I know a few of you are running these, how is it going, I am thinking of upgrading to a 64bit AMD system shortly,

 

What Os are you running, and is it stable,

for xp do you need to install a special version on XP or can you just install updates.

is it worth the hassle with there not really being any 64bit apps out?

what apps are out their specific for 64bit systems.

 

I will probably go for a socket AMD sempron 939 3700, 2gig of DDR 400hz ram and an Abit AN8 motherboard,

 

 

 

Cheers :)

Mike,

 

Just bought a AMD 64 Athlon 3200+ and tbh i'm disappointed in the performance. I was using a Xp 2400 on my last system and i just dont see much of a difference yet, although granted i dont have any 64 bit software yet, send me something and i'll let you know :D

Im thinking of getting a laptop with the AMD 64 Chip, does any body give any recommendations on what i should be looking for

 

Fas

Got a similar spec to that Mike, but I am not running any 64bit software and to be honest not noticed a steep increase in performance from my old amd 2800xp chip.

Been running a 754 pin 3200+ 64bit for over a year now with 32bt windows XP (dont go near the 64bit edition).

 

No problems at all, for the money I am very very happy. Combined with a good MOBO and SATA drive the thing flys. Gaming and video editing is where I see the best results, my old P4 2.8Ghz would chug along and not be happy at all (Yes with a SATA drive).

well the pcs i build come with a 64bit compatible board, but you still have to remember that there is no point having a 64bit processor running as the operating system is still only 32 bit, and most of the command structure is still also 16-24 bit.

 

if you put a 64 bit processor in there you would be wasting your money. as the processor will not be operating to full capacity. therefore you would be better to fit a larger rqated 754 processor in the board that will run at an optimim speed, you can then overclock the processor in the bios to gain a slight speed increase. careful you dont overdo the multiplier factors in the bios. the amd kv8 64bit boards i use are also 400mhz bus speed so they match the ddr400 memory exactly and therefore the speeds are very good

 

 

in my pcs i fit a 3200+xp amd then at a later date if need be they can fit a 64bit cpu if they want as the mother board is ready for one, also they are sata raid boards so you can fit a faster drive and make a raid array if need be.

 

so basically you can have your 2 regular ide drives on ide bus 0 and then on ide bus 1 you can have your two dvd drives. then on the sata you can then add another 2 stata drives and either use them seperatly or as a striped pair creating your array.

 

 

also if you really want a 64bit machine then put linux64 on there and it will operate at 64bit computation speeds.

well the pcs i build come with a 64bit compatible board, but you still have to remember that there is no point having a 64bit processor running as the operating system is still only 32 bit, and most of the command structure is still also 16-24 bit.

 

if you put a 64 bit processor in there you would be wasting your money.

 

 

Wouldn't agree wholly with that, the architecture of the 64bit processors is a lot different and you will see a difference in performance due to the way it executes commands. Especially if you go with the 949 pin setup.

 

Some nice benchmarks here that will show the beter performance of a 64bit over a normal AMD chip. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-05.html

 

Also the 64bit processors are only a few quid more than a non 64bit, and the gains are more than worth the extra £5.

 

All in MHO that is :tongue:

you have to remember that its not the processor thats the problem but the operating system..

 

the operating system isnt running at 64bit so basically you are not tasking the processor to optimum command sructure level.

 

also as i stated the command routines of the current xp is still a 16-24 bit opertating system. reason being not all boards are 64bit compatible and until microsoft decide to sort out a new operating system it wount be.

 

the overall processing power a 64bit processor would add to a non 64bit operating system is negligable at best.

 

a mac g5 runs at exactly 64bit cycles as the os is 64bit code on a totally 64bit machine.

 

however it also has backwards compatibility with non 64bit hardware then it has to compute dual cycles for both bit types.

 

true 64bit processing is not possible with the current version of windows xp.

as i stated putting a 64bit processor in and expecting a major hike in speed and output isnt worth the cost factor.

 

i would never fit anything that isnt able to operate to 100% of its cpacity, i would then be wasting a clients time. however it is the clients choice.

 

also you have to remember one benchmark program will give a different response to another ..fact. each program handles code cycles and floating point commands in different ways so as a base benchmarks cannot be trusted.

 

only way to be certain is to try before you buy, or just buy what you want.

 

if you want 64bit buy it but theres a lot of processing power going to waste.

 

if you really want to see what a 64 bit operating system runs like then install linux64 on a spare drive in a 64bit machine.. very very fast and smooth.

scuse typos hand keeps locking up

 

 

last time i went for my microsoft certifications exams, we were speaking about 64bit systems , the impact that they would have and the fact that msoft still havent released a true 64bit system.

 

we were told at the time that they were trying to hold out for a 128bit system with dual core technology. something that would keep apple at bay for some time, but now apple have switched to intel chipsets and ditched ibm for the powerpc chipsets msoft are re-evaluatiing things, apple are known to be looking at the "golden 128bit chipset" in the next few years if not sooner.

 

also the release of the dual core cpus will increase processor speed immensely. however the days of a big ass cooler are far from over.

True 64bit processing is not the argument.

 

Yes it will not be utilising its full potential that it would in a 64bit OS.

 

But due to the architecture of a 64bit processor whether running in a 64bit OS or not it will run faster and more efficiently than a non 64bit processor, fact. :rolleyes:

scuse typos hand keeps locking up

 

Thats ok I have to spell check everything I write, I'm thick as pig shit when it comes to spelling. :(

that maybe but whats the point in having a lamborghini and only driving it a 20mph all the time?

 

see the analagy?

can i have some food now???

oooo look we're whoring!!!!!!!!!!!

that maybe but whats the point in having a lamborghini and only driving it a 20mph all the time?

 

see the analagy?

 

Cos it looks good! And people can see it for longer!!!! :tongue:

 

The point im trying to make it that you WILL have a faster processor/system by using an AMD64 for a very small amount of extra money. Also if/when 64bit OS is out and worth using you won’t need to upgrade your chip because you’re already there.

 

IMHO the advantages of running a 64bit chip in a 32 bit environment grossly outweigh the reasons not to.

i was promised food.. i sure i was!! ;(

i was promised food.. i sure i was!! ;(

 

 

Um Pete was selling a full english breakfast a little while ago, you could see if he still has it for sale?

Well I just bought an AMD 64 3500+ nforce4 Gigabyte mobo, 1GB Geil-X ram, 10000rpm sata drives in a raid set and a ATI 850XT pci-e PE. I have Standard XP Pro, XP 64bit & Longhorn multiboot and I have to say it kicks arse.

 

Had a P4 Extreme Edition previously and it urinates all over it.. and running the 64bit XP, it is sh!t hot, apart from there aren't many 64bit apps.. yet.. EXCEPT far cry which is fookin amazin on my system. I get 120fps solid @ 1600x1200x32bpp & full detail :D

 

Running World of Warcraft in 1600x1200x32 & full detail on the 32bit OS, I get no lag whatsoever in Ironforge outside the bank at 9pm... WoW'ers will know what I'm on about :D

 

As for Linux 64...... here's an analogy... I want a table and I want to eat my food off it.... Get the linux table and you can only eat food from Lidl - sure it's cheaper & almost free... Get MS Table and you can eat whatever you want, sure the odd bum curry will make you ill for two days and you might have to download new table mats every other week... but isn't it nice to have the choice? The Microsoft table wins for me hands down every time.

 

:)

what makes me laugh is the fact that that crappy longhorn isnt a full 64bit os though, they advertise it as being one and tell you its one, however it isnt fully 64bit there is a disclaimer that msoft dont tell you about that states that the os is still a 16-24-32 bit fpu os with support for 64bit core commands this feature can be turned on and off at will by the operating system.

 

 

and .. one other thing ..

 

if your gonna talk about tables and food .. then i hope your paying for me to eat..

 

womans not here and im hungry!!

best ever quotes..

 

1. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you'd have to buy a new car.

 

2.Occasionally your car would just die on the motorway for no reason, You would accept this, restart and drive on.

 

3. Occasionally,executing a maneuver would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this too.

 

4. You could only have one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a "Car 95" or a "Car NT". But then you'd have to buy more seats.

 

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was twice as reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive - but it would only run on five percent of the roads.

 

6. The Macintosh car owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to their cars which would make their cars go much slower.

 

7. The oil, engine, gas and alternator warning lights would be replaced with a single "General Car Fault" warning light.

 

8. People would get excited about the "new" features in Microsoft cars, forgetting completely that they had been available in other cars for many years.

 

9. We'd all have to switch to Microsoft gas and all auto fluids but the packaging would be superb.

 

10. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.

 

11. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.

 

12.If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what happened.

 

13. They wouldn't build their own engines, but form a cartel with their engine suppliers. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side-valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it.

 

14. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads.

 

15. Microsoft cars would have a special radio/cassette player which would only be able to listen to Microsoft FM, and play Microsoft Cassettes. Unless of course, you buy the upgrade to use existing stuff.

 

16. Microsoft would do so well, because even though they don't own any roads, all of the road manufacturers would give away Microsoft cars free, including IBM!

 

17. If you still ran old versions of car (ie. CarDOS 6.22/CarWIN 3.11), then you would be called old fashioned, but you would be able to drive much faster, and on more roads!

 

18. If you couldn't afford to buy a new car, then you could just borrow your friends, and then copy it.

 

19. Whenever you bought a car, you would have to reorganize the ignition for a few days before it worked.

 

20.You would need to buy an upgrade to run cars on a motorway next to each other.

heh, eat yer linux CD ;)

 

Longhorn's still Beta & it's something I suffer every day... you can't just 'Jump' straight into 64bit computing there are so many legacy apps out there that need to migrate slowwwwwwly.... when u next go into Barclays or Natwest, be amazed at the NT4 still on a majority of their desktops :eek: and backwards compatibility will always be an issue... thats why true 64bit computing for the masses is still a while away

 

not that compatibility matters in the Linux world, none of it is compatible with any other version ;) hehe - hmmm u want to run this version of a text editor... ooooo no this was compiled in OpenBSD, it has to re-compiled for Red Hat 9.... what! you dont have Red Hat 9 you have Suse! (sucking through teeth noises)

 

:rofl:

Wouldn't agree wholly with that, the architecture of the 64bit processors is a lot different and you will see a difference in performance due to the way it executes commands. Especially if you go with the 949 pin setup.

 

Some nice benchmarks here that will show the beter performance of a 64bit over a normal AMD chip. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-05.html

 

Also the 64bit processors are only a few quid more than a non 64bit, and the gains are more than worth the extra £5.

 

All in MHO that is :tongue:

 

cheers nick, that link is exactly what i need

 

thanks to the other guys on topic replies also.

 

I am a linux sysadmin of 8 years but still would use XP over it on the desktop.

oh yea i agree linux isnt the be and end all operating system but, it does certain things better than xp, xp does certain thins better than linux, and osx is better at them all..

 

i have just finished building a 240 xserve mainframe unit for a company in a cold room, very nice very fast using the x server sytems and unix intergration systems command shell structure.

 

took a while to set up the frame work but now its in its absolutly a joy to see working. all i did was set up the master array unit and then just slotted in the nodes and hey presto auto coneection scripts had been written in so they picked the new nodes up automatically. but the x serve units are designed for what they do.

 

expensive yes but very reliable units. i put more of those in these days than any other server.

fkn typos.. grrrrr

 

womans home.. food time!!

likewise I hate using windows in a server enviroment, it can be done successfully but I don't like it.

I went from a Barton 2800+ to an AMD64 3200 and I am very happy. In theory the 2800 is faster clock speed wise but the AMD64 gives a nice performance boost.

Plus the Barton would hang around 60-70ºC when working hard and I had some very good fans on it.

 

Now the AMD64 I have has never reached 50ºC even with hours of hard gaming.

 

I have got Win-x64 and it runs pretty much the same as WinXP. Internet explorer is quite a bit different.

 

I have had the ability to use an actual 64bit program in Winx64. My dad uses Adobe Photoshop CS which is 64 bit ready. It is about 60-70% faster running in WINx64 than normal windows xp.

 

Windows XP works fine win the 64 chip and you dont need any software updates.

 

What you also may find in that Toms Hardware article a part about power consumption, that an AMD64 with the same performance as a Intel P4 with all the gubbins, uses about 16% less power.

 

Plus lets not forget that the Intel 64 bit chips use mostly AMD 64 bit archtecture. I think AMD would have kept the best parts for themselves.