64 bit processes... NO!!!

[idiotec]

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.

 

[BennyV04988]

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.

 

[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.

Ryan

 

[OnlyCurious]

Thanks guys for your advice

 

[Tyler1989]

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

 

[gaara]

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

 

[Flanker]

And the difference between K8 and K7.

 

[Brtnboarder495]

Don't sweat it, 64bit won't be really utilized for at least two years.

 

[wolfeyes89]

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.

 

[Flanker]

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.