64 bit CPU?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Chas, May 12, 2004.

  1. Chas

    Chas Guest

    Hello,

    I'm looking to upgrade processors and was wondering if i should
    go w/ the Athlon 64 or not. I have a decent amount of PC knowlegde
    and I'm thinking at the moment it's not worth it. I haven't heard of
    release date for a MS 64-bit OS or 64-bit apps for that matter. I
    believe one is in the works though.

    I know the Athlon 64-FX series are the best they've put out even
    in 32-bit apps, so that's part of my dilemma. The last two CPU's I've
    had in my machines have been Athlons and I've been very happy w/ them.
    But as of late I was thinking of getting an Asus board (probably the
    P4C800-E Deluxe) w/ the Intel 875 chipset and going w/ the less
    expensive Northwood 3.4/800 FSB thus leaving room for a Prescott or EE
    once the prices drop a bit.

    Your thoughts...

    Thanks.
     
    Chas, May 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chas

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    (Chas) wrote in news:410c8a01.0405120553.347a1799
    @posting.google.com:

    > I'm looking to upgrade processors and was wondering if i should
    > go w/ the Athlon 64 or not. I have a decent amount of PC knowlegde
    > and I'm thinking at the moment it's not worth it. I haven't heard of
    > release date for a MS 64-bit OS or 64-bit apps for that matter. I
    > believe one is in the works though.


    It is true that right now there is no consumer 64-bit OS or apps, but that
    doesn't mean the chip sucsk. The Athlon 64 still has an onboard memory
    controller and hypertransport. It is still the most dominating 32-bit
    processor. The 64-bitness is just a bonus.

    --
    website: http://www.demonlag.com
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    email:
     
    DeMoN LaG, May 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chas

    bmoag Guest

    The measurable differences in performance between many of these CPUs are not
    appreciable in the real world. In my experience once you get up 2.5gHZ with
    current AMD and Intel chips and identical other parts (memory, hard drives,
    video card) I doubt most users in a double blind test could see much
    difference in performance in actual use of the machines apart from editing
    large image/video files. You should ask yourself what you want out of the
    upgrade. If you want cutting edge I would go with the 64 bit chips for which
    a version of Windows is actually available now (see the Microsoft web site)
    and set up a dual boot system (32 and 64 bit OS) so you can actually use the
    computer and your peripherals (64 bit drivers are what is missing). Intel
    has recently announced it is moving away from its current 32 bit Pentium
    architecture in favor of a "dual core" CPU that runs slower, hence cooler
    with less power demand/waste, but is more efficient: ironic that the AMD
    approach of more efficient work cycles is now being taken up by Intel,
    champion of the brute force approach. It is not clear if Intel has fully
    embraced the AMD style 64 bit CPU.
     
    bmoag, May 12, 2004
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charlie Russel - MVP
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    432
    Dshai
    Jan 15, 2007
  2. BP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,148
    PhilSweet
    Dec 19, 2008
  3. Homer J. Simpson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    784
    Jim Barry
    Jan 19, 2009
  4. David B.
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    515
    David B.
    Jan 20, 2009
  5. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]
    Jan 21, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page