64 bit processes... NO!!! - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-15-2006, 03:33 PM   #11 (permalink)
Monster Techie
idiotec's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,748

First, for those saying "should of gotten an X2," this is a mobile processor in a laptop. In fact, it is the only dual core mobile processor on the market. The core duo's actually perform right about on par with an X2, and in some benchmarks actually beat it.

OnlyCurious, don't worry, you have the best mobile processor on the market right now (except for the faster core duo's of course ). If you end up finding you need 64-bit in the future, swap it out for a memron, which I'm 99.9% sure will share the same socket.


BE HEARD - Techonvent
DS3 | E6400 - 3.2GHz 24/7 | 2GB OCZ PLat. PC6400 | 6800GT | Zippy 460W
What the world needs is more geniuses with humility, there are so few of us left.
idiotec is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 03:41 PM   #12 (permalink)
Monster Techie
BennyV04988's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,835

I have very good point that i just discovered...WHY do we always want to future proof for future applications, YET this new software never comes out FAST enough. My brother bought a 64bit s754....what a F'n WASTE that was. Its ancient now and here we are with hardly NO 64bit software. the only 64 worth buying delibrately despite performance would be an AM2. the thing is most 32bits are **** performance now.

GPU: MSI GTX 260 @ 650MHz/1175MHz
CPU: Intel E6750 @ 3.4GHz/1.33v/60c
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
SND: Creative Audigy 4
SPK:Logtech X-540s
MOS: Logitech MX600 Wireless Laser
LCD: HANNS-G 28" Widescreen
BennyV04988 is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 04:00 PM   #13 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,453
Send a message via AIM to FghtinIrshNvrDi Send a message via Yahoo to FghtinIrshNvrDi

Exactly. AMD was just offering a new feature to encourage the 64 bit possibility. Since Intel had nothing to do with that, they wanted to make a technology that can work faster, and introducing 64 bit capabilities allows people to do that. Software always has to be behind hardware, otherwise we have worthless software.


<b>I'm an unhyphenated American.</b>
System Specs:
Intel Q6600 @ 3200 1.4v
Abit IP35 Pro "The Snake"
2x2gb A-Data @ 800
Diamond HD 3870 512mb

Great FORD TRUCK resource: http://www.fordtruckfanatics.com
FghtinIrshNvrDi is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 05:03 PM   #14 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 616
Send a message via AIM to OnlyCurious Send a message via Yahoo to OnlyCurious

Thanks guys for your advice
Use my advice at your own risk.

My rig:
CoolerMaster Centurion 5
SamSung 20" LCD
Intel E6750 @ 2.66Ghz
Gigabyte p35-ds3r
Patriot Extreme 2gb 4-4-4-12
Sapphire X1950XT 256mb
Samsung 500gb @ 7200
PSU Xclio GreatPower 550W
Samsung DVD Burner
Logitec X-230 2.1
OnlyCurious is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 05:31 PM   #15 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,339

Originally posted by figero
Having 64 bit is for bragging rights only. The applications that are available for the 64 bit are very limited. And the only o/s is Windows XP and that was built for 32 bit. The 64 version is a cobbled together fix, and unreliable. I will wait for Longhorn (forget what the new name is) before going 64 bit, or PCI-e or anything else new.
Try learning before posting such lies. XP x64 is based off of that crappy unreliable thing called Windows Server 2003 Enterprise ack I would never use that . It also has few program, sure just google for a list and even if the program doesn't support 64 bit per say it will support mutli core processors. In the future both Dual and 64 will be supported as a standard then you will see speeds. Most Adobe and Microsoft Products already are x64, including many of the leaders in antivirus. Also Longhorn is the Server Vista is the version for Business/Home. Read before you post
<form action=\"http://www.srsyo.org/tfsearch.php\" method=\"get\">
<input type=\"text\" name=\"search\"> <input type=\"submit\" name=\"submit\" value=\"Search TF before you post!\"></form>
Vista Discussion | 64 Bit Discussion |Microsoft Homepage | Yo Linux | Paul Thurrott | Fire Fox | Thunder Bird | Image Shack | Photo Bucket | Put File | Anti-Spyware | MS Anti-Spyware | Trillian | Anti-Virus | On Line Virus Scan
Tyler1989 is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 07:39 PM   #16 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790

64-bit isn't bragging rights because today's 64-bit processors own all 32-bit processors even in 32-bit mode. Try matching up an X2 4400+ vs. an Athlon XP 3000+ and we'll see who wins.
Sorry but I don't see what point you're trying to prove...the 4400+ is obviously faster considering it's rated 1400+ points higher than the 3000+ and introduces a bunch of featuresets the 3000+ XP can't even touch. You're trying to compare an almost three year old processor with a 6 month old core that has higher frequencies, IMC HTT bus support and an extra physical core and claiming that the 4400+ is faster because of 64 bit instruction set capabilities

AMD64s aren't much different from Athlon XPs, the real difference is memory bandwidth from the IMC which has nothing to do with 64 bit capabilities...you could have at the very least compared a 3000+XP to a 3000+ A64 which would be roughly the same with the A64 slightly edging it out with HTT bus bandwidth and a higher IPC rate
Intel C2D E6320 / AMD Athlon X2 3800+
Gigabyte 965P DS3 / DFI nF4 Ultra-D
2GB OCZ Gold PC2-6400 / 2GB OCZ Gold PC4000
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB / eVGA 6800GS 256MB
150GB Raptor / 74GB Raptor
2x500GB / 320GB
OCZ GameXStreme 850w / OCZ StealthXStream 600w
gaara is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 07:48 PM   #17 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker

And the difference between K8 and K7.
Flanker is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 08:47 PM   #18 (permalink)
Monster Techie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,306
Send a message via AIM to Brtnboarder495

Don't sweat it, 64bit won't be really utilized for at least two years.
Brtnboarder495 is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 08:56 PM   #19 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 506

Let me put it to u this way. I bought the amd athlon 64 3500 back when it was king and i thought i was set because it had 64 bit capabilities. And now 1 year later im looking at buying an x2 4400 or am thinking of waiting for a M2. But whatever the case is if your pc is future proof. It doesnt mean its going to perform well in the future. Scary theory for those of us with tuff budgets but its the cold hard truth.
wolfeyes89 is offline  
Old 02-15-2006, 09:00 PM   #20 (permalink)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,327
Send a message via AIM to Flanker

Originally posted by Brtnboarder495
Don't sweat it, 64bit won't be really utilized for at least two years.
Actually, Windows Vista will introduce 64-bit processing. Scheduled for the end of this year.

Flanker is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.