System requirements for Windows x64

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113169306.779887.43480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Funny how much of a disparity there is between minimal & recommended
> system requirements between Intel and AMD processors on the same
> operating system is.

> "Windows Server 2003 x64 Editions require server hardware that is based
> on the x64 platform. These servers feature AMD Opteron or Intel Xeon
> with EM64T or Intel Pentium 4 6xx series microprocessors. On the AMD
> side, Microsoft requires a 1.4 GHz or faster processor, while Intel
> users will need a 2.8 GHz Xeon or 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with
> Hyper-Threading technology, or faster processor. However, Microsoft
> recommends faster Intel processors for the best experience: a 3.6 GHz
> Xeon or Pentium 4."
> http://www.winsupersite.com/review [...] review.asp

Huh? These are comparable processors, aren't they?

DS

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan wrote:
>
> Funny how much of a disparity there is between minimal & recommended
> system requirements between Intel and AMD processors on the same
> operating system is.
>
> "Windows Server 2003 x64 Editions require server hardware that is based
> on the x64 platform. These servers feature AMD Opteron or Intel Xeon
> with EM64T or Intel Pentium 4 6xx series microprocessors. On the AMD
> side, Microsoft requires a 1.4 GHz or faster processor, while Intel
> users will need a 2.8 GHz Xeon or 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with
> Hyper-Threading technology, or faster processor. However, Microsoft
> recommends faster Intel processors for the best experience: a 3.6 GHz
> Xeon or Pentium 4."
> http://www.winsupersite.com/review [...] review.asp

Why this CPU speed? Will Windows x64 run slower than Windows x32?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Johannes wrote:
>
> YKhan wrote:
>
>>Funny how much of a disparity there is between minimal & recommended
>>system requirements between Intel and AMD processors on the same
>>operating system is.
>>
>>"Windows Server 2003 x64 Editions require server hardware that is based
>>on the x64 platform. These servers feature AMD Opteron or Intel Xeon
>>with EM64T or Intel Pentium 4 6xx series microprocessors. On the AMD
>>side, Microsoft requires a 1.4 GHz or faster processor, while Intel
>>users will need a 2.8 GHz Xeon or 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 with
>>Hyper-Threading technology, or faster processor. However, Microsoft
>>recommends faster Intel processors for the best experience: a 3.6 GHz
>>Xeon or Pentium 4."
>>http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2003x64_preview.asp
>
>
> Why this CPU speed? Will Windows x64 run slower than Windows x32?

I've seen the last x86-64 XP beta running on a P4 that was
underclocked to something like 1.6 or 1.8 GHz. That machine was
a dual booter with the x86-32 version of XP as the other OS - and
speedwise their didn't seem to be much difference between the
x86-64 and x86-32 versions of XP.

I've found similar results with the 32 and 64 bit versions of XP
on AMD64 systems: you need a stopwatch to tell them apart.
Speed differences that are noticeable without a stopwatch only
happen with some of the 64 bit apps - and there are not a lot of
those out there yet.

However, the 64 bit version is more RAM hungry than the 32 bit
version. Migrating from the 32 bit XP to the 64 bit XP on an
Athlon64 3000+ system is not pleasant if you only have 512 MB of
RAM. Plan on adding a 256 MB DIMM to your system just for the
additional demands made by the new OS.