because it's just cost effective, it's because Linux is a much better O/S.

    ...and that is precisely why the hand writing is on the wall !
    Linux is a decent server OS, nothing more IMHO.

    How does Linux prevent spam exactly? We'd all be intrigued to learn that.

    As for desktop OS's, Windows 2000 and XP are perfectly capable products. Linux is little more than an enthusiast's OS, I wouldn't even dream of using it day to day for work or for leisure. Anyone with half a clue knows how to keep a Windows installation secure.

    And before you suggest i'm a Microsoft fanboy or something, i've been in this game for years and have worked with, developed for and supported amongst other things Intel/Windows, 2 or 3 different UNIX flavours and IBM minis & mainframes. I believe in 'horses for courses' and not in a 'one solution fits all' scenario. We use Linux for stuff like SMTP servers because it does that role very well indeed.

    Oh and as a footnote, Linux couldn't have been worse marketed if they'd tried. Too many distributions and lack of accessibility and user-friendliness to the 'man on the street' are huge problems for starters. As I said before, it has its niche but anyone who thinks its some Windows killer that'll take over both at the server and at the desktop is utterly dellusional.

  13. #13
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Yermo, CA, USA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    9,946

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by ronster
    Linux is a decent server OS, nothing more IMHO.

    How does Linux prevent spam exactly? We'd all be intrigued to learn that.

    As for desktop OS's, Windows 2000 and XP are perfectly capable products. Linux is little more than an enthusiast's OS, I wouldn't even dream of using it day to day for work or for leisure. Anyone with half a clue knows how to keep a Windows installation secure.

    And before you suggest i'm a Microsoft fanboy or something, i've been in this game for years and have worked with, developed for and supported amongst other things Intel/Windows, 2 or 3 different UNIX flavours and IBM minis & mainframes. I believe in 'horses for courses' and not in a 'one solution fits all' scenario. We use Linux for stuff like SMTP servers because it does that role very well indeed.

    Oh and as a footnote, Linux couldn't have been worse marketed if they'd tried. Too many distributions and lack of accessibility and user-friendliness to the 'man on the street' are huge problems for starters. As I said before, it has its niche but anyone who thinks its some Windows killer that'll take over both at the server and at the desktop is utterly dellusional.
    My thoughts exactly, I couldn't have said It better Myself.
    Me I've used oh lets see 5 OSes(Atari 400, Atari ST, Amiga, Apples MAC 68k OS[7.9?], MS DOS/Windows) since the late 1980s and that doesn't include what was at an adult school class or two, I just started using MS stuff since about 1992 or so.

  14. #14
    Joined
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Northampton, MA. USA
    Age
    74
    Posts
    408

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    "AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?"...... NO. It doesen't mater what operating system you might use. The 64's are faster, smoother & are, now, inexpensive enough to make the switch.

  15. #15
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    247

    Re: AMD64 + 32bitOS = A Waste of $$?

    Quote Originally Posted by jnuw
    Am I wrong? I know people are getting nice benchmarks with their new AMD64s, but that seems to be the fact that they run 200-300mhz faster than most 32bit AMDs are clocked at. How would my CPU (sig) do when I finally get it up to 2.6-2.7ghz against a AMD64?
    I have an AthlonXP running at 2.4ghz on an Abit NF7-S (218x11) and I agree it is a fast machine. I ran a couple benchmarks when I first setup my Athlon64 3200. The Athlon64 at stock 2ghz was just as fast as my AthlonXP at 2.4ghz. The Athlon 64 at 2ghz even beat my 2.4 AthlonXP in some of the benchmarks.

    If your friend is looking to upgrade I would definitely recommend he get an Athlon64 and not older technology. The Athlon64 only costs about a $120 to 150 more to setup then an Athlon XP Mobile system. I was a bit of a doubter but I set my system up about a week ago and I am very impressed with my Athlon64 so far.
    Last edited by liquid_mage; 11-30-2004 at 09:56 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •