Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit

Reply
Thread Tools

AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit

 
 
derek / nul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

>derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> 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.


Demon,

I am not sure you have taken in what I said.

The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.

The other 2 modes are for 64 bit code only.

Derek
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David Wells
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
My reason for looking at going with this new chip is a follows.
I have a 96 Dell Pentium Pro 200n which I paid 6000 at the time in
Canadian Dollors. I am just going to replace it now. So I thought if I
got this new system it should hopefully last quite a while before it
becomes old hat also.



On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:25:27 GMT, derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
>
>>derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m:
>>
>>> 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.

>
>Demon,
>
>I am not sure you have taken in what I said.
>
>The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.
>
>The other 2 modes are for 64 bit code only.
>
>Derek


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael-NC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003

"derek / nul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
>
> >derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> >news:(E-Mail Removed) :
> >
> >> 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.

>
> Demon,
>
> I am not sure you have taken in what I said.
>
> The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.
>
> The other 2 modes are for 64 bit code only.
>
> Derek


That's correct. When running a 64 bit OS, devices need drivers that are 64
bit. Hence the _Huge_ gamble by AMD that this thing takes off. It will
literally change the current computing platform that we now know. It is not
a given that MS will write the 64 bit OS for AMD either. They only stated
they will write one and for only one set of 64 bit instructions. They also
said that it will be available only on new systems and by download. No
shrink wrapped product... sounds as if the issue is far from settled.

Also is the socket issue. The first FX64 will be tied to a particular
mainboard that will have no upgrade path. For some it's an issue, other's it
not. It's just another reason for _me_ not to jump in to soon.

If anyone thinks that Intel is going to sit on the sidelines and watch AMD
develope a 64 bit desktop computing platform and not pull out all the stops
to get their own standard in, is kidding themselves. There is an unholy
alliance between hardware and software makers that has been rearing it's
head the past few years and it will only get more intense with 64 bit issue.
No one knows where this will go. It's _not_ a sure bet that AMD will win.
The survival of the company _is_ at stake.












 
Reply With Quote
 
Night_Seer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
Steve wrote:
> "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
> news:Xns9419777718F7DWobbly@216.168.3.30...
>> David Wells <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> 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


The P4EE goes for a THOUSAND bucks...hardly worth the margin of error
percentage that it does better in a FEW benchmarks. You can get the high
end Athlon 64 for up to but not more than 700 bucks.

--
Night_Seer


 
Reply With Quote
 
Night_Seer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
> 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.
>

I've seen the comparisons between the P4 Expensive Edition and the
Athlon 64s, and you are simply overstating it. The P4EE barely nudges by
the A64 in a FEW benchmarks. Overall the A64 is still the better performer
in most applications. Then we have the overhead for registered RAM (which
will change in a few months.) On top of this, we can't account for the 64
bit performance...YET. Wait till we start getting 64 bit applications (and
this is not an if, but a when). And lastly for the icing on the cake, the
P4EE goes for almost a THOUSAND dollars, and I made a mistake in my previous
post, pricewatch is showing the Athlon FX for $753 dollars...big difference.
I will agree with you on one thing though, I think its a bad idea to go in
on this one early, better to wait.

--
Night_Seer


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003

"Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> The P4EE goes for a THOUSAND bucks...hardly worth the margin of error
> percentage that it does better in a FEW benchmarks. You can get the high
> end Athlon 64 for up to but not more than 700 bucks.
>
> --
> Night_Seer
>
>


Price is not a deciding factor for the "gotta have it" crowd, check out the
price differnece between the XP3200+ and the P4 3.2
It seems like Intel can ruin AMD's day anytime they want to

My opinion is that most people don't even know how to utilize the power they
have and Intel and AMD push the envelope when they don't have to


For my money and use I'll stick with my XP 2500+ on my A7N8X Deluxe for at
least the next 2 years.



---
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


 
Reply With Quote
 
DeMoN LaG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Demon,
>
> I am not sure you have taken in what I said.
>
> The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.
>


No, I don't think /you/ understand what it says. Look at the chart. I
posted a link to. Under 64-bit Compatibility mode, you can still run 32
bit code simultaneously with 64-bit code.

--
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
derek / nul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2003
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:20:29 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

>derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> Demon,
>>
>> I am not sure you have taken in what I said.
>>
>> The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.
>>

>
>No, I don't think /you/ understand what it says. Look at the chart. I
>posted a link to. Under 64-bit Compatibility mode, you can still run 32
>bit code simultaneously with 64-bit code.


The 32 bit code is still running in 32 bit mode.

some quotes

Native execution of 32-bit software, allowing today’s PC software to provide
leading-edge performance while enabling a seamless migration to 64-bit software

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 provides full speed support for x86 code base for
uncompromising 32-bit performance, with readiness for 64-bit applications


Nowhere here does it say "it will execute 32 bit code in 64 bit mode"
 
Reply With Quote
 
DeMoN LaG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2003
derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Nowhere here does it say "it will execute 32 bit code in 64 bit mode"
>


"Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run simultaneously and transparently
on the same platform." How can you simultaneously run 32 and 64 bit code
if it can't run 32 bit code in 64 bit mode? This is a highly touted
feature of AMD64. You can port your super huge get loads of benefits from
making it 64-bit database program to 64 bits, without having to port all
your other applications at the same time.

--
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
derek / nul
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2003
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:24:19 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

>derek / nul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> Nowhere here does it say "it will execute 32 bit code in 64 bit mode"
>>

>
>"Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run simultaneously and transparently
>on the same platform." How can you simultaneously run 32 and 64 bit code
>if it can't run 32 bit code in 64 bit mode?


Very easily, in virtual machines, 32 bit ones and 64 bit ones.

> This is a highly touted feature of AMD64.


It has not said anywhere that 32 bit code is 'running' in 64 bit mode.

>You can port your super huge get loads of benefits from
>making it 64-bit database program to 64 bits, without having to port all
>your other applications at the same time.


32 bit code can use 64 bit drivers, in the same way that 32 bit code uses 16 bit
drivers.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheapest Cisco Switch with 1 Gig Ports and 10 Gig WAN-PHY Uplink? Will Cisco 7 11-25-2011 02:11 PM
Problems with 7206 vxr trying to VLAN a Gig port to an HP 4000M Gig port over fiber Great Deals Cisco 1 09-10-2007 11:32 AM
is there much performance difference between a 2.2 gig P4 and a 1.8 gig Celeron? grappletech Computer Information 2 03-09-2007 10:36 PM
Linksys GIG v's Cisco Gig Gary Cisco 3 10-15-2006 01:04 AM
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit,Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new! Ionizer Computer Support 1 01-01-2004 07:27 PM



Advertisments