AMD FX 2.2 gig 64 bit

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by David Wells, Oct 19, 2003.

  1. David Wells

    David Wells Guest

    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.
     
    David Wells, Oct 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Wells

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    David Wells <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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
     
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Wells

    Michael-NC Guest

    http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Michael-NC, Oct 19, 2003
    #3
  4. David Wells

    Steve Guest

    "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    news:Xns9419777718F7DWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    > David Wells <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    > > 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
     
    Steve, Oct 19, 2003
    #4
  5. David Wells

    bmoag Guest

    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.
     
    bmoag, Oct 19, 2003
    #5
  6. David Wells

    Michael-NC Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:rUCkb.4254$...
    > 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, Oct 20, 2003
    #6
  7. David Wells

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
    news:%XEkb.33331$:

    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
     
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 20, 2003
    #7
  8. David Wells

    derek / nul Guest

    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
     
    derek / nul, Oct 20, 2003
    #8
  9. David Wells

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    derek / nul <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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/ProductInformation/0,,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/ProductInformation/0,,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, Oct 20, 2003
    #9
  10. David Wells

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    derek / nul <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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.cfm?articleid=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.cfm?articleid=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
     
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 20, 2003
    #10
  11. David Wells

    derek / nul Guest

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

    >derek / nul <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> 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.cfm?articleid=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.cfm?articleid=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
     
    derek / nul, Oct 20, 2003
    #11
  12. David Wells

    David Wells Guest

    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 <>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
    >
    >>derek / nul <> wrote in
    >>news::
    >>
    >>> 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.cfm?articleid=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.cfm?articleid=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
     
    David Wells, Oct 20, 2003
    #12
  13. David Wells

    Michael-NC Guest

    "derek / nul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
    >
    > >derek / nul <> wrote in
    > >news::
    > >
    > >> 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.cfm?articleid=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.cfm?articleid=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.
     
    Michael-NC, Oct 20, 2003
    #13
  14. David Wells

    Night_Seer Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9419777718F7DWobbly@216.168.3.30...
    >> David Wells <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> 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
     
    Night_Seer, Oct 20, 2003
    #14
  15. David Wells

    Night_Seer Guest

    > 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
     
    Night_Seer, Oct 20, 2003
    #15
  16. David Wells

    Steve Guest

    "Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
    news:...

    > 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
     
    Steve, Oct 20, 2003
    #16
  17. David Wells

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    derek / nul <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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
     
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 20, 2003
    #17
  18. David Wells

    derek / nul Guest

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:20:29 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

    >derek / nul <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> 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"
     
    derek / nul, Oct 20, 2003
    #18
  19. David Wells

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    derek / nul <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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
     
    DeMoN LaG, Oct 21, 2003
    #19
  20. David Wells

    derek / nul Guest

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 05:24:19 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:

    >derek / nul <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> 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.
     
    derek / nul, Oct 21, 2003
    #20
    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. Gary

    Linksys GIG v's Cisco Gig

    Gary, Oct 14, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,784
    Walter Roberson
    Oct 15, 2006
  2. grappletech
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    585
    grappletech
    Mar 9, 2007
  3. Charlie Russel - MVP
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    436
    Dshai
    Jan 15, 2007
  4. Great Deals
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    851
    Trendkill
    Sep 10, 2007
  5. Will
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    3,159
    seanpaul
    Nov 25, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page