Quake3World

calm down 911, feel the wub.

Psyche911 wrote:I'm not going to waste my time with you. I've read numerous reviews which I'm not going to spend time finding right now, that showed zero performance increase or a performance decrease in using XP 64-bit today.

Here's one that I hadn't read before, but illustrates my point:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY1LDE=

I know anandtech or techreport or tomshardware did another with the same findings.

So, shut the fuck up about "my bullshit."

64 bit is not about a speed increase, it's about precission and capacity. it is a required evolutionary step because the 32 bit architecture it reaching its limit.

Fine. But rep was making it sound like it would offer a performance increase today...and quite frankly it does not. That's what I was saying, and it doesn't sound like we disagree there.

Psyche911 wrote:rep:
The FX-55 is the only one made anymore. AMD just announced they have no futher plans for future single core Athlon 64s. So the FX-55 will always be the high end single core CPU from AMD.

I'd be surprised if you can ever buy a new one under $600, even if they do release the rumored FX-57.

And what's worse is that you actually expect a current speed increase from 64-bit? Right now as it stands, Windows XP 64-bit is the same speed or slower than the 32-bit version.

Christ, this is just a waste of time. You're an idiot and always will be. Forget I said anything, because I'm sure you won't mind it anyways.

"WAHHH WAHHH WAHHH, INTEL RULZ THIS IS ALL A BUNCH OF LIES!" - Dumb alias.

I've yet to see proper Windows XP 64 or Longhorn 64 tests that go all the way with driver support from the vendors and Microsoft, and neither have you, so go suck off Paul Otellini and Kyle Bennett more.

EDIT: JESUS CHRIST AM I SPOT ON. I didn't even read the rest of the thread yet, and the dumb kid actually did post a link to Kyle's Intel-sponsored bullshit edit: has been website, lmao.

I'm not the one saying there is an apparent benefit in anything you can run today, which it sounds like you are.

And you do know that Intel has the same 64-bit extensions AMD does, right?

I'm no Intel fan, I'd love to build an Athlon 64 system right now. I just get tired of people arguing flawed arguments.

Show me some benefits to going all 64-bit. Otherwise, it really doesn't belong here. Especially if both AMD and Intel have the same damn 64-bit extensions.

well the hardware is a lot more capable, and the software will speed up too. the problem is that programmers need to get used to writing code for the new architecture. they've had years and years to optimize 32 bit code, so give them some time.

besides windows xp is technically slower than windows 98, does that mean windows 98 is better? or would you even consider using it? to take advantage of the new technology there will be a lot more overhead, that doesn't mean that the processors are not a huge step forward.

the performance hit is marginal if any, and is far outweighed by the tech leap on the new processors.

and tbh your argument is a lot more flawed than rep's
his original point wasnt that 64 bit is much better than 32 bit, which it is regardless. his point was that that AMD thoroughly and completely smashes intel yet again, which it does, and has been doing for years. the fact that they have the same extensions is irrelevant to the argument. he never claimed that intel didn't adopt AMD's 64 bit architecture after their own 64 bit architecture failed miserably.

rep, maybe you should take the time to read the thread. You would have read where I said I wasn't going to spend any time looking up the other articles I read at other sites, just now I Googled and found that one, and it illustrated my point. So I posted it. I hadn't even read it before.

Who's the idiot now? You are. Everyone agrees.

I'm not opening this thread again.

This is like the fucking "Who's on first" routine. Just keeps going around and around without any clarification.

P.S. Rep is still an idiot.

Later.

actually he does kind of make the point that 64 bit is a desirable property when the dothan argument comes up. ok i admit it, i usually skip over rep posts too.

but i still have to aggree with him, i would take the 64 bith athlon over a dothan based chip even if the 32 bit was faster in current applications. the simple truth is that current applications are irrelevant when comparing the very high end in processors, because anything at the top will run current apps well above what is required. the next gen apps are a better indication of technical prowess.

look at it like this (completely fake numbers for illustration purposes):

which would you rather have, a processor that runs quake 3 at 2000 FPS and will run q4 at 40 FPS or a processor that runs q3 ar 1500 FPS and will run q4 at 60 FPS?

rep wrote:2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Remember kids, benchmark results are only as good as the quality of the benchmark. Time to run a piece of software is such a shitty metric.

Also, I fail to see how the AMD is MILES ahead of the Intel. (AMD fan btw)

Seems to me that people are easily swayed by statistics. If the new AMD chip is really a 4800+ rating. Then they should benchmark it with a 4.8 GHZ pentium chip.

Hey guys, a 4.8GHZ equivalent chip beat a 3.2GHZ equivalent chip!!!ASTONISHING!

Testoclesius wrote::lol: nerds :lol:

pot.kettle.black :icon19: :icon19: :icon19:

duffman91 wrote:

rep wrote:2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Remember kids, benchmark results are only as good as the quality of the benchmark. Time to run a piece of software is such a shitty metric.

Also, I fail to see how the AMD is MILES ahead of the Intel. (AMD fan btw)

Seems to me that people are easily swayed by statistics. If the new AMD chip is really a 4800+ rating. Then they should benchmark it with a 4.8 GHZ pentium chip.

Hey guys, a 4.8GHZ equivalent chip beat a 3.2GHZ equivalent chip!!!ASTONISHING!

its only possible for a virgin to write something like this :lol:

Testoclesius wrote:

duffman91 wrote:

rep wrote:2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Remember kids, benchmark results are only as good as the quality of the benchmark. Time to run a piece of software is such a shitty metric.

Also, I fail to see how the AMD is MILES ahead of the Intel. (AMD fan btw)

Seems to me that people are easily swayed by statistics. If the new AMD chip is really a 4800+ rating. Then they should benchmark it with a 4.8 GHZ pentium chip.

Hey guys, a 4.8GHZ equivalent chip beat a 3.2GHZ equivalent chip!!!ASTONISHING!

its only possible for a virgin to write something like this :lol:

lol, ok man. I find the discussion intriguing.

Its by PC World. I dont trust it

dnoyc wrote:his original point wasnt that 64 bit is much better than 32 bit, which it is regardless. his point was that that AMD thoroughly and completely smashes intel yet again, which it does, and has been doing for years. the fact that they have the same extensions is irrelevant to the argument. he never claimed that intel didn't adopt AMD's 64 bit architecture after their own 64 bit architecture failed miserably.

Thanks. If I was a nerd, I'd go into detail about how Intel and AMD traded Streaming SIMD Extensions and x86-64 tech, and how AMD arguably got the short end of the stick on that trade, but as always they've bettered their rival.

Face it Intel, you should stick to making ultra small CPUs for PDAs and laptops. :lol: That's right Intel, I'm talking to you.

duffman91 wrote:

rep wrote:2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Remember kids, benchmark results are only as good as the quality of the benchmark. Time to run a piece of software is such a shitty metric.

Also, I fail to see how the AMD is MILES ahead of the Intel. (AMD fan btw)

Seems to me that people are easily swayed by statistics. If the new AMD chip is really a 4800+ rating. Then they should benchmark it with a 4.8 GHZ pentium chip.

Hey guys, a 4.8GHZ equivalent chip beat a 3.2GHZ equivalent chip!!!ASTONISHING!

Don't be silly. 2.4GHz (2400) x2 = 4800. It's not literally the same as running a 4.8GHz chip, but performance ratings have never truly reflected their capabilities.

For example, a 1.79GHz AMD Athlon 2200+ actually should be called a 2800+ because it destroys 2.8GHz Intel CPUs (:lol:)

Don Carlos wrote:Its by PC World. I dont trust it

That point probably isn't all that valid because while magazines have been paid for years for good reviews, the top magazines wouldn't be on the top if they skewed the reviews too far towards the company. Some slashdot nerd would prove them wrong, if they were lying.

Don't trust websites more than you trust magazines. I know for a fact that the top 20 PC related websites are totally paid off.

rep wrote:

duffman91 wrote:

rep wrote:2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Remember kids, benchmark results are only as good as the quality of the benchmark. Time to run a piece of software is such a shitty metric.

Also, I fail to see how the AMD is MILES ahead of the Intel. (AMD fan btw)

Seems to me that people are easily swayed by statistics. If the new AMD chip is really a 4800+ rating. Then they should benchmark it with a 4.8 GHZ pentium chip.

Hey guys, a 4.8GHZ equivalent chip beat a 3.2GHZ equivalent chip!!!ASTONISHING!

Don't be silly. 2.4GHz (2400) x2 = 4800. It's not literally the same as running a 4.8GHz chip, but performance ratings have never truly reflected their capabilities.

For example, a 1.79GHz AMD Athlon 2200+ actually should be called a 2800+ because it destroys 2.8GHz Intel CPUs (:lol:)

Then it should be more than clear to you that the benchmark is biased.

rep wrote:Don't trust websites more than you trust magazines. I know for a fact that the top 20 PC related websites are totally paid off.

holy totally outrageous and unsupported claim, Batman!

Psyche911 wrote:And what's worse is that you actually expect a current speed increase from 64-bit? Right now as it stands, Windows XP 64-bit is the same speed or slower than the 32-bit version

this is my point exactly...

why pay top dollar for a chip which isn't the fastest at current tasks, and won't still be the fastest when everything does go 64bit multithreaded?

surely you should either go down the route for fastest current performance, the dothan, or wait till the prices come toppling down for fast future performance (when everything is set in stone and you see the average pc in your local high street store selling computers with windows 64bit and running multithreaded apps).

fact of the matter is, if you wanna use your PC today, the fastest chip at the moment is the dothan. If you want to future proof your machine, you'll be getting ripped off to buggery because we all know that MS and other software developers are going to take their time developing everything in 64bit multithreaded, and until they do, all your extra cool features you paid out of your nose for will just be sat there. When the software developers do release new reoptimised applications, all these chip prices will have dropped and be worthless anyway.

Testoclesius wrote::lol: nerds :lol:

lol, I was just going to post this

duffman91 wrote:Then it should be more than clear to you that the benchmark is biased.

YEAH, towards Intel because they put a 2.4GHz CPU against a 3.2GHz CPU.