Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > new 6xx P4 cpu

Reply
Thread Tools

new 6xx P4 cpu

 
 
evaristo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2005
Xp 64 pro can be install in a system with new 6xx P4?
What the difference between Amd64 and 6xx P4?
Some tell me that new 6xx P4 cpu has got just 64 bit
memory address and not 64 bit realy "power". Is it true?

TIA

Evaristo


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Gillespie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2005
evaristo got up from the bar and shouted: :
> Xp 64 pro can be install in a system with new 6xx P4?
> What the difference between Amd64 and 6xx P4?
> Some tell me that new 6xx P4 cpu has got just 64 bit
> memory address and not 64 bit realy "power". Is it true?



That's just AMD fanboy talk, they still think every is crazy for buying
Intel CPU's when theirs costs 20% less. There is no difference between
AMD64 and Intel's x86-64 CPU (technically, the Intel CPU's lack 2
instructions that AMD64 has, but as I understand it, nothing uses these
2 missing instructions, for compatibility reasons).

Relax, be safe in the knowledge that your Intel chips runs x64 stuff as
well as any AMD64 chip, and you can gloat that you have a decent Intel
chipset, instead of the rubbish that most chipsets that support AMD64 are.

Before the AMD fanboys kick off, would like to say I have a AMD64 here,
on a Asus A8V, and the only reason I bought that, was the Intel x86-64
chips were not available. Whilst I won't be selling it to buy a Intel
x86-64, I won'ts stray from the Intel path next time, it's simply too
much trouble.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andre Da Costa
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2005
I'm awaiting the Celeron x64.
--

Andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

"Mark Gillespie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> evaristo got up from the bar and shouted: :
>> Xp 64 pro can be install in a system with new 6xx P4?
>> What the difference between Amd64 and 6xx P4?
>> Some tell me that new 6xx P4 cpu has got just 64 bit
>> memory address and not 64 bit realy "power". Is it true?

>
>
> That's just AMD fanboy talk, they still think every is crazy for buying
> Intel CPU's when theirs costs 20% less. There is no difference between
> AMD64 and Intel's x86-64 CPU (technically, the Intel CPU's lack 2
> instructions that AMD64 has, but as I understand it, nothing uses these 2
> missing instructions, for compatibility reasons).
>
> Relax, be safe in the knowledge that your Intel chips runs x64 stuff as
> well as any AMD64 chip, and you can gloat that you have a decent Intel
> chipset, instead of the rubbish that most chipsets that support AMD64 are.
>
> Before the AMD fanboys kick off, would like to say I have a AMD64 here, on
> a Asus A8V, and the only reason I bought that, was the Intel x86-64 chips
> were not available. Whilst I won't be selling it to buy a Intel x86-64, I
> won'ts stray from the Intel path next time, it's simply too much trouble.



 
Reply With Quote
 
NoNoBadDog!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
This is a can of worms that I am not sure I want to open...but here goes:

Intel EM64T processors (6xx) do not have the onboard memory controller that
the AMD does.
Intel chips do not support hypertransport and are stuck using a traditional
FSB (800MHz as opposed to 2GHz in the AMD64).

Test results shoe significant performance differences between the 6xx series
and the AMD Athlon64 series, with the Athlon64 the clear winner.

In short, even Intel knows its EM64T chips do not perform very well with a
64 bit OS...thus they are not marketing them as 64 bit systems like the ones
that have AMD64.

I am not a "fanboy", just someone who has taken some time to educate myself
as to what is the best choice for 64 bit, and right now (and for the last 15
months) the right choice is AMD64.

FWIW, the new "standard" for 64 bit is the standard developed and marketed
by AMD. Now Intel finds itself in a position it rarely finds itself in...it
has to follow someone elses' lead. eventually, Intel will catch up in speed
and power, but the chips will still be much more expensive than AMD.

The choice is yours.

My money is on AMD.

Bobby



"Mark Gillespie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> evaristo got up from the bar and shouted: :
>> Xp 64 pro can be install in a system with new 6xx P4?
>> What the difference between Amd64 and 6xx P4?
>> Some tell me that new 6xx P4 cpu has got just 64 bit
>> memory address and not 64 bit realy "power". Is it true?

>
>
> That's just AMD fanboy talk, they still think every is crazy for buying
> Intel CPU's when theirs costs 20% less. There is no difference between
> AMD64 and Intel's x86-64 CPU (technically, the Intel CPU's lack 2
> instructions that AMD64 has, but as I understand it, nothing uses these 2
> missing instructions, for compatibility reasons).
>
> Relax, be safe in the knowledge that your Intel chips runs x64 stuff as
> well as any AMD64 chip, and you can gloat that you have a decent Intel
> chipset, instead of the rubbish that most chipsets that support AMD64 are.
>
> Before the AMD fanboys kick off, would like to say I have a AMD64 here, on
> a Asus A8V, and the only reason I bought that, was the Intel x86-64 chips
> were not available. Whilst I won't be selling it to buy a Intel x86-64, I
> won'ts stray from the Intel path next time, it's simply too much trouble.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Slitheen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005

"NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> This is a can of worms that I am not sure I want to open...but here goes:
>
> Intel EM64T processors (6xx) do not have the onboard memory controller
> that the AMD does.
> Intel chips do not support hypertransport and are stuck using a
> traditional FSB (800MHz as opposed to 2GHz in the AMD64).
>
> Test results shoe significant performance differences between the 6xx
> series and the AMD Athlon64 series, with the Athlon64 the clear winner.
>
> In short, even Intel knows its EM64T chips do not perform very well with a
> 64 bit OS...thus they are not marketing them as 64 bit systems like the
> ones that have AMD64.
>
> I am not a "fanboy", just someone who has taken some time to educate
> myself as to what is the best choice for 64 bit, and right now (and for
> the last 15 months) the right choice is AMD64.


Of course you are right. And I believe only an *Intel* fanboy could argue
with you.

I'd also like to know what the "trouble" is with AMD. I suppose it's what
you do with your PC. If you are a demanding gamer and high performance
demanding user, there is no decision to make really - it makes itself. I
bought AMD Athlon 64 without even a 2nd thought. I too am not a 'fanboy',
just someone who wants the best performance, benchmarked and proven, at a
lesser cost *if* possible. If it had been Intel offering the best
performance, I'd have bought Intel without a 2nd thought. I have no loyalty
to either company, and I will and more importantly *have* flirted between
the two companies quite happily. Whoever has the best "bang for the buck",
to quote my American friends, gets my money. At the moment, AMD are getting
my money. Simple as that.

>
> FWIW, the new "standard" for 64 bit is the standard developed and marketed
> by AMD. Now Intel finds itself in a position it rarely finds itself
> in...it has to follow someone elses' lead. eventually, Intel will catch
> up in speed and power, but the chips will still be much more expensive
> than AMD.
>
> The choice is yours.
>
> My money is on AMD.
>


Well put.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rocko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
There are really two standards, x64 and IA64, and they target different
spaces...
I agree, for the desktop market, AMD64 is the right choice (by far). On the
other side, I've been reading/hearing about a very famous company close to
where I work that has IBM's z/OS operating system running (beta mode) on
multi-Itanium-2 processors in 64 bit mode...that's a totally different ball
game (mucho $$$$, especially for IBM due to z/OS software pricing) and may
be the basket where Intel plans to lay their IA64 eggs ))


 
Reply With Quote
 
Amit
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
I recently built a computer with AMD 64.
Considering, that sooner or later desktop will move to 64 bit, I opted for a
64 bit cpu.
Before buying I did a lot of research, which one to buy...Intel or AMD.
Most benchmarks were more or less equal with Intel reigning in some places
while AMD in other.
Intel 64 bit CPUs are too expensive right now. Besides, AMD64 is in the
market for some time.
And AMD fair better in games (which I play a lot)...so considering these
points, I went for AMD.

Thanks
Amit

"Slitheen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> This is a can of worms that I am not sure I want to open...but here goes:
>>
>> Intel EM64T processors (6xx) do not have the onboard memory controller
>> that the AMD does.
>> Intel chips do not support hypertransport and are stuck using a
>> traditional FSB (800MHz as opposed to 2GHz in the AMD64).
>>
>> Test results shoe significant performance differences between the 6xx
>> series and the AMD Athlon64 series, with the Athlon64 the clear winner.
>>
>> In short, even Intel knows its EM64T chips do not perform very well with
>> a 64 bit OS...thus they are not marketing them as 64 bit systems like the
>> ones that have AMD64.
>>
>> I am not a "fanboy", just someone who has taken some time to educate
>> myself as to what is the best choice for 64 bit, and right now (and for
>> the last 15 months) the right choice is AMD64.

>
> Of course you are right. And I believe only an *Intel* fanboy could argue
> with you.
>
> I'd also like to know what the "trouble" is with AMD. I suppose it's what
> you do with your PC. If you are a demanding gamer and high performance
> demanding user, there is no decision to make really - it makes itself. I
> bought AMD Athlon 64 without even a 2nd thought. I too am not a 'fanboy',
> just someone who wants the best performance, benchmarked and proven, at a
> lesser cost *if* possible. If it had been Intel offering the best
> performance, I'd have bought Intel without a 2nd thought. I have no
> loyalty to either company, and I will and more importantly *have* flirted
> between the two companies quite happily. Whoever has the best "bang for
> the buck", to quote my American friends, gets my money. At the moment, AMD
> are getting my money. Simple as that.
>
>>
>> FWIW, the new "standard" for 64 bit is the standard developed and
>> marketed by AMD. Now Intel finds itself in a position it rarely finds
>> itself in...it has to follow someone elses' lead. eventually, Intel will
>> catch up in speed and power, but the chips will still be much more
>> expensive than AMD.
>>
>> The choice is yours.
>>
>> My money is on AMD.
>>

>
> Well put.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Wayne Wastier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
Mark Gillespie wrote:
> That's just AMD fanboy talk,


You are an Inhell ... Intel fanboy. You must love throwing away your money.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
Well, I wrote two whitepapers for MS on x64, and I had to be very processor
agnostic. I saw a LOT of hard performance numbers for various server and
client tasks. At the single processor level, some tasks will have Intel
winning, some AMD. Add in dual core from both, and AMD will generally win. Go
to big, multiprocesor server boards, and Xeon's with really larger onboard
cache and dual cores will do almost as well as dual core opterons for most
things. In other words, they're both very, very close. Personally, at the
multiprocessor level, I really like the Opteron with HyperTransport. You get
NUMA memory for almost human pricing. I'm sure Intel wishes they had
HyperTransport. OTOH, I'm equally sure AMD wishes they could cram as much
cache on their chips as Intel seems to be able to.

FWIW, when I bought my AMD, it was the first AMD I'd ever owned. (and yes,
EM64T was shipping by then.) When I buy my next box, I'll look and see what's
going on. But I'll be much more likely to go with an AMD than I ever was in
the past. I may still opt for Intel, we'll see. But before, I didn't even
consider it.


--
Charlie.

Mark Gillespie wrote:
> evaristo got up from the bar and shouted: :
>> Xp 64 pro can be install in a system with new 6xx P4?
>> What the difference between Amd64 and 6xx P4?
>> Some tell me that new 6xx P4 cpu has got just 64 bit
>> memory address and not 64 bit realy "power". Is it true?

>
>
> That's just AMD fanboy talk, they still think every is crazy for
> buying Intel CPU's when theirs costs 20% less. There is no difference
> between AMD64 and Intel's x86-64 CPU (technically, the Intel CPU's
> lack 2 instructions that AMD64 has, but as I understand it, nothing
> uses these 2 missing instructions, for compatibility reasons).
>
> Relax, be safe in the knowledge that your Intel chips runs x64 stuff
> as well as any AMD64 chip, and you can gloat that you have a decent
> Intel chipset, instead of the rubbish that most chipsets that support
> AMD64 are.
> Before the AMD fanboys kick off, would like to say I have a AMD64
> here, on a Asus A8V, and the only reason I bought that, was the Intel
> x86-64 chips were not available. Whilst I won't be selling it to buy
> a Intel x86-64, I won'ts stray from the Intel path next time, it's
> simply too much trouble.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Gillespie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2005
Slitheen got up from the bar and shouted: :

> I'd also like to know what the "trouble" is with AMD.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with AMD chips, very fast, and the
right price. What is wrong, is that to go AMD64 you need to pick a
supporting chipset, and all the AMD chipsets suck pretty badly compared
to intels chipset offerings. You only have to look on planetAMD64 and
try to finf people scraping around trying to find network drivers for
some cheapo motherboard network controller, buy intel, everything works
out the box, has proper 64bit support for all it's onboard bits, and has
far better stability.

Perhaps it what people do with their systems, but every AMD "fanboy"
reply mentions cost and performance, none of them mention stability.
 
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
Urgent: I need a Door or Cover for the battery/cf card for my DCS 760 (DCS 6XX or 7XX will do fine) summarex@gmail.com Digital Photography 10 09-15-2007 05:32 AM
I need a battery D O O R for my DCS 760 (DCS 6XX or 7XX will do fine) Options (Corrected) summarex@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 09-01-2007 10:30 AM
I need a battery for my DCS 760 (DCS 6XX or 7XX will do fine) summarex@gmail.com Digital Photography 0 09-01-2007 08:57 AM
J2ME : Anybody had JPG's work on Sony Ericsson T-610 / T-6xx emulator or phones ? Sam Iam Java 0 10-09-2004 10:12 PM
Pentium CPU vs Intel Celeron CPU and the Wireless Mouse kirk lives! Computer Support 4 05-02-2004 06:59 PM



Advertisments