new 6xx P4 cpu

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by evaristo, May 12, 2005.

  1. evaristo

    evaristo Guest

    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
    evaristo, May 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.
    Mark Gillespie, May 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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.
    Andre Da Costa, May 12, 2005
    #3
  4. evaristo

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > 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.
    NoNoBadDog!, May 13, 2005
    #4
  5. evaristo

    Slitheen Guest

    "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Slitheen, May 13, 2005
    #5
  6. evaristo

    Rocko Guest

    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 ;)))
    Rocko, May 13, 2005
    #6
  7. evaristo

    Amit Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "NoNoBadDog!" <mypants_bjsledgeATpixi.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.
    >
    Amit, May 13, 2005
    #7
  8. Mark Gillespie wrote:
    > That's just AMD fanboy talk,


    You are an Inhell ... Intel fanboy. You must love throwing away your money.
    Wayne Wastier, May 13, 2005
    #8
  9. 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.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 13, 2005
    #9
  10. 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.
    Mark Gillespie, May 13, 2005
    #10
  11. evaristo

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    "Mark Gillespie" <> wrote in message
    news:eQMq$...
    > 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.



    Okay...had to jump on this one.

    I was an early adopter. I had no trouble finding the 64 bit drivers I
    needed for my mobo.
    I have had Intel in the past (865 and others), and until you install all the
    "extras" like Intel Application Accelerator
    and the other fluff that comes with Intel boards, they really aren't all
    that fast. The stability (of Intel boards) comes form simplistic drivers
    that allow very little options for manipulating BIOS settings.

    I only bought Intel for years. That changed when I bought my first AMD64 (I
    now have 3 AMD64 systems).
    They are every bit as stable as Intel, and other than the chipset and CPU
    drivers, I do not have to install anything to get full speed and access to
    every detail of my BIOS.

    The onboard memory controller (Intel? No!), Hypertransport (Intel? No!),
    and Cool n' Quiet (Intel? No!) all work *ALL THE TIME* and are not dependent
    upon the software being "aware". All three are as stable as my old Intel
    boards.

    AMD has managed to make a much better product than Intel. I can only close
    by saying "It's about time"!

    Bobby
    NoNoBadDog!, May 13, 2005
    #11
  12. evaristo

    James Park Guest

    Is stability still an issue for AMD? I remember people having a lot of
    issues in the K6 days (K6-3 + ALi Aladdin V + Win 9x ='d major headaches, P3
    + 440BX ='d relief and happiness for me]), and the chipset choices for the
    Athlon pre-nForce weren't very appealing, but I haven't read about chipset
    issues lately (though I haven't exactly been looking). My nForce2 and Via
    K8T800 based mobos have been pretty stable.

    If x64 support is an issue when selecting a motherboard, just pick one that
    works and sidestep the others. All the drivers I need for my ASUS A8V exist
    though I'm not sure about the onboard audio since I use an Audigy, so that's
    a nice board to get. It doesn't matter much if there are a lot of
    incompatible boards out there; just avoid buying them. :)

    "Mark Gillespie" <> wrote in message
    news:eQMq$...
    > 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.
    James Park, May 13, 2005
    #12
  13. evaristo

    Kevin Panzke Guest

    I paid only $899 for my Dell 8400 Desktop (Regular Price is $1099) so I
    don't think I threw away any money.

    "Wayne Wastier" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Mark Gillespie wrote:
    >> That's just AMD fanboy talk,

    >
    > You are an Inhell ... Intel fanboy. You must love throwing away your
    > money.
    >
    Kevin Panzke, May 13, 2005
    #13
  14. evaristo

    Antoine Leca Guest

    En <news:>, evaristo va escriure:
    > What the difference between Amd64 and 6xx P4?


    Implementation mainly. That is, they interpret (almost) the same
    specifications in differing ways, each one using their own strengths. The
    results are different which is a Good Thing(tm), it gives choice, it means
    competition and emulation, so in the future this will mean better
    performances/price ratio, good for us customers.

    > Some tell me that new 6xx P4 cpu has got just 64 bit
    > memory address and not 64 bit realy "power". Is it true?


    Neither Intel nor AMD have 64-bit address space anyway, so "some" is
    lying/FUDing. Right now some (all?) Intel chips has "only" 36-bit physical
    address space (that's 64 GB!), while AMD, and future Intel chips as well,
    reach 40-bit.
    The x86-64 architecture defined this up to 52 bits (4096 TB), just in case!


    But the real difference is about the virtual memory size, as viewed by an
    process. AFAIK both cores support 48-bit virtual address spaces (256 TB), so
    while it is not 64-bit it is much more than than any of your application
    will need, even at the end of the decade.

    However, going up from this 48-bit limit will mean (widely) reorganizing the
    memory splicing (how many pages entries are in a directory), since with the
    current scheme you will need a 6-level memory organisation to get the full
    64-bit virtual address space, that a bit too much (current IA32 has usually
    3 levels, x86-64 uses 4), and this hurts very basic choices for the
    operating system.


    Antoine
    Antoine Leca, May 13, 2005
    #14
  15. James Park got up from the bar and shouted: :
    > Is stability still an issue for AMD? I remember people having a lot of
    > issues in the K6 days (K6-3 + ALi Aladdin V + Win 9x ='d major headaches, P3
    > + 440BX ='d relief and happiness for me]), and the chipset choices for the
    > Athlon pre-nForce weren't very appealing, but I haven't read about chipset
    > issues lately (though I haven't exactly been looking). My nForce2 and Via
    > K8T800 based mobos have been pretty stable.
    >



    It's a darn sight better than the old K6 days, when Via and SIS chipsets
    we really bad, and nForce had not been born. These days things have
    moved on, and most AM64 systems come close to she stability of an Intel
    chipset, but not quite.. I think it's always going to be a toss up
    between out and out performance and stability. You will never have
    both.. Some people will get lucky, and have fast stable systems, most
    will end up with fast, mostly stable systems.
    Mark Gillespie, May 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Kevin Panzke wrote:
    > I paid only $899 for my Dell 8400 Desktop (Regular Price is $1099) so
    > I don't think I threw away any money.
    >


    The fact that you bought a Dell, proves it. Dell is a company to avoided
    like the plague. You can build a better system than they can sell. Get a
    refund, ASAP.
    Wayne Wastier, May 13, 2005
    #16
  17. evaristo

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    "Wayne Wastier" <> wrote in message
    news:eAm1jP%...
    > Kevin Panzke wrote:
    >> I paid only $899 for my Dell 8400 Desktop (Regular Price is $1099) so
    >> I don't think I threw away any money.
    >>

    >
    > The fact that you bought a Dell, proves it. Dell is a company to avoided
    > like the plague. You can build a better system than they can sell. Get a
    > refund, ASAP.
    >

    Couldn't agree more, Wayne. Why anyone would spend the money on the
    overpriced "stuff" that Dell sells is beyond me.

    Bobby
    NoNoBadDog!, May 13, 2005
    #17
  18. evaristo

    ocbwilg Guest

    "Mark Gillespie" <> wrote in message
    news:eQMq$...
    > 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.


    If you're using an nVidia chipset, drivers and support have been awesome and
    included for x64 out of the box. As far as feature sets go, not even Intel
    can compete with what nVidia is offerring (on Intel or AMD systems).

    If you're using a VIA chipset then you may have to hunt a little further.
    There's nothing new there though, VIA chipsets have required extra drivers
    and work to find those drivers since the days of the Pentium 166, and it has
    nothing to do with AMD. If you bought a Pentium mainboard with a VIA
    chipset then you'd be in the same boat.

    I suspect that the reason that you find more people on PlanetAMD64 trying to
    track down drivers for AMD systems than Intel systems is quite simple: with
    Intel being late to the 64-bit game, AMD has a massive lead in the number of
    64-bit systems that have shipped. The people who are installing Windows XP
    x64 now are early adopters. As early adopters, they are also much more
    likely to have embraced 64-bit systems as early adopters as well. Since
    Intel was again late to the game, there's again more AMD users. Not to
    mention that for better or worse, AMD-based systems seem to be far more
    popular than Intel-based systems in the enthusiast market right now (another
    "early adopter" market for x64). After all, the web site is "PlanetAMD64"
    and not "PlanetIntel64". So are you suprised that the majority of their
    issues are AMD-related?

    I guess that based on the number of Republicans at the 2004 Democratic
    National Convention you could claim that there are very few Republicans in
    the United States, but we know that would be largely due to not having a
    representative sample of the population, and the same is true about what
    you've seen so far.
    ocbwilg, May 13, 2005
    #18
  19. evaristo

    ocbwilg Guest

    "James Park" <> wrote in message
    news:Om%...
    > Is stability still an issue for AMD? I remember people having a lot of
    > issues in the K6 days (K6-3 + ALi Aladdin V + Win 9x ='d major headaches,
    > P3 + 440BX ='d relief and happiness for me]), and the chipset choices for
    > the Athlon pre-nForce weren't very appealing, but I haven't read about
    > chipset issues lately (though I haven't exactly been looking). My nForce2
    > and Via K8T800 based mobos have been pretty stable.


    There never was a stability issue with AMD CPUs. The ALi chipsets had some
    stability issues, and Windows 95 and 98 were the epitome of stability issues
    (especially when compared to NT4, 2000, and XP). But I've had AMD CPUs from
    the K6, K6-2, K6-III, Athlon XP and Athlon 64 lines, and never had stability
    problems on any of the systems. The same goes for the couple of Cyrix CPUs
    that I had. But then I never bought $65 motherboards from no-name
    manufacturers with cheap chipsets either, I always stuck with brand names.
    ocbwilg, May 13, 2005
    #19
  20. Mark Gillespie <> wrote in:

    > 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.


    I'd have to disagree with that. Both the nVidia and VIA chipsets are
    lightyears ahead of Intel's IMHO. The last computer I had with an
    Intel chipset resulted in me purchasing a different motherboard with a
    VIA chipset that would take the Pentium chip. I think when I made the
    swap and fired up the PC w/o the Intel chipset may have been one of the
    happier days of my life.

    I don't believe I've ever hated, loathed and despised a chipset before
    or since....

    Just my personal opinion, as always, YMMV.



    --
    David R. Norton MVP
    <>
    David R. Norton MVP, May 13, 2005
    #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. kirk lives!

    Pentium CPU vs Intel Celeron CPU and the Wireless Mouse

    kirk lives!, May 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    738
    SgtMinor
    May 2, 2004
  2. dimon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    701
    dimon
    Nov 10, 2006
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    336
  5. Replies:
    10
    Views:
    542
    sheepdog 2007
    Sep 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page