Athlon Xp vs. Athlon 64 w/ Asus - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-22-2004, 04:52 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junior Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 48
Default Athlon Xp vs. Athlon 64 w/ Asus

Hey I have been doing some research and I'm trying to figure out what to use on my next machine. I like the performance of the Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboards, but they do not support AMD Athlon 64 processor. I also heard something about how the A7N8X-E Deluxe has nforce2? I don't know exactly what that idea, so can anyone clear that up for me?

Also if I should consider to purchase the Athlon 64 processor, what Asus motherboard would be probably the best for it?

And what are the differences between Athlon 64 and Athlon Xp?
__________________

__________________
Salud
Neglito is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:01 PM   #2 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to Rizinc4
Default

Athlon 64 is capable of processing 64 bit code, however, no software (other than your OS) supports this... If I were you I would go with a Pentium 4...
__________________

Rizinc4 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 05:02 PM   #3 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

Athlon 64s are basically the next wave, they will probably eventually replace all of AMDs other proccesors.

The big difference between 64s and XPs, as well as just about every other proccesor out there, is that the AMD 64s are 64 bit proccesors that can run 32 bit applications as well. In laymens terms, 64s are just flat out faster.

And here's an asus motherboard that I have been looking at for a long time, and was almost about to buy.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...131-510&depa=1

Oh yeah, you'll notice that 64s come in 754, 939 and 940 pin sockets. Go with the 939, they are basically replacing the 754 and 940 pins.

Eeep, I've forgotten to mention that Athlon 64s have the memory controller built into them, which greatly increases performance.
__________________
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 12-22-2004, 06:06 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,088
Default

I dont understand, just because their arent any software for 64 bit, people are thinking they are no good... I would suggest geting anything then a Xp.

But AMD Athlons 64 bits are such good processors. Their speeds are so well balanced. The Athlon 3000+ 2.0ghz 1600fsb. Thats such a well balanced processor, the pipelines arent to long nor short. Or the Athlon 3500 runs at 2.2ghz 2000fsb, so balanced even at such high frequency's.

But yep they are 64bit and 32bit, so saying that nothing supports 64 doesnt make an arguement since it simply runs 32bit.
__________________
Finished With TF.
Codeine is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:15 PM   #5 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
If I were you I would go with a Pentium 4...
OC'd XP would do as good if not better. But it also depends on his uses and purposes.

Quote:
But AMD Athlons 64 bits are such good processors. Their speeds are so well balanced. The Athlon 3000+ 2.0ghz 1600fsb. Thats such a well balanced processor, the pipelines arent to long nor short. Or the Athlon 3500 runs at 2.2ghz 2000fsb, so balanced even at such high frequency's.
They don't run at 1600 and 2000FSB.

Currently the top nforce3 based boards max out at 1000FSB so I don't know where you are getting these 1600 and 2000 numbers from unless you're doubling up the 800 and 1000 you see advertised by most boards. That already takes into account the DDR Ram and CPU clock.

Quote:
I dont understand, just because their arent any software for 64 bit, people are thinking they are no good... I would suggest geting anything then a Xp.
They aren't good for now especially for the price of the top CPU's....and the cheaper CPU's aren't even worth buying when you can go much cheaper if you choose to OC, which I realize not everyone wants to do.

Basically the only reason to stay with an XP is if you're getting an XP-Mobile and overclock it. Other than that if you don't know what you're doing and rather not OC then yeah just go the simple route and go with AMD64.

Point being though the AMD64's aren't too much better than the XP's until they are operating in a 64bit environment. Lot of power is going to waste.

Personally I'd rather wait until it becomes more mainstream and the OS's and programs can use it to it's full potential before I have some CPU a year after which time a good chunk of it's life has been spent.

Quote:
The big difference between 64s and XPs, as well as just about every other proccesor out there, is that the AMD 64s are 64 bit proccesors that can run 32 bit applications as well. In laymens terms, 64s are just flat out faster.
The difference is simply one being 32bit processing and the other being 64bit. There are other smaller differences like bigger cache and more advanced architecture but they are only faster if you compared a 64 directly to a previous XP....in that case I would HOPE that AMD was smart enough to make their new chip better than the last.

It's not that they can 'run 32bits as well' like it's some extra feature added in or something. That's like saying a board that runs DDR400 can run DDR333 as well......well of course it can, it's working at half the capacity it should..which is mainly why I think AMD64's are overrated right now.
Nubius is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:17 PM   #6 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to Rizinc4
Default

The pipelines are very short, considering the Prescott's pipeline with 30 stages! I don't suggest getting an XP over the 64, simply because, I despise AMD... It doesn't matter to me what version you get... its still S*** on a platter in my opinion! They lack SSE3, had to buy rights to MMX technology, and have no feature preventing melt down. I know 3 people that have litterally had their AMD melt, and destroy their motherboard. Hypothetically speaking, if AMD did indeed have a faster processor, I would still opt for an Intel because of the melt down prevention feature!
Rizinc4 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:22 PM   #7 (permalink)
Wizard Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,790
Default

I really don't understand why people are led to believe that just because they are 64 bit proccesors, they are only good for running in a 64 bit enviroment. Regardless of whether they are 64 bit, they are still incredible 32 bit proccesors which, for the most part, perform better than the other 32 bit chips.

As for the whole added feature thing, it is an important feature. This is the first 64 bit proccesor which can proccess 32 bit applications, there are other 64 bit proccesors out there, but they cannot run 32 bit applications.

As for the whole "melting" issue, that was obviously an attempt at overclocking without the proper cooling equipment.
__________________
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 12-22-2004, 06:27 PM   #8 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to Rizinc4
Default

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is a Xeon that supports both 32 and 64 bit software...
Rizinc4 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:28 PM   #9 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 264
Send a message via AIM to Rizinc4
Default

Uh no, they weren't overclocking, they were running in an everyday fashion, using stock heatsink, and thermal paste!
Rizinc4 is offline  
Old 12-22-2004, 06:33 PM   #10 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
This is the first 64 bit proccesor which can proccess 32 bit applications, there are other 64 bit proccesors out there, but they cannot run 32 bit applications.
That's because it's the first commercially sold 64bit processor for the mainstream home user to buy

Quote:
I really don't understand why people are led to believe that just because they are 64 bit proccesors, they are only good for running in a 64 bit enviroment.
They ARE only good for running 64bit environments...that's what they are MADE for man.. They are working at HALF their ability and the biggest impact is really the 1mb of L2 Cache which doesn't make up for the fact that it's not working to it's full potential.

They only work better than 32bit processors of the same speed for the most part. But I can guarantee you my 2.5GHz XP will outperform an AMD64 3000+ and probably 3200+ at that.

Now once you start getting into 3500+ and higher then their clockspeeds start rising and then will outperform an XP of course.

I never said they weren't good, I said they aren't needed right now mainly if you can overclock.

Like I said above, if you don't overclock and just want to put everything in, then go with AMD64, otherwise if you know how to overclock or want to learn, then you can still have a faster system with an OC'd XP compared to a normal AMD64 3000+ or 3200+

The fact remains that they aren't being used to their potential and there isn't a need to upgrade like everyone makes it out to be and suggesting FX-55's for their grandmas computer.

AMD64's are overrated right now and until a 64bit OS comes out they will remain that way until the CPU's like the 3500+ become around $150....

When they get that cheap, THEN it would be worth it to get the 64bit over trying to OC an XP

Quote:
simply because, I despise AMD... It doesn't matter to me what version you get... its still S*** on a platter in my opinion! They lack SSE3, had to buy rights to MMX technology, and have no feature preventing melt down. I know 3 people that have litterally had their AMD melt, and destroy their motherboard. Hypothetically speaking, if AMD did indeed have a faster processor, I would still opt for an Intel because of the melt down prevention feature!
Rizinc....that's basically a completely Intel bias'd post which offers no insight besides you hate AMD for your own personal reasons. Whoever MELTED their CPU's obviously didn't know what they were doing. XP's and AMD64's alike have Thermal Shutdown features.

When I had my XP OC'd up to 2.7GHz it would outperform up to a 3.8GHz Intel. Mind you it wasn't like a 3.8 EXTREME EDITION!! or whatever intel but still, the fact remains they are good processors.

Anywho, we aren't going to turn this into an Intel vs AMD thread as there are enough of them as it is.
__________________

Nubius 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 01:54 AM.


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