64-bit or 32-bit: When will it matter?

> Ben Pope wrote:
> aether wrote:
> > Could anyone tell me if this motherboard
> >
(http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159)
> > supports dual channel memory? I know it doesn't support DDR2, but
what
> > of regular dual channel DDR-400? I checked the official site of the
> > board
> >
(http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/...s=1&model=262),
> > and it states it features 'dual DDR 400 memory support'. I'm
thinking
> > that's what it means, but I have to double-check with the pros.
>
> All socket 939 boards support Dual Channel.
>
> Thats the reason they aren't socket 754.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...


Gotcha. Thanks!

Don't look now, but I've got another question.

Will this memory
(http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...tCode=80097-20)
function on this motherboard
(http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...tCode=240159)?

The reason I ask, is that it states for the memory on the Zipzoom site
that:

*Note 1: HyperX is high performance memory and may not be compatible
with your computer. Please check your system specifications to ensure
compatibility.
*Note 2: Kingston's HyperX kits are designed and tested to meet dual
channel architecture requirements such as those found on chipsets and
motherboards like NVidia's Nforce2, and Intel's Canterwood and
Springdale."

I'm hazarding a guess, but I think if it works on an Nforce2
motherboard, it'll work on an Nforce4 board. Again, just making sure.

Remove the question mark at the end of the second link.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159

It's the AN8 nForce4 motherboard.

aether wrote:
> Remove the question mark at the end of the second link.
>
> http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...uctCode=240159
>
> It's the AN8 nForce4 motherboard.


It should be fine.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Ben Pope wrote:

>David Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>>"aether" <> wrote in message
>>news: roups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll
>>>use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction.
>>>Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not,
>>>when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I
>>>understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more
>>>interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By
>>>the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I
>>>purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for
>>>at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel),
>>>would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
>>>
>>>
>> I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
>>plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
>>64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
>>It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
>>the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.
>>
>>
>
>If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
>whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
>
>I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like that.
>
>Ben
>
>
And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong
habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa
stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool
dude, smoked stogies).

signmeuptoo wrote:
> Ben Pope wrote:
>> If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able
>> to whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
>>
>> I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like
>> that.
>>
> And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
> chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
> yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong
> habit of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa
> stinks up the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool
> dude, smoked stogies).

Dual Processors are going into socket 939 in under 6 months, that hardly
sounds like a socket thats gonna die soon.

When did Socket A come into existance? 5 years ago? And it's still going.

OK, so you've had socket 754 and 939 introduced. How long was 754
around before 939 came out? Not very long... there weren't that many
people who bought a 754 and were unable to do the research and find out
that it was gonna die pretty quick. So AMD made a mistake. However,
socket 754 will be around in the cheap market for some time too.

There's talk of a DDR2 CPU (new socket, over 1000 pins), but thats not
gonna be for a year or so.

Thats hardly that many sockets, look at what Intel are doing...

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start being
coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released.. There arent many
out there right now, but until then, all programs run in 32 bit, regardless
of weather or not you have a 64 bit processor installed.
--
http://www.techfreakz.com - PC Enthusiasts


"signmeuptoo" <> wrote in message
news:xibXd.6177$ ink.net...
> Ben Pope wrote:
>
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>>"aether" <> wrote in message
>>>news: groups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Building a computer from scratch. It'll be built for someone who'll
>>>>use it for alot of things, but tilted in the 'gaming' direction.
>>>>Should whether the processor is 64-bit or 32-bit matter? If not,
>>>>when? If so, how so? In other words, should I go AMD or Intel? I
>>>>understand AMD is slightly faster for games, but what I'm more
>>>>interested in is the long-term utility of the 64-bit processor. By
>>>>the time 64-bit programming is mainstream, will whatever processor I
>>>>purchase be obsolete? I'd like for the computer to be functional for
>>>>at least two years, if not alittle longer. If I went 32-bit (Intel),
>>>>would it assuredly be obsolete, whereas with AMD not so much?
>>>>
>>> I would consider a processor with 64-bit support to be a slight
>>>plus right now. At the moment, you're probably better off letting
>>>64-bit CPUs drop the prices on processors without 64-bit support.
>>>It's quite possible that by the time you want a 64-bit CPU for games,
>>>the CPU you buy today will already be obsolete.
>>>
>>
>>If you buy a socket 939 CPU and motherboard today, you should be able to
>>whack in a dual core CPU at the end of the year.
>>
>>I suspect that the 939 socket will live for a while, with options like
>>that.
>>
>>Ben
>>
> And you believe this why? Any indicators that you can share by any
> chance, or is it just a hunch? I went 939, though I don't have my CPU
> yet, and I expect it to last a year maybe, but AMD has had a strong habit
> of late changing pinouts like granma makes cookies and granpa stinks up
> the room with cigars (At least my grandpa, who was a cool dude, smoked
> stogies).

<> writes:

> Too put it in VERY simple terms, It will matter when programs start
> being coded for 64 bit processors and Windows 64 is released..
> There arent many out there right now, but until then, all programs
> run in 32 bit, regardless of weather or not you have a 64 bit
> processor installed.

Unless you want to use an alternative OS (Linux, BSD, Solaris). Since
there are a lot of programs whose source is also available making
them 64-bit is just a recompile away.

Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for
recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main
thing.


P.S. Could you please not top-post?

--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

"David Magda" <dmagda+> wrote in message
news:...

> Though I don't think many applications would really gain much for
> recompiling into 64-bit versions. More memory space would be the main
> thing.

That's the key difference between the availability of 64-bit processors
and the introduction of 32-bit and 16-bit processors. When 32-bit processors
and 16-bit processors were first available, there was already a huge base of
software that could greatly benefit from the additional capability. However,
there is very little currently existing software that can significantly
benefit from 64-bits processors. Few applications actually need to deal with
numbers larger than a billion, whereas many applications need to deal with
numbers larger than a hundred thousand.

DS

I think David has a point, if it's speed your looking for but you dont
want to risk it use Parallel boards instead.