64-bit CPU question

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:12 am

I'm about to upgrade. I was looking at MSI's K8N Neo4 Platinum with SLI:
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_sp ... I&class=mb

It supports the 939 64-bit CPU, and I was planning on getting an Athlon 64 3500.

My question is a little retarded, I'm sure - I've heard it asked a hundred times with different variations... I will obviously need the 64-bit edition of XP to utilize the processor, right? It looks like it will cost me around 140 bucks.

So will XP Pro 64's HAL make it so that the applications (or games) I run on it don't need to be aware of the 64-bit CPU to utilize it?

In other words, if I'm running Windows 64, and I run Quake 3, will Quake 3 run any better than it would on a 32-bit CPU with the same specs, theoretically?

Post by **Psyche911** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:31 am

You can run Windows XP 32-bit or 64-bit. If you want to run any 64-bit programs, you should get the 64-bit Windows...but I honestly can't name a single one.

It's more futureproof, but for today it wont make a damn bit of difference.

I'd buy the 64-bit version for a year or two from now when it matters.

Quake 3 will run the same on either.

Post by **Tsakali_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:34 am

honestly I'd buy the 64-bit hardware and don't bother with the OS as of yet...actually I wouldn't bother with the 64-bit hardware either but if you're one of those that upgrade once every 2 years I guess 64 bit is a well worth investment

but having said that , if you can still deal with your current specs I wouldn't bother to spend money until it really makes sense and will obviously be cheaper

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:43 am

My CPU runs at 2.2 gHz, which isn't bad, but it's going to be a bottleneck when I put a video card in it.

I have some extra income from a little consulting I've been doing lately, and I want to upgrade the CPU and m/b while I'm upgrading - plus I've already got other plans for my current mobo/cpu/gpu.

If I'm upgrading the CPU, 64-bit seems to be the path to take right now. I mean, dual-cores are nice, but it seems like they're only good for really heavy multitasking, and not things like games really.

Is that pretty accurate? I don't scan hardware reviews like I used to, so I only get to brush up when I'm shopping for new gear - any good advice is welcome.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:46 am

maybe i'm missing something, but by the time there is a decent amount of 64 bit software, won't it be time for a mobo/cpu upgrade anyway?

i'm just guessing - i have no idea about any of this.

what kind of software would u use anyway?

like... i use email, browser, open office, winamp, and i play flash games. What would u need 64 bit hardware for?

have u ever thought about it?

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:48 am

i would maybe think about the dual core x2. it's almost a sure bet nvidia and ati will be harnessing the second core for vertex processing in the very near future.

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:50 am

yeah they just kinda throw in the 64-bit as marketing. 64bit windows is slightly faster but the truth is they(amd64's) rock hard in 32bit so it's just an added bonus.

however vista will probably be out before you upgrade again so you'll be ready for that.

edit: all the higher range amd chips are 64bit so you don't really have much choice.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:55 am

[xeno]Julios wrote:maybe i'm missing something, but by the time there is a decent amount of 64 bit software, won't it be time for a mobo/cpu upgrade anyway?

i'm just guessing - i have no idea about any of this.

what kind of software would u use anyway?

like... i use email, browser, open office, winamp, and i play flash games. What would u need 64 bit hardware for?

have u ever thought about it?

Well, I was going to put my current processor and motherboard in my SQL server, because it's running on an ancient system right now.

So I'd like to go ahead and upgrade mine (as opposed to buying the same one twice), and beyond my current Athlon XP 3200, I can't see anywhere to go besides a 64, or a dual core.

Since I'm upgrading, I'd also like it to be compatible with the stuff that's coming down the road.

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:58 am

x2 then.

go for it.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:10 am

Man, the cheapest I've seen is about $350. Is the performance increase and future expansion value that much above the normal 64's?

I'd like to get out of this at about $900 total, and I was hoping to get a new HDD with that too. I'll spend more if I really think it's going to be worth it in the long run, but this is also including the motherboard, memory and video card.

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:14 am

well you could always go look around a little and see what you can learn.

sucks but at least you can make the right decision for yourself. from what i have read on the dual cores is you can expect future video drivers to offload vertex calculations to dual core cpu's.

free fps sounds good to me. if i was gonna buy now, i would spend an extra 100bux and get dual core.

i always seem to be more happy when i spend that little more for the next step up.

Post by **[FTF]Pyro** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:52 am

Personally I wouldnt buy either as your probably coming close to the end of a development cycle. Longhorn/Vista /whatever is coming out soon, New Graphics cards are coming out soon, New CPU is coming out soon

Getting a 64bit processor and a copy of windows 64 / whatever is not going to be worth a shit when every single program that you use (working under the assumption you dont use stuff like CAD, Cool Edit Pro, Wave Editing Software or any Professional tools) is home based than I really wouldnt see the point as the processor will "switch" to 32bit anyways.

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:54 am

do you really have a clue what the fuck you are babbling about?

Post by **[FTF]Pyro** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:55 am

Oh and AMDx2 or PIVx2 isnt worht a shit as well unless you have a program that will utilise a two core structure (see professional programs) cause all you will end up doing is having one processor doing the work and the other core sitting doing nothing

Theres an article about this kind of stuff in Complete Power Users magazine this month.... I got mine from walmart and they basically say what I just said but if you want me to type word for word what they say you can go take a long walk off a short peir.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:58 am

Stop being a fucking idiot. I asked for experienced technical advice, not quotes from "Complete Power Users Magazine."

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:58 am

there is nothing above a 3200 barton that is not 64 bit.

they are all 64 bit cpu's. a +3200a64 totally destroys a +3200barton in games. in 32 bit.

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:01 am

you would be really happy with just a plain a64 though rook. you don't really need the x2 but it would suck 6 months from now knowing you could have had some big fps gain if video drivers came out that start offloading to cpu.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:05 am

What's the difference between the 7800gt and the gtx, for 50 bucks?

I'm still looking for the right balance between the CPU and GPU, and that's where my money trade-off is.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:06 am

shadd_ wrote:you would be really happy with just a plain a64 though rook. you don't really need the x2 but it would suck 6 months from now knowing you could have had some big fps gain if video drivers came out that start offloading to cpu.

Yea, that's exactly the kind of thing I want to plan for while I'm spending money, so thanks for the help.

Post by **[FTF]Pyro** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:08 am

shadd_ wrote:do you really have a clue what the fuck you are babbling about?

CPU Magazine wrote: Having Dual cores offers a theoretical 2x increase in performance at like clock speeds because twice the number of threads can be processed per clock cycle without contention for resources within each core. Its fundamentally similar to having SMP (Symmetric Multiprocessing) system, with a matched pair of processors installed. But to take advantage of the resources offered by the second core, the operating system and the applications running MUST be specifically programmed for Multithreading. There has been a lot of demand in specialized areas and users of animation and image-processing applications, but for the general public the use of dual cores is rather redundant as people tend not to use multithreaded applications. Now however Intel has a an install base of Hyper Threading enabled processors and both AMD and intel are due to release multicore CPU's. This gives Developers a much larger incentive to produce applications that will benefit from running these mopre powerful processors. Even Games developers are working on engines that can benefit from dual core processors

Yeah I think I know what I am talking about. thanks for asking though.

My point is this.... Until Dual core processors and applications written to take advantage of AMDx2 or Pentium D are available........ what is the point is spending BIIIIIIIG money on a new setup and not being able to run anything. The same happened when MMX came along. People went out and spent a fortune on MMX processor's only for nothing to really take advantage for a year or so by which time the price of them had dropped exponentially.

Way to tell the guy to waste his money ..... That is unless he is using applications such as the ones I ahev previously mentioned. in which case Cool go for it.

Post by **[FTF]Pyro** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:11 am

R00k wrote:Stop being a fucking idiot. I asked for experienced technical advice, not quotes from "Complete Power Users Magazine."

--- experienced, you cock muncher.

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:12 am

R00k wrote:What's the difference between the 7800gt and the gtx, for 50 bucks?

I'm still looking for the right balance between the CPU and GPU, and that's where my money trade-off is.

i hate to be an ati fanboy but their new low and mid range sm3.0 cards should be in stores anytime after tomorrow. first looks show to be clearly superior to the gt. gtx cards.

more features, AA and HDR at the same time. that alone is worth it.

i think the msrp on the second fastest model is $499 with 512 mem.

Post by **shadd_** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:17 am

that article must be fucking old as fuck. it states amd and intel are about to release dual core cpu's. well guess what the x2 has been out for 6 months already so wtf?

anyways whatever it's not just about applications using dual core, it's also about other pieces of hardware iin your computer(ie. gpu) that can offload to the second core for vertex calcs for example.

nvidia is rumoured to have some coming out very soon.

Post by **R00k** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:17 am

Well, I was looking in the neighborhood of $350 for a video card. I can't really justify 500. MAYBE 400, if it's a big performance increase.

edit: And I'm partial to nvidia. I'm running an ATI right now, and I've been kinda disappointed with their drivers and support, after running nvidia's for several years.

Post by **Psyche911** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:20 am

Last I heard only the top model had 512MB RAM. And that's like a $600 card. The "cheapest" X1800 is $450MSRP. Maybe down to low $300s with the 7800GT when the price wars start.

I haven't seen anything showing ATi with a real lead. I saw your link to that pcperspective site or whatever it was, but you do realize that was just ATi marketing material, right?

The reviews should be out tomorrow, so we can all come back to that subject in 24 hours.

Rook:
7800 GT = 20 pixel pipelines, 6 vertex units.
7800 GTX = 24 pixel pipelines, 8 vertex units. The GTX is clocked 30MHz higher on the core and 100MHz higher on the RAM. It's faster, but it's so not worth another $100-150.

Again though, this will all be put in a little more perspective in a few hours, so check out either: http://anandtech.com/ or http://techreport.com/ sometime tomorrow for the full story on this new generation of GPUs.

P.S. Dual core Athlons are too expensive to justify them for now. I'd go with a 3500+ single core for $220. You can easily overclock them to 2.6GHz. That will be faster in any game out today and for the next few months. Sometime next year you can upgrade to an X2 with better performance and cost and probably keep the same motherboard. AMD is changing sockets, but I'd have to believe they'll still support S939 as a desktop platform for awhile (they are transitioning the Opteron processors, their server and workstation line to that socket, but I think the prices of those CPUs are too high). If nothing else, you can get today's dual core CPUs for 1/2 price then.