AMD64 - Don't you really need WinXP 64bit with it?

The AMD 64-bit chips have been out for a while. The Opterons outperform
32-bit chips on many benchmarks even with 32-bit Windows--it appears
that the Athlon-64 chips may not but so far nobody has tested a
production sample so we don't know for sure. The x86/64 architecture
allows 64-bit programs to be run from a 32-bit operating system, so
there is no need to upgrade the operating system in order to use the
64-bit capabilities of the processor.

In any case, 64-bit software _is_ available. It is called "Linux" and
was ported to x86/64 some time ago. And before anybody says that Linux
was not "optimized for 64-bit", that was taken care of with the Alpha
port many years ago, and refined with the Itanium port. 64-bit
computing is not new, what makes x86/64 unique is that it looks like it
may be the first 64-bit architecture that stands a chance of replacing
x86.

Further, if you have an MSDN operating system subscription you should be
getting the beta of XP for the AMD 64-bit chips soon if you haven't
already, with the production release expected early next year. Bear in
mind that there is no real trick to porting Windows to a new
architecture--NT was designed to be portable and there was a 64-bit
version for the Alpha from the start, and there's a recent 64-bit port
to the Itanium, so most of the hard work for the x86/64 port had already
been done. It would be nice if Microsoft just started providing all
three versions in the same box like they did with NT, but I suspect that
that's too much to hope for and they're going to end up with some kind
of Byzantine pricing scheme.

 

Hi,

I noticed that the AMD 64 is due out soon, people are reciveing prices
already that are cheaper than the XP 3200+. Despite the chip being backwards
compatible with 32 bit OS and software, wouldn't you really need a 64 bit
version of XP to get the best out of the CPU? Plus then in theory 64 bit
programs? By the time 64 bit software is available surely the AMD 64 would
be oldhat?

Graham

 

The AMD 64 FX is currently the best home processor available. In order to
take full effect of a Windows environment the 64 bit version of Windows is
due the 1st quarter of 2004. The 64 bit beta of Windows is available for
beta testers. Several game manufacturers have 64 bit games in the pipeline
or are developing patches. The people who make Unreal Tournament are working
on a 64 bit patch.

regards

B

 

Patch? I thought UT was totally re-written with AMD 64 support?
Ed

 

Because? Any tests to back up this claim? Sure 64 bit WILL be the way to go
but is their any advantage TODAY to be the first person to buy into this?

 

www.aceshardware.com

 

Thanks for the info. The AMD 64 FX was in fact the CPU I was referring to
rather than the Opteron. If MS are going to release a 64 bit version of
Windows XP, there has to be a major incentive, I guess enhanced performance
and secondly even greater stability. It the requirements placed on the home
user that interest me I guess as this is a CPU aimed for the home market as
opposed to server business environment.

Graham.

 

I just read that a beta version exists now and Win XP-64 could be realized
the first quarter of 2004.

 

Looks like many of the benchmarks are back and forth as ussual. I see no
"best home processor avalible", especially considering what they are asking
for them (and what MS is going to want for a 64 bit OS). Once again it
looks like it depends on the applications which processor is on top.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=15

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=16

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-35.html

BTW when I'm looking at a site that when benchmark numbers tie they place
the AMD (or the P4) on top every time, they are trying to make one look
better than the other. I'm not saying that this new AMD chip isn't a really
good one, just statements like "The best home processor availible" is BS
and misleading. Then again if you're a foaming at the mouth AMD zealot I
guess it doesn't look that way?

 

I am one and proud of it. AMD has been doing for many years what Intel could
have been doing all along. That is build a good processor at a reasonable
price. Give the Mother Board manufacturers a chance to tweak their boards
for the Athlon 64 before you come to an AMD group and start spouting off.

 

You can't tell anything by any of the benchmarks except how well the 64bit
AMD chip runs in 32bit mode. And personally I don't care what MS wants for
it's 64bit OS. I've already got a 64bit OS that's both more stable and a
hell of a lot cheaper. It's called Linux, and it's 64 bit OS is already
here.

The FX series target market is the workstation, not the home market. Not
that that makes much difference. Amd targets the home market with the
Athlon 64. And the Athlon 64 3200+ stays pretty close or beats the P4 3.2
and the XP 3200+ in most apps, wile still at 32 bits. Run at 64 bit it
will fly by both of them. Try to put this into perspective. It offers
32bit compatability with great performance, but it's really won't shine
until it's run at 64 bit. Expect 20-40% improvement over 32bit apps.

 

You are right - all the applications that have been optimized for
Pentium make this chip look much better.

Tom's site is just as balanced in its views about AMD as the Pope in his
views about contraception.

Just checked - no foam on my lips so I guess I'm not an "AMD zealot".
On the other hand, I'm also not an "Intel maniac" who has to resort to
language like that.

 

The FX series target market is the workstation, not the home market. Not

Yea, from what I seen the 64 3200+ isnt going to be one of these "MUST HAVE"
chips.. (not for me at least)
But I think it's great that you can bridge the gap for no extra cost
involved.

As far as what's best then I think that AMD is best.. but "BEST" is not
something that can never ever be techincally represented, so it's going to
be a point of view. For me AMD is best because I get firewire, I get chips
for 50% of cost, Chipset mfgr's have much more freedom, and I am helping a
smaller company grow to compete (thus keeping the products lower priced and
competitive, 1 person doesnt make a difference but thousands of us thinking
of it this way does).. So its' best to me,

If I listen'd to hype then I would have known last week that the New Apple
computer is the best procesor for home users in the world (looks more like a
AOL commercial)..
If I woulda listen'd to hype a day or 2 before that then I woulda known that
the best computer in the world could only be a dell with a really fast p4
processor
Had I listen'd to the hype the day or 2 before that then amd64 would be the
best processor in the world..

it's all BS ..

 

Thanx for making my point. <g>

People talk about these like they are the best cpu =right now= when the
boards are green and here is no software supporting them yet. Also =right
now= the prices for this "best desktop processor avalible" are far from
reasonable. I use lots of AMD chips and depending on the customers needs
will sell them an AMD or an Intel. Being a zealot for either seems rather
narrow minded given neither is the best at everything. I'm all for 64bit
computing but until it becomes more mainstream and the prices drop, I don't
see much of an advantage.

 

Wes Newell wrote:

Where do you get this 20-40% advantage? From everything I've read "most
apps" won't benefit from 64bit unless they need to process numbers that
won't fit into 32 bits.

 

My point is if you're running software that IS optimised for a P4 (many
multimedia apps are), then an AMD of any sort isn't the "best". And for
other apps, almost any AMD kills a P4 so for those people an Intel would be
a mistake. If someone is on a budget you have to compare chips at the same
price level, not cpu speed or ratings..

Making blanket statments like those you made aren't being realistic and
makes you sound like a zealot. I always laugh when I get called an Intel
maniac one day and a AMD zealot the next!

 

There was one site that ran some 64bit apps. I don't recall which one, but
it clearly showed that it ran faster in 64bit mode.

 

Again unless it's using alogrithms that use numbers that won't fit into
32bit "space", having 64 bits doesn't make a difference. Yes as apps get
more complex and more ram is needed, 64bits will be required. And yes for
some math applications, and I could see where recoded games could take
advantage of this, but for most uses they aren't going to see this 20-40%
increase. I think too many people assume 64 bit is like going from 133 to
266 FSB, it's not.

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=112

 

Looks like you're confusing data bus width with address bus width.

Agreed. But there are other differences between the Athlon 64 and the XP
which make 32 bit apps run faster. So despite the longer pipeline (which is
more efficient anyway, due to improved branch prediction) and any thunking
that needs to happen, the Athlon 64 can beat an XP in 32 bit app
performance, clock for clock. The Athlon 64 is not a 64 bit XP.

Ben

 

Nope what I meant was when people start needing over 2 gig's of ram and when
they start working with things that won't fit in a 32 bit space, the 64 bit
chips will be needed. It was easy to run out of space with 16 bits, 32 is
going to take a while longer.

Funny when the P4 made it's pipeline longer everyone bitched! ;-)

I agree the AMD 64 is an improvement over an XP but for now it's not the 64
bit part that is doing it.