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
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
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.