Are 64-bit processors worth the upgrade?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
opt for an Athlon 64?

An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once the
64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006. But these processors are
pretty damn expensive right now. By the time Microsoft's Longhorn is
unleashed, I'm quite sure that just about everything around my Athlon
64 would be getting long in the tooth.

Bartons would be cheaper, but it would be left out in the cold when
the 64-bit OS becomes available. But then again, by 2006, 64-bit
processors would be a lot cheaper. I'd probably be able to sell the
Barton by then, AND purchase a better (and cheaper) 64-bit processor
in 2006 than I would've paid in buying a 64-bit processor in 2004.

I'm sure everybody who's bought a computer in the past couple of
months have faced this exact same dilemma. When upgrading, should I
opt for a 64-bit processor or not?

 

[Fitz]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The AMD 64 gives a significant performance advantage even with the 32 bit OS
because of the on chip memory controller, the extra memory "paths" and the
hypertransport link. There is a BETA version of the 64 bit Windows OS
available for download now, and most major hardware manufacturers have
already released 64 bit drivers (though some of those are BETA also).
Prices on AMD64's have dropped considerably since I bought mine, and they
are much more affordable now.
If you wait to upgrade to the 64 bit processor until 2006, I'm sure there
will be some new technology "just around the corner" that will make you
consider waiting again. There is never a time to upgrade that will get you
at the cutting edge and let you stay there very long- the advances happen
too fast. I'm quite happy with my AMD64 3200+ and the first generation
NForce 3 motherboard, even though faster processors and the 2nd generation
of the NForce 3 motherboards have been released. I'll want to upgrade (it's
a good way to pass the winter in Alaska) long before I would actually need
to.

Yeah, get the 64.

Fitz

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Yes, please jump into the 64 bit arena. make sure you post back with
all the beta testing results so that we, the patient people will have
a well sorted platform, when we jump in. Not to mention the software,
and drivers that will actually use the platform, will be in abundance.
All the MB problems that will have to be worked out, and the brand new
OS's!!! Somebody has to do it, why not you?


"Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e1f277e.0408310615.494a704@posting.google.com...
> I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across
a
> dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should
I
> opt for an Athlon 64?
>
> An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once
the
> 64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006. But these processors
are
> pretty damn expensive right now. By the time Microsoft's Longhorn
is
> unleashed, I'm quite sure that just about everything around my
Athlon
> 64 would be getting long in the tooth.
>
> Bartons would be cheaper, but it would be left out in the cold when
> the 64-bit OS becomes available. But then again, by 2006, 64-bit
> processors would be a lot cheaper. I'd probably be able to sell the
> Barton by then, AND purchase a better (and cheaper) 64-bit processor
> in 2006 than I would've paid in buying a 64-bit processor in 2004.
>
> I'm sure everybody who's bought a computer in the past couple of
> months have faced this exact same dilemma. When upgrading, should I
> opt for a 64-bit processor or not?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Opticreep wrote:

> I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
> dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
> opt for an Athlon 64?

Athlon 64

> An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once the
> 64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006.

Be aware that the 'boost' in performance is not so much in speed but
in manageable storage space...

> But these processors are
> pretty damn expensive right now.

A boxed Athlon 64 3000+ and a socket 754 mainboard (MSI or even
ASRock) are not that expensive.

....
> Bartons would be cheaper, but it would be left out in the cold when
> the 64-bit OS becomes available.

The 360 days preview version of WinXP Pro x64 is out:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/upgrade.mspx
(look at Newsgroup Support for access to the specialized news group)

....

> I'm sure everybody who's bought a computer in the past couple of
> months have faced this exact same dilemma. When upgrading, should I
> opt for a 64-bit processor or not?

Definitely - for the Cool 'n Quiet feature alone which the Athlon 64
has (and pay attention that the mainboard supports CnQ).
At http://www.amd.com/us-en/ you find everything about the AMD64 -
the CnQ technology, recommended mainboards, et cetera


Roy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> "Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9e1f277e.0408310615.494a704@posting.google.com...
>
> I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
> dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
> opt for an Athlon 64?
>
> An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once the
> 64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006. But these processors are
> pretty damn expensive right now. By the time Microsoft's Longhorn is
> unleashed, I'm quite sure that just about everything around my Athlon
> 64 would be getting long in the tooth.
>
> Bartons would be cheaper, but it would be left out in the cold when
> the 64-bit OS becomes available. But then again, by 2006, 64-bit
> processors would be a lot cheaper. I'd probably be able to sell the
> Barton by then, AND purchase a better (and cheaper) 64-bit processor
> in 2006 than I would've paid in buying a 64-bit processor in 2004.
>
> I'm sure everybody who's bought a computer in the past couple of
> months have faced this exact same dilemma. When upgrading, should I
> opt for a 64-bit processor or not?



Here's something to think about, from:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/index.php?p=283

Leading up to the release of Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, several
Microsoft executives have cited a feature called Data Execution Prevention
(DEP) as a key sentry in the fight against viruses and worms that load
themselves into areas of a computer’s memory normally reserved for data.
The often cited "buffer overrun" – used by some of the worst exploits in
history (MSBlaster, Code Red, Slammer) falls into this category of
transgression. When armed with SP2’s DEP feature, those areas of memory
where such viruses and worms try to load themselves are marked for "no
execution." In other words, the executable code that viruses and worms
rely on cannot run in these areas of memory. Unfortunately, except for
users with systems based on AMD’s Athlon 64, Sempron (mobile), or Opteron
microprocessors (a very tiny percentage of the more than 200 million users
of Windows XP), almost no one can take advantage of this important
technology.

Intel-based notebook and desktop systems that support DEP will not start
shipping until the end of 2004 (Intel currently supports the technique in
its Itanium processor for servers). As such, my advice is that all planned
purchases for Intel-based desktops, notebooks, and non-Itanium-based
servers be cancelled or postponed if possible. Instead, buyers should
consider systems based on one of the aforementioned AMD technologies, or
wait until support for DEP is available in shipping Intel-based systems.



--
AZC

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Opticreep wrote:

> I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
> dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
> opt for an Athlon 64?

What software do you run? If you run business software, and don't run games,
Photoshop, CAD, or video editing, then an Athlon XP3000+ would be a good choice.

>
>
> An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once the
> 64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006.

64 bit Windows XP is scheduled to be released in early 2005. The beta version
is available now. 64 bit versions of Linux are available now.

> But these processors are
> pretty damn expensive right now.

An Athlon 64 3000+ is only around $160. Not so expensive.
It performs great with 32 bit software and a 32 bit OS.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

> By the time Microsoft's Longhorn is
> unleashed, I'm quite sure that just about everything around my Athlon
> 64 would be getting long in the tooth.
>
> Bartons would be cheaper, but it would be left out in the cold when
> the 64-bit OS becomes available.

That isn't the main reason to get an Athlon 64. Many are buying an Athlon 64
to get superb performance running 32 bit games

(see this page about Doom 3 performance.)
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

or for running 32 bit Photoshop, CAD, video editing, audio editing, etc.
If you only run business software, an Athlon XP would be a good choice.
The price difference between an Athlon 64 3000+ and Athlon XP3200+
isn't that much, even considering that the motherboard for the Athlon 64
might also be around $25 more than one for an Athlon XP.

> But then again, by 2006, 64-bit
> processors would be a lot cheaper. I'd probably be able to sell the
> Barton by then, AND purchase a better (and cheaper) 64-bit processor
> in 2006 than I would've paid in buying a 64-bit processor in 2004.
>
> I'm sure everybody who's bought a computer in the past couple of
> months have faced this exact same dilemma. When upgrading, should I
> opt for a 64-bit processor or not?

Give us an idea of what software you run or would like to run.

 

[Kris]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
> dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
> opt for an Athlon 64?

An Athlon 64 is the fastest 32-bit OS processor available.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

wooo ooo another feather....for now...

"Kris" <hofstra26@hotnospammail.com> wrote in message
news:s%6Zc.32764$Es2.13133558@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> >I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across
a
> > dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or
should I
> > opt for an Athlon 64?
>
> An Athlon 64 is the fastest 32-bit OS processor available.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

They say its faster, but you wont see it, totaly LET DOWn you will be
and fell riped off, but thats what happens with all PC stuff you buy.

Wait till they release the Dual Core 64 bit cpus and alteast you will
get two cpus for the price of one and maybe by then APPS and games
will be programmed to take advanatage of it, maybe even standard :0


On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:30:33 -0800, "Fitz" <akfitz@mtaonline.net>
wrote:

>The AMD 64 gives a significant performance advantage even with the 32 bit OS
>because of the on chip memory controller, the extra memory "paths" and the
>hypertransport link. There is a BETA version of the 64 bit Windows OS
>available for download now, and most major hardware manufacturers have
>already released 64 bit drivers (though some of those are BETA also).
>Prices on AMD64's have dropped considerably since I bought mine, and they
>are much more affordable now.
>If you wait to upgrade to the 64 bit processor until 2006, I'm sure there
>will be some new technology "just around the corner" that will make you
>consider waiting again. There is never a time to upgrade that will get you
>at the cutting edge and let you stay there very long- the advances happen
>too fast. I'm quite happy with my AMD64 3200+ and the first generation
>NForce 3 motherboard, even though faster processors and the 2nd generation
>of the NForce 3 motherboards have been released. I'll want to upgrade (it's
>a good way to pass the winter in Alaska) long before I would actually need
>to.
>
>Yeah, get the 64.
>
>Fitz
>

HELLO NURSE.

 

[Fitz]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

If you are speaking from experience, what is you configuration?
I bench Aquamark 3 at over 44000. SiSandra has disk storage benchmarks off
the scale. Memory bandwidth is increased considerably over my Athlon XP
systems. I play games, and do some photo and video editing/rendering. The
system is stable and performs well. I don't feel ripped off at all.

Fitz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <2pjgh6Flgeg9U1@uni-berlin.de>,
Roy Coorne <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Opticreep wrote:
>
>> I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
>> dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
>> opt for an Athlon 64?
>
>Athlon 64
>
>> An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once the
>> 64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006.
>
>Be aware that the 'boost' in performance is not so much in speed but
>in manageable storage space...

What is "manageable storage area" ?


--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <2pjgh6Flgeg9U1@uni-berlin.de>,
> Roy Coorne <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Opticreep wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
>>>dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
>>>opt for an Athlon 64?
>>
>>Athlon 64
>>
>>
>>>An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once the
>>>64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006.
>>
>>Be aware that the 'boost' in performance is not so much in speed but
>>in manageable storage space...
>
>
> What is "manageable storage area" ?


'Manageable storage space' refers to
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/top5.mspx
> '2. Large Memory Support'

Roy <being aware of insufficient command of the English lanuage>

 

[Phisherman]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On 31 Aug 2004 07:15:33 -0700, opticreep@yahoo.com (Opticreep) wrote:

>I need to upgrade my Athlon 1.7GHz PC this month. I've come across a
>dilemma --- should I buy the fastest 32-bit CPU available, or should I
>opt for an Athlon 64?
>
>An Athlon 64 would ensure that I get a "boost" in performance once the
>64-bit Operating Systems come out in 2006. But these processors are
>pretty damn expensive right now. By the time Microsoft's Longhorn is
>unleashed, I'm quite sure that just about everything around my Athlon
>64 would be getting long in the tooth.
>
>Bartons would be cheaper, but it would be left out in the cold when
>the 64-bit OS becomes available. But then again, by 2006, 64-bit
>processors would be a lot cheaper. I'd probably be able to sell the
>Barton by then, AND purchase a better (and cheaper) 64-bit processor
>in 2006 than I would've paid in buying a 64-bit processor in 2004.
>
>I'm sure everybody who's bought a computer in the past couple of
>months have faced this exact same dilemma. When upgrading, should I
>opt for a 64-bit processor or not?


I like the fastest processor I can get, but avoid those over $200.
Actually, an Athlon 64 (2.4GHz) is under $200. For making movies, I'd
go with a Pentium 4 Prescott. For gaming, I'd go with the Athlon 64.
But these CPUs are so close, it probably would not matter much
although I think you'd get a better value with AMD. Remember Moore's
Law--every 18 months the number of transistors in a chip doubles.