64 bit vs 32 bit

[kneecapper]

hey all. first post here. anyways

so i was reading up on this thread here http://www.techist.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8717&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

and i was wondering what the differences were between 32 bit and 64 bit. as you can tell i'm a total noob.

i was planning on getting the amd 64 fx 51 pretty soon, but it's pretty pointless because windows xp is only 32 bit? therefore not allowing the fx 51 to work to its full potential, making it a waste? (i end in question marks there because i'm not sure what i'm talking about sorry if this offends you grammar freaks :bald: ) i'm now deciding against it because of the above factors and there's going to be a reworked version of it out in 6 months to a year as someone stated somewhere.

thanks. any input will be greatly appreciated

edit: great website you guys got going on here. can tell everyone's question (no matter what the level of noobosity) gets answered.

it's a beautiful thing when pro computer nerds share their knowledge with the pro noobs. (don't mean nerd in an offensive way. just the modern terminology of the group. hey i'd be a comp nerd if i could. hopefully this site will bring me one step closer to that goal one thread at a time.) lol i just went on and on. sorry bout that

 

[MojoInKansas]

well, do you plan on upgrading or replacing your computer within the next 2-3 years? I think it'll be at LEAST that long before windows and general software really catches up to the point where 64 bit will be necessary. you're right. NOW, it'd be a complete waste.

 

[kneecapper]

well, do you plan on upgrading or replacing your computer within the next 2-3 years? I think it'll be at LEAST that long before windows and general software really catches up to the point where 64 bit will be necessary. you're right. NOW, it'd be a complete waste.

what do you mean "NOW, it'd be a complete waste."?

edit: so would you advise that i do get such an awesome processor right now?

 

[MojoInKansas]

well, i think that NOW, it'd be a waste, unless you're running a 64 bit OS, which Windows isnt. Not to say that it isn't a cool, fast processor but the 64 bit parts would be going completely to waste... it's kinda like spending $100,000 on the highest-end stereo equipment... so you can listen to Rush Limbaugh on AM.

 

[zoerb]

well, i sorta agree, but the fx-51 is not JUST a 64 bit proc. It is also the fastest 32 bit proc out now.

 

[m3incorp]

Sort of depends on what you are using your computer for. Do you need the fastest to run certain programs, such as high tech games, CAD?

 

[kneecapper]

yes. i want to be able to play half life 2 and doom 3 when they come out.

in your opinions, what processor (that would be able to keep up with the latest games) has the most bang for the buck?

thanks

 

[MojoInKansas]

maybe i need to elaborate. When new hardware comes out, software that takes full advantage of the new hardware features ALWAYS lags by as much as a couple of years. As far as games are concerned, your video card will be WAY more important than CPU speed (once you have at least a relatively new mobo/CPU combination). The sweet spot these days, price to performance wise, is about 2.4 GHz or so. A chip newer/faster is gonna cost way more than it's worth (in my opinion)... and pretty much ANY software released these days will run just fine on a CPU up to a couple of years old.

 

[mrdinkel]

Well, Windows XP 64-BIT edition is (correct me if I'm wrong) is in its final couple of builds.

Its like 95-98. You can't really tell any asthetic (sp?) difference, but the underlyings are much improved.

 

[MojoInKansas]

true, but it'll be at least a year before it's stable enough to REALLY use. lol

I guess my main point is that CPU speed and bus width (32 vs 64 bit) aren't really important until all other bottlenecks are removed... i.e. RAM speed, speed of the HD, etc.

i'll bet that doom 3 will run just fine on today's OS.