(OT?) Athlon 64?

Peter van der Goes wrote:
 > "Xeno Chauvin" <arfulbrank.DeleteThis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
 > news:ViI2e.41$Xp.7@tornado.texas.rr.com...
 >
  >>Perhaps I have picked the wrong time to think about building
  >>a new machine? I presently have an Athlon XP2600+ which
  >>I thought about giving to one of my children.
  >>HOWEVER.......
  >>There is at present no Windows 64 Bit operating system
  >>nor any usable (for me) 64 Bit programs YET the cost of
  >>a 64 Bit system is not much greater that another "XP" system.
  >>So what's the up-side to getting a 64 Bit processor now?
  >>Thanks
  >>Xeno
  >>
  >>
 >
 > Superior performance and cooler operation (if you select a 90Nm Winchester
 > CPU) right now with 32 bit software. Also, the production release of Win XP
 > 64 bit is imminent.
 >
 >
 >
Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
memory.

Matt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: (OT?) Athlon 64? 

Matias Silva wrote:
 > Peter van der Goes wrote:
 >
  >> "Xeno Chauvin" <arfulbrank.DeleteThis@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
  >> news:ViI2e.41$Xp.7@tornado.texas.rr.com...
  >>
   >>> Perhaps I have picked the wrong time to think about building
   >>> a new machine? I presently have an Athlon XP2600+ which
   >>> I thought about giving to one of my children.
   >>> HOWEVER.......
   >>> There is at present no Windows 64 Bit operating system
   >>> nor any usable (for me) 64 Bit programs YET the cost of
   >>> a 64 Bit system is not much greater that another "XP" system.
   >>> So what's the up-side to getting a 64 Bit processor now?
   >>> Thanks
   >>> Xeno
   >>>
   >>>
  >>
  >> Superior performance and cooler operation (if you select a 90Nm
  >> Winchester CPU) right now with 32 bit software. Also, the production
  >> release of Win XP 64 bit is imminent.
  >>
  >>
  >>
 > Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
 > on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
 > says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
 > main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
 > memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
 > memory.
 >
 > Matt
 >
Also 64-bit also adds for greater floating point accuracy... so if your
using Excel to balance your check book then its not worth it. But if your
doing graphics rendering and high end computational mathematics where accuracy
is key, then go 64-bit.

Matt

Matt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: (OT?) Athlon 64? 

"Matias Silva" <matt DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:114oe6f36465oc4@corp.supernews.com...
 > Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
 > on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
 > says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
 > main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
 > memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
 > memory.
 >
 > Matt
 >
I was referring to the performance of the CPU itself. Ignoring 32 vs. 64 bit
issue, the A64 processors outperform their AXP predecessors and other
contenders.
Perhaps you intended to respond to the OP?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: (OT?) Athlon 64? 

Yes. The A64 outperforms the XP in 32 bit. One of the reasons is that the
memory controller is on the CPU itself,unlike other cpu's that must access
the northbridge chip first. But, replacing an XP 2600+ with say, an A64
2800+ wouldn't be woth the cost.
Going to a 3500+ or 3700+ porobably would be a decent speed increase. All
this really only applies to newer 3D games and video editing. Anything else
has plenty of headroom on an XP 2600+

"Peter van der Goes" <p_vandergoes.RemoveThis@toadstool.u> wrote in message
news:Zok3e.40206$Fy.33595@okepread04...
 >
 > "Matias Silva" <matt.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
 > news:114oe6f36465oc4@corp.supernews.com...
  > > Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
  > > on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article
basically
  > > says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
  > > main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts
of
  > > memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
  > > memory.
  > >
  > > Matt
  > >
 > I was referring to the performance of the CPU itself. Ignoring 32 vs. 64
bit
 > issue, the A64 processors outperform their AXP predecessors and other
 > contenders.
 > Perhaps you intended to respond to the OP?
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: (OT?) Athlon 64? 

Peter van der Goes wrote:
 > "Matias Silva" <matt.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
 > news:114oe6f36465oc4@corp.supernews.com...
 >
  >>Linux supports 64-bit computing... However I just read an article
  >>on Dr. Dobbs journal regarding 64-bit performance. The article basically
  >>says there is no real performance increase in 64-bit processing. The
  >>main benefit to 64-bit computing is that you can address larger amounts of
  >>memory; very usefull in database applications that are loaded into
  >>memory.
  >>
  >>Matt
  >>
 >
 > I was referring to the performance of the CPU itself. Ignoring 32 vs. 64 bit
 > issue, the A64 processors outperform their AXP predecessors and other
 > contenders.
 > Perhaps you intended to respond to the OP?
 >
 >

Yes and No, I was responding to you regarding the last thing you
said "Also, the production release of Win XP 64 bit is imminent."
and I responded saying that "Linux supports 64-bit computing." That
was my pitiful attempt in support of Linux

The latter portion of my comments where directed to the OP so
that he would have more information when he goes to make his
buying decision. It seems he just uses computers just to do
basic stuff, write an email, balance his check book, maybe
play a few video games, who knows.

On Newegg theres a nice little Athlon XP 3200 for $140 that would
be decent for a basic computer.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-390&depa=0" target="_blank">http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-103-390&depa=0</a>

However, if your(referring to the original poster) basic need it is to furnish your son
with a computer and you don't require that much more horsepower, then I would get
AthlonXP. Cache sizes are the same as some 64bit procs, however power consumption
is more, but the price is just right, cheap. I would look to increase performance
in other areas like I/O (Hard drives) and RAM.

Best Regards,
Matt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: (OT?) Athlon 64? 

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:41:21 -0700, Matias Silva wrote:

 > On Newegg theres a nice little Athlon XP 3200 for $140 that would
 > be decent for a basic computer.
 >
Waste of money.. Socket A is dead. If one wanted to spend that much on a
cpu, an A64 would be a much better choice. The best bang for the buck is
probably the 2800+ A64 right now for about $110. It'll oveclock above
2500MHz which would give it about a 4000+ rating. If one had or wanted to
stick with socket A, the XP-M would be a much smarter choice. Since it has
an unlocked multiplier, you can clock it up to 2400MHz even on an old
socket A board with only a 100MHz FSB. Newegg has the 2400+XP-M for $76.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
My server <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php" target="_blank">http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php</a>
Verizon server <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm" target="_blank">http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: (OT?) Athlon 64?