http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx53_16.html (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx53_16.html)
Whats the deal with the 64 bit edition of XP?. Is that article saying some things arent compatible because of drivers not being 64 bit? Can someone explain what the problems of a 64 bit processor can cause.
If that is the case (many things not compatible) whats the point of getting a 1000 dollar processor if barely anything works on it right now?
The hardware is ahead of the software. There are some pieces of hardware that don't have 64 bit drivers yet. This isn't really an issue, because the 64 bit version of windows XP isn't here yet (it is in beta).
This particular processor is the fastest processor at 32 bit applications, which is the big deal. Plus, it can run tomorrow's 64 bit stuff.
Personally, I would get the AMD 3400+ 64 bit processor, because it is almost as fast as the FX1 and FX3 processors, but at half the price.
Mark H
64 bit windows edition isnt out in stores or anything yet? could i get a copy somehow?
Can the hardware things that dont have 64 bit drivers still run but at a 32 bit pace? or? not at all
umm, yea... whats the 64 3400 difference to 64 FX 53 or whatever? whats the FX mean?
3? or 53? or w/e it is?
Yes, the article is saying that some things are not compatible because there is not a complete set of 64-bit drivers available for every conceivable piece of hardware. Since 64-bit drivers are required, it means you must choose hardware carefully.
It was the same deal when the jump was made to Windows 95, if you recall. It is going to take some time for the list of 64-bit drivers to grow, but it is gradually getting there. This site has a database of 64-bit drivers and apps:
http://www.planetamd64.com/
The reason many people are buying the Athlon 64 in spite of a lack of 64-bit drivers is that it also features superb 32-bit performance. It will run 32-bit applications on 32-bit operating systems such as WinXP, or on 64-bit operating systems. Therefore the advantage is the ability to run current 32-bit applications with high performance AND the ability to run in 64-bit mode as drivers and applications become available.
WinXP 64 is supposed to be ready by the end of the year, and should contain a large set of drivers. Microsoft is usually quite thorough in that regard. By the way, the article seems to ignore the various 64-bit BSD and Linux distributions available.
The 32 bit drivers for hardware work fine with a 32 bit operating system such as Windows XP.
The AMD 64 uses single channel memory while the FX series uses dual channel ram. I think this was answered in your other thread.
As to where to get Windows XP 64 bit beta? See the below thread:
http://www.poasters.com/forum/index.php?board=21;action=display;threadid=8568
Mark H
Sorry you guys were answering at the same time I was.
You can download a trial version of WinXP 64 here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp
It works for only 360 days, then deactivates.
Briefly, the A64 3400+ has a single memory channel 512 KB L2 cache; the FX51 and FX53 have dual memory channels and 1024 KB L2 cache.
How does Mark H type so fast?
So you can still run the 32 bit drivers on a 64 bit processor as long as you use 32 bit windows?
yes, 64-bit drivers would not work on a 32-bit OS.
The big advantage of the AMD64 platform is that it can run either a 32 bit OS (with 32 bit drivers) or a 64 bit OS (with 64 bit drivers) AND it can run 32 bit apps on either 32 bit OS or 64 bit OS.
Being an AMD guy, i am glad to see its only for AMD so far :D
what is the 64 bit version intel has?
Quote from: Neon on April 13, 2004, 15:52 hrs
....Briefly, the A64 3400+ has a single memory channel 512 KB L2 cache;....
Actually the A64 3200+ and 3400+ processors have 1024 KB of L2 cache.
The A64 2800+ and 3000+ have 512 KB of L2 cache.
Mark H
Quote from: Mark H on April 13, 2004, 15:57 hrs
Quote from: Neon on April 13, 2004, 15:52 hrs
....Briefly, the A64 3400+ has a single memory channel 512 KB L2 cache;....
Actually the A64 3200+ and 3400+ processors have 1024 KB of L2 cache.
The A64 2800+ and 3000+ have 512 KB of L2 cache.
Mark H
Yes that's correct. Sorry.
Intel's 64-bit is called Itanium. It requires completely different hardware, though.
I try to keep up with hardware so i can help others, but how do you, being Neon and Mark H, happen to know so much about it already? Do yous have a 64 bit processor or just read alot ab out them?
Thanks for the input sof ar though
So, being that Itanium requires totally different hardware...which Processor maker will come out on top in this processor battle?
I think I can speak for both Mark H and myself - we both read about it alot, and we both have Athlon 64 processors. Look at our signatures.
Who will win? Consumers (pro-sumers?) of processors will win. For this year at least, AMD will win. Intel's Itanium is intended for servers, not desktops, but they will put out a 64-bit desktop product as soon as they can.
Neon, i see in that you have the Asus SK8N, which is the better one though, Asus SK8N or Asus SK8V. i also see you have a ATI Radeon, i thought that ATI didnt have 64 bit drivers out there but i see you have 64 bit beta? how are you doing that? or is that what you want to get
SK8N was the first board available, and it is good but not what I would recommend today. SK8V uses the Via K8T800 chipset, which is supposed to be a little better than nForce3 150 chipset. However, the nForce3 250 boards are just hitting the market, and early benchmarks have been quite positive.
The WinXP 64 beta comes bundled with a basic video driver that works with ATI cards. It allows the card to work, but 3D performance is lousy. ATI is working on drivers, but has a policy of not releasing beta drivers to the public. So, we have to wait for WinXP 64 to come out before we get ATI drivers. nVidia does have betas available now.
Quote from: Neon on April 13, 2004, 16:05 hrs
I think I can speak for both Mark H and myself - we both read about it alot, and we both have Athlon 64 processors. Look at our signatures.
Actually, you are half correct. I do research and read alot, but I only wish to have an Athlon 64 at this point in my life. It will come in time. :)
Mark H
Well my memory is failing, then. Sorry about that Mark, I thought you had one already, but might have been thinking of someone else. :-[
Too bad there isnt a way to upgrade human memory as easily as computer memory :)
Some of the FX-53's were about $800 is that right??:o
Neon, what did the FX-51 cost ya if you dont mind me asking?
That is the right price for the FX3 chip. That is why I said get an AMD64 3400+ or similar instead.
Neon got a great deal on his system by winning a free trip to the AMD Athlon 64 launch event in San Francisco. Check out this thread (http://www.poasters.com/forum/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=6477;start=0) for the details.
I'm sure Neon wouldn't have forked over $800 for a processor on his own as most of us wouldn't. The bang for the buck isn't worth it.
Mark H
Mark, i didnt really mean to offend you, it almost sounds like i did, sorry. I wasnt going to get the FX yet, i was just researching stuff and seeing if my research was correct....
sorry if i had offended you in any way
But thats cool that neon got it that way
Quote from: Andrew S on April 14, 2004, 21:16 hrs
Mark, i didnt really mean to offend you, it almost sounds like i did, sorry. I wasnt going to get the FX yet, i was just researching stuff and seeing if my research was correct....
sorry if i had offended you in any way
But thats cool that neon got it that way
No, no, no you didn't offend me in any way. I was just reafirming that there are better options for the money. You read too much into my reply.
No offense taken. :)
Andrew, if you read the thread in the link, you might say I paid just $640 for my FX-51 - but there was a free motherboard, memory, and trip to San Francisco thrown into the deal ;D It was very fun and the biggest prize I have ever won. You can read more about it on my website, if you are really interested.
If you are looking for recommendations, the FX processors are indeed about $750-800, and will not likely come down in price anytime soon. They are top of the line, and therefore not the most cost effective choices. If you are looking for high performance to price ratio, look at something like an Athlon 64 3200+. Very powerful and under $300! Good times we live in.
Another consideration is when you plan to buy. The new socket 939 is coming in a few months, which means a new round of motherboards and processors. The regular Athlon 64s will go from socket 754 single channel to socket 939 dual channel memory.
Ok, I didn?t feel I should start another processor thread, but here goes
There is still one thing I don?t quite understand. What are the "64 bit" and "32 bit" referring to? How is a 64 bit different from 32 bit, I know its doubled something, but what?
Lets say they took a 2 GHz 32 bit processor and. somehow magically doubled it to 64 bit, why didn?t the processor speed double? How come the first 64Bit processors were like "AMD 64 bit 3400+" instead of AMD 64 bit 6800+?
The regular 32 bit processors went to at least 2800+, I don?t understand why the processor speed didn?t jump higher then it did, or did it with the FX's?
The bits of a processor are completely different from clock speed. A 64 bit processor can handle more complex tasks than a 32 bit processor and access a larger amount of RAM.
Mark H
The speed and bit-ness of a processor are complete different concepts.
The bit-ness of the processor refers to the number of bits that each of the processor's general purpose registers (GPR) can hold. So data can be stored in 64-bit lengths, and code with 64-bit instructions can be executed on 64-bit numbers. The processor's internal data paths are doubled to accommodate the wider data stream.
A major consequence is that 32-bit processors are limited to 4GB of addressable memory, but 64-bit processors can address more like 16EB. Performance on audio and video encoding, engineering design apps (CAD), scientific apps, and games is improved.
Also, the designation 3400+ and such is a "performance rating" that indicates the approximate performance of the processor relative to the Thunderbird (original Athlon) core. It is not the actual speed in MHz.