Motherboard Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

(OT?) Athlon 64?

 
 
Xeno Chauvin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2005, 01:24 AM
Perhaps I have picked the wrong time to think about building
a new machine? I presently have an Athlon XP2600+ which
I thought about giving to one of my children.
HOWEVER.......
There is at present no Windows 64 Bit operating system
nor any usable (for me) 64 Bit programs YET the cost of
a 64 Bit system is not much greater that another "XP" system.
So what's the up-side to getting a 64 Bit processor now?
Thanks
Xeno



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter van der Goes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2005, 03:21 PM

"Xeno Chauvin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ViI2e.41$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Perhaps I have picked the wrong time to think about building
> a new machine? I presently have an Athlon XP2600+ which
> I thought about giving to one of my children.
> HOWEVER.......
> There is at present no Windows 64 Bit operating system
> nor any usable (for me) 64 Bit programs YET the cost of
> a 64 Bit system is not much greater that another "XP" system.
> So what's the up-side to getting a 64 Bit processor now?
> Thanks
> Xeno
>
>

Superior performance and cooler operation (if you select a 90Nm Winchester
CPU) right now with 32 bit software. Also, the production release of Win XP
64 bit is imminent.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Matias Silva
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2005, 05:52 PM
Peter van der Goes wrote:
> "Xeno Chauvin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ViI2e.41$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Perhaps I have picked the wrong time to think about building
>>a new machine? I presently have an Athlon XP2600+ which
>>I thought about giving to one of my children.
>>HOWEVER.......
>>There is at present no Windows 64 Bit operating system
>>nor any usable (for me) 64 Bit programs YET the cost of
>>a 64 Bit system is not much greater that another "XP" system.
>>So what's the up-side to getting a 64 Bit processor now?
>>Thanks
>>Xeno
>>
>>

>
> Superior performance and cooler operation (if you select a 90Nm Winchester
> CPU) right now with 32 bit software. Also, the production release of Win XP
> 64 bit is imminent.
>
>
>

Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
memory.

Matt

 
Reply With Quote
 
Matias Silva
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2005, 05:58 PM
Matias Silva wrote:
> Peter van der Goes wrote:
>
>> "Xeno Chauvin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:ViI2e.41$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> Perhaps I have picked the wrong time to think about building
>>> a new machine? I presently have an Athlon XP2600+ which
>>> I thought about giving to one of my children.
>>> HOWEVER.......
>>> There is at present no Windows 64 Bit operating system
>>> nor any usable (for me) 64 Bit programs YET the cost of
>>> a 64 Bit system is not much greater that another "XP" system.
>>> So what's the up-side to getting a 64 Bit processor now?
>>> Thanks
>>> Xeno
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Superior performance and cooler operation (if you select a 90Nm
>> Winchester CPU) right now with 32 bit software. Also, the production
>> release of Win XP 64 bit is imminent.
>>
>>
>>

> Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
> on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
> says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
> main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
> memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
> memory.
>
> Matt
>

Also 64-bit also adds for greater floating point accuracy... so if your
using Excel to balance your check book then its not worth it. But if your
doing graphics rendering and high end computational mathematics where accuracy
is key, then go 64-bit.

Matt

Matt
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter van der Goes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2005, 11:01 PM

"Matias Silva" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
> on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
> says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
> main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
> memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
> memory.
>
> Matt
>

I was referring to the performance of the CPU itself. Ignoring 32 vs. 64 bit
issue, the A64 processors outperform their AXP predecessors and other
contenders.
Perhaps you intended to respond to the OP?


 
Reply With Quote
 
dawg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2005, 09:39 PM
Yes. The A64 outperforms the XP in 32 bit. One of the reasons is that the
memory controller is on the CPU itself,unlike other cpu's that must access
the northbridge chip first. But, replacing an XP 2600+ with say, an A64
2800+ wouldn't be woth the cost.
Going to a 3500+ or 3700+ porobably would be a decent speed increase. All
this really only applies to newer 3D games and video editing. Anything else
has plenty of headroom on an XP 2600+

"Peter van der Goes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Zok3e.40206$Fy.33595@okepread04...
>
> "Matias Silva" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
> > on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article

basically
> > says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
> > main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts

of
> > memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
> > memory.
> >
> > Matt
> >

> I was referring to the performance of the CPU itself. Ignoring 32 vs. 64

bit
> issue, the A64 processors outperform their AXP predecessors and other
> contenders.
> Perhaps you intended to respond to the OP?
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Matias Silva
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2005, 08:41 PM
Peter van der Goes wrote:
> "Matias Silva" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
>>on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
>>says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
>>main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
>>memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
>>memory.
>>
>>Matt
>>

>
> I was referring to the performance of the CPU itself. Ignoring 32 vs. 64 bit
> issue, the A64 processors outperform their AXP predecessors and other
> contenders.
> Perhaps you intended to respond to the OP?
>
>


Yes and No, I was responding to you regarding the last thing you
said "Also, the production release of Win XP 64 bit is imminent."
and I responded saying that "Linux supports 64-bit computing." That
was my pitiful attempt in support of Linux

The latter portion of my comments where directed to the OP so
that he would have more information when he goes to make his
buying decision. It seems he just uses computers just to do
basic stuff, write an email, balance his check book, maybe
play a few video games, who knows.

On Newegg theres a nice little Athlon XP 3200 for $140 that would
be decent for a basic computer.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...103-390&depa=0

However, if your(referring to the original poster) basic need it is to furnish your son
with a computer and you don't require that much more horsepower, then I would get
AthlonXP. Cache sizes are the same as some 64bit procs, however power consumption
is more, but the price is just right, cheap. I would look to increase performance
in other areas like I/O (Hard drives) and RAM.

Best Regards,
Matt


 
Reply With Quote
 
Wes Newell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2005, 10:29 PM
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:41:21 -0700, Matias Silva wrote:

> On Newegg theres a nice little Athlon XP 3200 for $140 that would
> be decent for a basic computer.
>

Waste of money.. Socket A is dead. If one wanted to spend that much on a
cpu, an A64 would be a much better choice. The best bang for the buck is
probably the 2800+ A64 right now for about $110. It'll oveclock above
2500MHz which would give it about a 4000+ rating. If one had or wanted to
stick with socket A, the XP-M would be a much smarter choice. Since it has
an unlocked multiplier, you can clock it up to 2400MHz even on an old
socket A board with only a 100MHz FSB. Newegg has the 2400+XP-M for $76.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Athlon/Athlon XP/Duron??? Jerry Asus 10 03-14-2006 12:37 AM
Athlon XP to Athlon 64 Robert Bailey Motherboards 3 03-09-2005 08:44 AM
9800 Pro: Would going from a XP Athlon 2.2 to Athlon 64 3000 gain much in framerate? Top Secret ATI 5 11-24-2004 06:55 PM
Newbie>>Please help <<KT7A Raid>>Using Athlon-1.1MHz socket A - Want to upgrade What is the fastest Athlon that will work TIA dingbolt Abit 1 02-12-2004 12:22 AM
Strange problem with Win 2000 after Athlon 2500+ upgrade from Athlon 2000+ Thomas Jansen Gigabyte 1 10-27-2003 07:29 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:01 PM.


Welcome!
Welcome to Motherboard Point
 

Advertisment