Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Computer Information (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f41-computer-information.html)
-   -   AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t308189-amd-fx-2-2-gig-64-bit.html)

David Wells 10-19-2003 03:24 PM

AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with this
chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am looking
at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.

DeMoN LaG 10-19-2003 03:39 PM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
David Wells <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:dva5pv00vd646cbsj5efik8t9jtq0sgsvo@4ax.com:

> Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with this
> chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am looking
> at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.


The speed is quite amazing from the benchmarks that sites are doing. I do
not however, know anyone with one for me to look at first hand. They are
quite expensive since they are the highest performing chip on the market
right now. So for speed it is the fastest available. What do you mean by
"etc"?

--
AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
website: under construction
Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
email/IM for rates/services

Michael-NC 10-19-2003 06:07 PM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...le.php/3082211


Don't have the FX right now. I run a XP2800. I'll wait till the PCI Express
motherboards come out and AMD enables dual channel memory to run with
unregistered ram. I feel it's too early to jump on the FX now.

"David Wells" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dva5pv00vd646cbsj5efik8t9jtq0sgsvo@4ax.com...
> Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with this
> chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am looking
> at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.




Steve 10-19-2003 06:29 PM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 

"DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
news:Xns9419777718F7DWobbly@216.168.3.30...
> David Wells <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:dva5pv00vd646cbsj5efik8t9jtq0sgsvo@4ax.com:
>
> > Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with this
> > chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am looking
> > at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.

>
> The speed is quite amazing from the benchmarks that sites are doing. I do
> not however, know anyone with one for me to look at first hand. They are
> quite expensive since they are the highest performing chip on the market
> right now. So for speed it is the fastest available. What do you mean by
> "etc"?
>
> --
> AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
> email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
> website: under construction
> Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
> email/IM for rates/services



Hey Demon,

What's your take on www.tomshoardware.com comparison of the P4 EE (Extreme
Edition, actually a P4 Xeon).
The speed crown goes to Intel after all is said and done but they go on to
say:

"Intel doesn't have to decide yet whether it wants in the medium term to
build its desktop CPUs on the complex IA-64 architecture or to go with
x86-64 like AMD. But if the market should unexpectedly shift towards 64 bit,
the manufacturer still has its secret Yamhill project up its sleeve.
Since Intel already has an inkling of what the outcome of the eternal duel
between Athlon 64 and P4 will be, the manufacturer hastily introduced the
"P4 Extreme" a few days ago at the IDF (Intel Developer Forum 2003) in San
Jose. We were there: the processor is nothing more than an Intel Xeon with a
P4 label tacked onto it, complete with a 2 MB L3 cache, now offered with
FSB800 (200 MHz real FSB speed) and 3.2 GHz. To get the faster clock speed
under control, the ECC checking in the CPU was unceremoniously deactivated.
A few hours before posting this article the Athlon 64 was ahead of the
Pentium 4 Standard Edition. But with the P4 Extreme Intel managed to
considerably spoil AMD's launch. Now the latest Intel CPU wins in most of
the benchmark tests. So was it a fair move for Intel to make such cosmetic
changes prior to the actual launch of the Athlon 64? We see it as the
infantile reaction of a monopolist who's naturally inclined to act like a
general at a sand table exercise."






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003



bmoag 10-19-2003 08:56 PM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
We are again at one of those points in the cycle where hardware exceeds the
demands of software. Apart from games (and no majorDirect X9 games have been
released) and video editing, neither of which most computer users do, most
people could get by on Pentium II chips for mainstream uses. Of course, if I
could, I would go out and get one of those AMD 64 machines in a heartbeat.



Michael-NC 10-19-2003 11:17 PM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
It's like a stupid dog chasing his tail... The past few months all the games
sites and mags have been prognosticating over what kind of supercharged
hardware you need to run Doom3/Half-life. Now John Carmack says D3 will run
on a 1GHz PC with a "decent" video card! WTF!!! What happened to all the
hype over FX5900 Ultras and ATI 9800 Pro's? All a bunch of marketing BS!

Of course an older card won't be able to display all the eye candy but did
anyone really expect these two games to exclude themselves from a vast
installed base of 1GHz machines with "decent" video cards?

That said, it now comes out that the FX line NVIDIA cards are _not really_
that good of a DX9 part! Again,WTF!!! I bought a FX5900 a month ago and
_Now_ this BS come out. Apparently, NVIDIA has runtime recompiling shader
programs in their beta drivers and this is how the card will run HL2. Of
course this has nothing to do with the _agreement_ between Valve and ATI...
One example of how early adoption of a part can be as painful as a kick in
the internuts!

As for the AMD 64...

Intel just unleashed an Extreme Edition P4 that takes back the top spot from
AMD, just mere days after their big FX64 release. It just doesn't pay to be
an early adopter. AMD is betting the farm that software makers, including MS
(for OS support), hardware makers, (for 64 bit driver support. Are they
_really_ going to write 64 bit drivers for all your hardware?) and you and I
go all out for 64 bit computing. MS has already stated they won't support
more than one set of 64 bit instructions for a new 64 bit OS and have
committed somewhat to AMD but what if they pull the plug on AMD if Intel
decides to crash the 64 bit party? If MS does write a version of XP for AMD
64 bit CPU's, that would be awfully nice of them. I don't think they're that
nice and AMD may well end up out of business. Once again, IMHO, it doesn't
pay to get involved in this dogfight, until one dog wins.



"bmoag" <aetoo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rUCkb.4254$4f1.3358@newssvr29.news.prodigy.co m...
> We are again at one of those points in the cycle where hardware exceeds

the
> demands of software. Apart from games (and no majorDirect X9 games have

been
> released) and video editing, neither of which most computer users do, most
> people could get by on Pentium II chips for mainstream uses. Of course, if

I
> could, I would go out and get one of those AMD 64 machines in a heartbeat.
>
>




DeMoN LaG 10-20-2003 04:33 AM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
"Michael-NC" <NoAddress@desolate.com> wrote in
news:%XEkb.33331$kZ5.26960@twister.southeast.rr.co m:

Comments inline:

> Intel just unleashed an Extreme Edition P4 that takes back the top
> spot from AMD, just mere days after their big FX64 release. It just


While it does outperform the FX64, one must also consider it is largely a
paper launch. Intel does not have many of these things in the market
right now, while I can order an FX64 from a half dozen vendors.

> doesn't pay to be an early adopter. AMD is betting the farm that
> software makers, including MS (for OS support), hardware makers, (for
> 64 bit driver support. Are they _really_ going to write 64 bit drivers
> for all your hardware?) and you and I go all out for 64 bit computing.


It should be stated that the AMD64 line can run existing 32 bit code in
64 bit mode. I imagine this means it's possible to use a 64 bit driver
for my graphics card on a 64 bit OS but still use a 32 bit driver for my
LAN card.

> MS has already stated they won't support more than one set of 64 bit
> instructions for a new 64 bit OS and have committed somewhat to AMD
> but what if they pull the plug on AMD if Intel decides to crash the 64
> bit party? If MS does write a version of XP for AMD 64 bit CPU's, that


Microsoft said they are making Windows XP 64 bit and it will run on x86-
64 (AMD64 now), and that's that. Someone in the company stated that
Microsoft does not intend to develop a new product for another
instruction set. This means if Intel wants a 64 bit Windows that isn't
an Itanium server product, they have to go AMD64 or lose Windows support.
And if Intel does go AMD64, hardware vendors who write drivers for
Intel's 64-bit chips will be writing drivers for AMDs 64-bit chips at the
same time.

> would be awfully nice of them. I don't think they're that nice and AMD
> may well end up out of business. Once again, IMHO, it doesn't pay to
> get involved in this dogfight, until one dog wins.


I definitely disgree with this. An Athlon64 3200+ costs marginally more
than an AthlonXP 3200+. If you are already spending that much cash,
going for the 64-bit chip is not a bad idea. It is a fantastic 32-bit
performer right now, and 64-bit Linux benchmarks show that it definitely
brings more punch in 64-bit mode.

As for AMD going out of business, I'll tell ya what. AMD goes out of
business in the next 3 years and I owe you a case of whatever you want
(pepsi, coke, beer, etc).

--
AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
website: under construction
Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
email/IM for rates/services

derek / nul 10-20-2003 05:37 AM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:33:26 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

>
>It should be stated that the AMD64 line can run existing 32 bit code in
>64 bit mode.


Demon, I just had a look at the AMD site and find no evidence of being able to
run 32 bit programs in 64 bit mode.
I would also question how you would do this.

Derek


DeMoN LaG 10-20-2003 06:29 AM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
derek / nul <abuseonly@sgrall.org> wrote in
news:11t6pvs19hbbjgi9qpehbmk4ia8cumd2jo@4ax.com:

> Demon, I just had a look at the AMD site and find no evidence of being
> able to run 32 bit programs in 64 bit mode.
> I would also question how you would do this.
>


http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...,,30_118_9485_
9487%5E9493,00.html

"Extends system lifecycle by simultaneously and transparently running 32-
bit and 64-bit applications on the same platform"

And:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...,,30_118_9485_
9487%5E9503,00.html



With AMD64 technology, the AMD Athlon 64 processor is fully compatible
with existing software, while enabling a seamless transition to upcoming
64-bit applications. Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run
simultaneously and transparently on the same platform. AMD64 technology
enables new, cinematic computing experiences and capabilities, in
addition to increased performance. AMD64 technology allows end users to
take advantage of new innovations such as real-time encryption, more
life-like games, accurate speech interfaces, cinema-quality graphic
effects, and easy-to-use video and audio editing.


Somewhere there is also a graph that shows the 3 modes an AMD64 chip can
run in. It can run in pure 32 bit mode, hybrid 32-bit/64-bit mode, and
pure 64-bit modes.

--
AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
website: under construction
Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
email/IM for rates/services

DeMoN LaG 10-20-2003 06:39 AM

Re: AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit
 
derek / nul <abuseonly@sgrall.org> wrote in
news:11t6pvs19hbbjgi9qpehbmk4ia8cumd2jo@4ax.com:

> Demon, I just had a look at the AMD site and find no evidence of being
> able to run 32 bit programs in 64 bit mode.
> I would also question how you would do this.
>


Here are a few more web links:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32467.html
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1466&page=2

The chip can basically be just a 32 bit processor, for older OSs like 98,
2000, XP Home/Pro, etc.

Next step up it is a 64 bit chip running a 64 bit OS. The chip can still
execute 32 bit code, and give each program access to 4 GB of memory,
memory that does not have overhead from the OS in it. A complete 4 GB of
memory.

If you go up one more step, which still requires a 64-bit OS, you have a
pure 64-bit chip.

It is also noted that unless you are running in 64-bit mode, then things
like the 8 extra registers AMD64 provides are disabled.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1466&page=3

The above link has the graph I refered to in my previous post, explaining
all the operating modes of the chip.

--
AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
website: under construction
Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
email/IM for rates/services


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.