new 6xx P4 cpu

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

  1. evaristo

    Chris Guest

    Well, duhh. This is my first AMD processor and even I knew better than to
    purchase a motherboard with a VIA chipset on it after all the previous
    horror stories. My nForce3 chipsed motherboard is just as stable as my
    previous Intel chipsets.

    By the way, before everyone starts to flame me, I'm sure some people are
    happy with their VIA chipset motherboards. It's just not a risk I was
    willing to take after moving from an Intel chipset.
    Chris, May 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Me. I went from an nVidia chipset to a VIA because I've had MUCH
    better luck with VIA and no problems of any kind, I can't say the same
    for nVidia unfortunately.
    David R. Norton MVP, May 13, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. evaristo

    Chris Guest

    That's very weird. My nForce3 chipset is very stable and have had stable 64
    bit drivers since day one. I've read so many threads about people
    complaining about the lack of 64 bit drivers for VIA chipsets and just that
    makes me happy I didn't go that route. Perhaps those people are the
    exception to the rule?
    Chris, May 13, 2005
  4. I've no idea, every driver I needed for the chipset stuff was on
    PlanetAMD when I installed the very first CPP version, RC1 and later
    builds include all the drivers I need. BTW, the only drivers I really
    needed were for the onboard sound and the onboard NIC*.

    I can't imagine why anyone would have problems?

    David R. Norton MVP

    *I still drivers from Logitech, Canon, etc. but that's not X64s fault.
    David R. Norton MVP, May 14, 2005
  5. evaristo

    Kevin Panzke Guest

    I'm very satisfied with my Dell 8400 Desktop, thank you very much.

    P.S. It runs a whole lot better then my 4 year old Gateway 1700XL.
    Kevin Panzke, May 14, 2005
  6. Well, duh. LOL
    Wayne Wastier, May 14, 2005
  7. ya think?


    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 14, 2005
  8. evaristo

    Guest Guest

    AMD has 64bit architecture that runs native 64 bit applications and runs 32
    bit applications using half the byte size, in contrast the pentium runs
    native 32 bit applications and runs 64bit applications using two bytes.
    Guest, May 21, 2005
  9. evaristo

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    In addition, AMD64 supports HyperTransport (up to 2GHz). Intel EM64T procs
    are still tied to a lousy Northbridge FSB at 800MHz (why they did this is a
    complete mystery). EM64T will "run" the new version of Windows XP
    Professional x64 edition, but they will be much slower and much hotter than
    the equivalent AMD. FWIW, Microsoft uses AMD64 processors in developing
    Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. They do not use Intel chips.

    NoNoBadDog!, May 21, 2005
  10. evaristo

    Guest Guest

    I refer you to the Nforce 4 chipset, currently whipping the best intel crap
    out there. And yes, I am a fan of AMD chipsets. Main reason. They don't need
    to rely on some over stuffed name to sell their products. Intel stands for
    nike. Crap products with a big name, and an even bigger price tag. In the
    software corner, Intel would be microsoft, and AMD would be Linux.
    As for stability, I have been running AMD chipsets on linux from since the
    K6 was out. I have never had a chip fry, burn, over heat, die etc... Even
    when overclocked, they preform fast, and with incredible stability. Now as
    for stability with windows, that's another issue. (See the windows
    instability thread)
    As for preformance. If you look at a lot of the tests out there, they
    compare 3000+ dollar intel systems to 1500 dollar AMD systems, and yet, still
    the AMD systems outpreform in everything, but the business, benchmarks. Main
    reason is this. To keep their preformance up, and their incredible ammounts
    of bottlenecks down, they lump on L2 cache. My old duron, with 64K L2 cache,
    overclocked to 1ghz. running on a 220 mhz system bus, and 256 megs of ram,
    out-preformed my gf's pentium 4, 1.2, 200 mhz, 256MB comp. (Both running the
    same graphics card for comparison, Nvidia Geforce 2, 32meg.) {the test was
    about 2 years ago.} she paid double what I did, and, aside from Windows Me's
    instabilities, my computer was just as stable as hers, and she was running
    windows 2K.(Supposedly the most stable system from microsoft)

    Now as for fools trying to find drivers. I got a new system, I plugged it
    all in, overclocked it a bit, then nuked my drive, and installed X64. All the
    drivers were installed, and set up in the installation of windows. I don't
    know what you're reading (Possibly the newbie boards) but so far I haven't
    found a single part of my system that required me to hunt for drivers. (Maybe
    for the newest drivers)
    Guest, May 28, 2005
  11. evaristo

    Guest Guest

    Spoken like somebody with some misperceptions of core architecture design.
    Besides, for some its not even about superiority of design, but about a moral
    choice. Intel has a horrible reputation for dirty games in the market and I
    use AMD because in 25+ years they have been nothing but honerable. (Search
    Tom's Hardware Guide for examples of some of the community campaigns that
    were run to help try to force Intel to play fair).

    My 2C
    Guest, May 31, 2005
  12. evaristo

    Guest Guest

    hiyaz ..Ima computer tech for local business here in Va .. and I been reading
    this about the differances between CPU's.. What everyone doesn't understand
    is the quality of the CPU AMD runs alot hotter then the Intel P4's and
    Celerons. Which because of this puts your motherboard at risk for over
    heating or burning out the compasitors.the intel CPU's although runs a lil
    slower but is more stable and runs at a normal temp. Also would like too add
    that Intel does infact have more FSB then what you all have posted on here..
    they have 1066 FSB plus comes wid 2 megs of cashe ( more cashe on processor
    the faster the speed is). as far as gaming is concerned I'd rather run Intel
    especially if Im over-clocking :p~
    Guest, Jun 1, 2005
  13. evaristo

    Guest Guest

    I will purchase a computer soon and after reading all your conversations,
    what will be the best choice for me?

    I'm looking for a powerfull CAD and gaming computer. I went on Intel web
    site and i found Xeon processor? what is this? is it like a Pentium IV
    processor? is it better a Xeon or a AMD processor?


    Guest, Jun 2, 2005
  14. evaristo

    NNBXX Guest

    I'm very happy with my dual Intel Xeons 3.2 GHz EM64T (Nocona). Great with
    Win XP Pro x64. Yes, they are like "supercharged" Pentiums 4 Prescott, but
    one can't say it's better or worst than AMD's processors (AMD64). It depends
    on which tasks you perform with them. For example, my Xeons are very good
    and very fast at rendering 3D scenes in CAD programs, better than AMD's
    according to some reviews found on the Web. They are not bad at 3D gaming


    NNBXX, Jun 2, 2005
  15. Hi Chuck

    If you have enough money, I'll go the new ADM 64 X2, dualcore....
    Basically two processors in one. A bit expensive so far but prices will drop
    in the near future I hope.

    Christian Hougardy, Jun 2, 2005
  16. Christian Hougardy wrote:

    You know they will. Just last year, theAMD 64 3700+ processor was over

    Wayne Wastier, Jun 2, 2005
  17. evaristo

    Rune Moberg Guest

    No, it's the other way around: Pentium 4 uses more power and runs hotter
    compared to Athlon64/Opteron.
    Put a dual core Pentium 4 on that motherboard (hehe), and watch FSB speed
    suffer. Read up on NUMA and AMD's crossbar memory controller design.
    Money out of the window. Pentium M is a more competitive CPU, but as far as
    Pentium 4 goes: Dump it in the bin.
    Rune Moberg, Jun 3, 2005
  18. evaristo

    Guest Guest

    Absolutely, i have 939pin 3200+ amdathlon64 and it is by far the best I have
    ever had and it runs nice. I think the onboard memory controller and the
    hypertransport do make a huge difference, if i am interpreting what i have
    read right, Intel chips have to share the 3 resources through the fsb right?
    and the bandwidth is 2 way while AMD's is 4 way, my cpu has 30gbps bandwidth.
    I bought my cpu and abit board last December and I am still impressed with
    it today, it does everything and no stalling either. I install xp pro in 7
    minutes or less. the price has gone down too, and i am looking to see how
    much they go down when the x2 gets released on the 15th of June. However,
    that leads to a question, Apple I guess off of eweek n ews is going to have
    Intel make some of their chips, does that mean Intel will soon have
    hypertansport? Or only for hte Apples? Because (i dont know if it is
    realistic) if Intel decided to use a memory controller on die and replace the
    fsb with hy pertransport woldnt that bring Intel to such a huge performance
    and efficiency increase? It is so true, clockspeed does not necesarily imply
    better performance, I have seen 3ghz pentiums and my cpu has outperformed
    them. My cpu runs at 2ghz. It just makes sense to get the most performance
    o ut of every ghz, if you can get the job done as fast in 2ghz t han 3ghz why
    not? Doesnt it make sense to do that?
    Guest, Jun 6, 2005
  19. evaristo

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Okay, there is more to the picture. Current crop of EM64T are hobbled to an
    800 MHz FSB.
    AMD has not FSB per se, but uses Hypertransport, nominally 2GHz, for
    communications between the CPU and RAM. AGP, PCI, PCI-E and/or SLI slots.
    Hypertransport is a high-speed, duplex, packet based communications
    protocol. Intel does not have anything similar on their CPU/boards.
    In addition, Intel in their infinite (lack of) wisdom, continues to cripple
    the system with Hyperthreading, which has never worked as planned and is not
    supported except by a very few pieces of software. Yet they continue to
    make it sound like the best thing since sliced bread.
    Current crop of EM64T chips are from the Prescott family, with all of the
    heat problems and slower core speed associated with the Prescotts. They do
    not support Cool n' Quiet, one of the best features about using an AMD64
    processor. Intel procs do not support SSE3.
    One other thing to time you are in a retail computer
    store, look at the 6xx and 8xx processor based systems...nowhere do they
    mention their "64 bitness". The reason for this is that they are the
    slowest 64 bit chips on the market...for the reasons cited above and also
    because Intel uses only 36 bit addressing for memory allocation, whereas AMD
    uses the (standard) 40 bits. That means that Intel cannot handle or
    generate integers as large as AMD, and must therefore break complex
    functions down into more steps to process them. Add to this the inherent
    failure of long-branch prediction that accompanies an HT configuration, the
    memory contention errors generated because the proc has no on onboard memory
    controller...well you get the picture.

    I have no doubt that Intel will eventually get it's act together and produce
    a "worthy" 64 bit chip. I agree with others that have stated that my AMD
    computers run rings around my high end P4 machines. For years I was a
    devotee of Intel, but when they ceased to be innovative, and began to go for
    "features" over performance (Hyperthreading, Centrino, etc), I lost interest
    in them.

    I would not buy *ANY* of the current crop of EM64T Intel processors. They
    are not worthy of being compared to an Opteron, and FX, or and Athlon64.

    There are those out there who will argue this issue to their grave...sadly
    many truly believe that Intel is currently making the "best" processors.
    Happily, there are many, like myself, that have taken the time, the effort,
    and have invested the money to determine which is better. AMD, at the
    current time, is far superior to Intel. Dual Core will only widen the
    gap...and the Turion will make the Centrino old news. I am now happily
    dedicated to AMD. I hope they achieve their goal of having 50% market share
    by 2015. As long as they continue to innovate, and Intel continues to
    stumble, they may well get there.

    Intel Fanboys need not reply...

    NoNoBadDog!, Jun 6, 2005
  20. NoNoBadDog! wrote:

    Bobby, I couldn't agree with you more. I too used to be a dyed in the wool
    Intel fanboy. But when my Pentium 3 @ 1.0ghz was much faster than my
    Pentium 4 @ 1.7ghz, I knew something was amiss. I then purhased my first
    AMD cpu, the AMD XP 1700+ Not only was it faster than my 1.0ghz P3, it was
    of course faster then the P4. My second cpu was no slouch either, the AMD
    XP 2600+. Now I am running the AMD XP64 3200+ with 1Gb of PC3200 DDRAM.
    Just say NO to Intel, or as I call them now, Inhell. (because of how hot
    they run. :) )

    Wayne Wastier, Jun 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.