Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

does the AMD64 cpu work with windows xp/2000?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 23, 2003 9:27:47 AM

I only ask because I hear things left and right about compability issues. It may be a stupid question, but I just want to make sure before I order it. thanks!
December 23, 2003 9:53:32 AM

It will work fine, but because There is no 64-bit version of windows currently available, it simply won't get the most out of the processor (it'll run in 32 bit mode pretty much all the time).

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
December 23, 2003 10:01:54 AM

ah, so you gotta wait for a windows update?
Related resources
December 23, 2003 10:32:31 AM

I don't think there will be a patch for XP or 2000 to 64-bit, like there is no patch for Win98 to 'upgrade' to XP or 2000. So you'll have to buy a new 64-bit version of windows. I suspect there will be a cheaper price if you already have XP though, but it won't be free...

Applications which are written for 64-bit will still work though - you don't <i>need</i> a 64 bit OS to make use of it. It's just a 'pure' 64-bit OS would help in a few areas like memory handling and the like. There wouldn't be much performance increase in the OS at all.

There are a few instances where 64 bit registers will speed applications up (where they're written to use them that is), but there is not going to be much gain except in certain specialist software.

In a few years, with games and apps getting bigger and bigger and needing more resources, the need for native 64-bit support will be more apparent, but it's simply not much of an issue at the moment.

There's no reason to not buy an A64 at the moment - I personally wouldn't, but that's 'cause I upgrade frequently anyway so if I was buying <i>now</i> I'd want the best 32-bit performance I can get - as that's all I'd use - but if a PC is going to last a few years then a A64 is probably a good choice, as it's a pretty decent CPU in 32 bit stuff too, and it's a little more future-proof in that respect.

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
December 23, 2003 10:55:04 AM

Applications which are written for 64-bit will still work though - you don't need a 64 bit OS to make use of it. It's just a 'pure' 64-bit OS would help in a few areas like memory handling and the like. There wouldn't be much performance increase in the OS at all.

No the long mode can be use only with 64 bit driver 64 OS 64 APPS.Is 1 missing it bye bye.The extra register can be use on older OS and driver the CPU will handle the extra bit.

I dont like french test
December 23, 2003 11:24:42 AM

There is nothing to worry about. Right now, the A64 3000+ costs only half than the Pentium 4 3.2c and still beats it in almost everything except video encoding. A64s run 32bit apps like any other processor you have in mind (Pentium 4, Barton, etc) but they also have the advantage of 64bit.

If you need to buy a computer now A64 is your best choice. Your other option is to wait until summer when Prescott and the newer 939pin A64s will be available, but keep in mind that they will be expensive.
December 23, 2003 2:23:49 PM

You don't have to wait! You still et better overall performance, it'S just that current indows XP version don't use the 64bit new instruction set (AMD64).

You can compare this to SSE/SSE2 support within Intel CPU. My Athlon XP don't support SSE2, but all the software works fine! It's just that they can't use SSE2 instructions.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
December 23, 2003 11:01:15 PM

>>>I don't think there will be a patch for XP or 2000 to 64-bit

Yeah, no matter what AMD wants, I'm betting Microsoft will want a piece of the pie from anyone that wants to run their 64 bit OS (be it an OS for AMD or anyone else). After all, developing such an OS won't be a no-cost proposition.

>>>Applications which are written for 64-bit will still work though - you don't need a 64 bit OS to make use of it.

Maybe you know something I don't, but I'm hard pressed to believe this statement. If the exe is compiled for 64 bit, how are those 64 bit instructions going to execute under a 32 bit OS? If it can do that, why aren't they releasing x86-64 Windows apps right now? I think you misstated what you meant to say? I think 64 bit apps would have to include a 32 bit exe to run on 32 bit Windows?
December 24, 2003 4:35:21 AM

I think ChipDeath was correct. Only drivers need to be rewritten in 64-bit windows. 32-bit applications do not. An 32 application can run in compatiblity mode in which mode the pointer is 32-bit, along with 64-bit application which runs in native 64-bit mode. Windows 64 has a translation module called "wow64" which does the 32 to 64 bit translation for system call parameters. All these are very like the 16-32 transition period when 16-bit applications are still quite popular.

XP1900+
MSI KT3 Ultra 2(KT333)
512 MB Samsung PC2700
AIW 9700 PRO(Catalyst 3.8+DX9)
WD 80.0 GB @ 7200 RPM
LG 19"
LG 32x10x40x CDRW
Windows XP SP1
(Built: September 2002)
December 24, 2003 5:51:53 AM

>>>Applications which are written for 64-bit will still work though - you don't need a 64 bit OS to make use of it.

Maybe what he <i>meant</i> to say was:
"Applications which are written for <b>32-bit</b> will still work though - you don't need a 64 bit OS to make use of it."

That would make sense. But that's not what I read.
December 24, 2003 8:07:08 AM

MMX was a few added registers & Instructions. so is A64. I can't see any reason why apps can't be written that utilise at least <i>some</i> of the extra features. I'm not talking about Apps addressing more RAM, just using the registers if they need to.

Granted I haven't bothered doing much in the way of research on this, but I can't immediately see the problem. Of course it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong if that's the case :smile: .

---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red> :wink:
December 24, 2003 2:09:46 PM

>>>I can't see any reason why apps can't be written that utilise at least some of the extra features. I'm not talking about Apps addressing more RAM, just using the registers if they need to.

Ok, now that starts to make sense, assuming you're writing in Assembler or machine code, or using some strange compiler that would allow such odd behavior. Were there ever any 32-bit compilers that allowed such? (I.E. A program written for Win16 that could use the extra registers and such of a 32 bit processor?)
December 26, 2003 7:33:54 AM

Like I said - I'm just thinking about MMX. One of the MMX features was added 64-bit registers. Virtually all the programs that use MMX are Win32 apps, so I don't see a huge difference in using at least bits of A64.

And yes, I was talking about programmers optimizing for A64 at a very low level.

A 64-bit OS would be preferable, but the A64 chips have very good 32-bit performance anyway (although not the <i>best</i> if [like me] you're happy to OC a lot) which is why I think if you're building a PC now that has to last a few years, it's a sensible choice, but if you're a upgrade-every-year man, then possibly not. Horses for courses.

---
<font color=red>Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do.</font color=red> :wink:
!