Is is just me, or?

**vairox** · 10-20-2003, 03:55 PM

do the people wanting to upgrade to the AMD64 seem silly?

9-23-03 Microsoft on Tuesday launched a beta version of its Windows XP operating system that supports AMD's new 64-bit Athlon on the desktop and the chipmaker's Opteron 64-bit processor on workstations and servers. A final version will be released in the first half of 2004, Microsoft said.

i think the reason the 64bit xp 3200 is cheaper than the 32bit one is because by the time microsoft gets that version of windows out AMD will already have MUCH faster 64 bit chips out and people looking to upgrade to that version of windows (only works with 64bit proc) probably wont be buying the bottom chip

is it true or not that the 64bit processor will not be used to it's potential running the current version of xp? maybe im lost but it all seems very familiar, i remember back when abit put out the BP6 and people could run dual celeron 300a's at 450, but were shocked to find out that their second processor wasnt being used because they were running windows 98 and the whole "faster" effect was a placebo. still people didn't catch on and kept using 2 prcessors in windows 98, i bet there is still someone out there running a dual celeron on win98.

maybe im just too drunk.

**nForcer** · 10-20-2003, 04:19 PM

True...But 64-Bit asside...the 64 3200+ is still heck of a CPU for 32-Bit, compares well to a P4 3.2GHz and is a lot cheaper.

**mikead_99** · 10-20-2003, 04:26 PM

Take what nForcer said and also just consider them "future-proof" as the marketers like to say. By the time M$ gets their 64-bit OS on the streets the performance gained by these procs will be almost like getting a new chip. They are fast now, and when faster 32-bit procs come out this can gain back ground lost by moving to 64-bit.

**vairox** · 10-20-2003, 04:29 PM

on another note in the same article it says

AMD, which debuted its 64-bit Athlon processor for the desktop on Tuesday, is taking a different tack on 64-bit than its prime competitor, Intel. AMD touts 64-bit for desktop PCs, relies on the Athlon's ability to run 32-bit applications without the performance degradation of an emulator, and boasts that when native 64-bit operating systems and apps become available, users will be able to migrate without having to make another investment in hardware. Intel, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that 64-bit belongs on servers and workstations, and that there's no need for businesses to invest in 64-bit processors, software, and operating systems for the traditional desktop.

how long do you guys think before intel starts its own 64bit desktop processor, it seems they know what people need and people don't need 64bit processors for their desktop...so when intel introduces pentium64 for $1200 who is gonna jump on the bandwagon, and who is gonna tell intel that 64 bit is only for servers and workstations?

**vairox** · 10-20-2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by mikead_99
By the time M$ gets their 64-bit OS on the streets the performance gained by these procs will be almost like getting a new chip.

thats funny, everytime ive upgraded to a new microsoft OS it was like getting an old chip, please elaborate....M$ likes to waste resources/memory/processing power with every new operating system.

**mikead_99** · 10-20-2003, 04:55 PM

vairox:

thats funny, everytime ive upgraded to a new microsoft OS it was like getting an old chip, please elaborate....M$ likes to waste resources/memory/processing power with every new operating system.

Just saying, that unless they really produce a hog of an OS, you are bound to see gains if you migrate then with a chip you bought now. Did you have that issue moving from 16-bit to 32?

**vairox** · 10-20-2003, 05:14 PM

no, i clicked the "do not restart after display changes" option. j/k, my first pc was a 486 dx100 and win95, i think thats all 32bit...i havent been putin' as long as some here. but to me using a 64bit processor now is a waste because we're still using a 32bit OS and by the time microsoft releases that operating system there will be much faster chips for the same price, just my opinion though....

**nForcer** · 10-20-2003, 05:39 PM

True...

But like I said a Athlon 64 3200+ is one heck of a 32-Bit chip in performance...64-Bit is one added feature.

If your a gamer and wanting to build a new PC...You cant go wrong with the Athlon 64 3200+...It performs as well as a P4 3.2GHz.

64-bit is useless at this point but A64's are not made just to run 64-Bit apps.

If your upgrading to a A64 thinking You want a 64-Bit system...Then yeah its useless at this point.

If your upgrading to a A64 cause its fast/faster than the current offerings (not to mention cheaper) for running your current apps...then theres nothing wrong with that.

Also consider the price point...

AMD

Athlon 64 3200+ - $390

Intel

Intel P4 3.2GHz - $580

**vairox** · 10-21-2003, 05:47 PM

no doubt the chip is far cheaper than intels offering, but i see it as buying a 9800pro for halflife 2 when halflife 2 wont be released for 6 to 8 months, when at that time u can get a better card for the same price OR the same card for much cheaper, same thing to me with the cpu...plus the motherboards will probably have newer revisions/updates etc by then....maybe im seeing it all wrong, thats happened before LOL

**Stocky007** · 10-22-2003, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by nForcer
True...

But like I said a Athlon 64 3200+ is one heck of a 32-Bit chip in performance...64-Bit is one added feature.

If your a gamer and wanting to build a new PC...You cant go wrong with the Athlon 64 3200+...It performs as well as a P4 3.2GHz.

64-bit is useless at this point but A64's are not made just to run 64-Bit apps.

If your upgrading to a A64 thinking You want a 64-Bit system...Then yeah its useless at this point.

If your upgrading to a A64 cause its fast/faster than the current offerings (not to mention cheaper) for running your current apps...then theres nothing wrong with that.

Also consider the price point...

AMD

Athlon 64 3200+ - $390

Intel

Intel P4 3.2GHz - $580

How bout this, your ****ing nuts to buy either one.

**nForcer** · 10-22-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Stocky007
How bout this, your ****ing nuts to buy either one.

Well...for people who dont overclock they will buy them.
Its not nuts realy, there are people who buy them...they got the money.

On the other hand, I think people who buy Ferraris and Lambo's are nuts

**talldude** · 10-22-2003, 03:59 PM

Ferraris and Lambos aren't that big of a deal...you can have one even if you aren't uber rich - just save up a lot. IMO people are nuts if they buy a private jet.

**nForcer** · 10-22-2003, 04:25 PM

LOL!

Freakin Rich People Are Freakin Nuts.

I know a few people at work that are not rich but always upgrades their PC to the latest and greatest...like going from...

- Radeon 9700 Pro to 9800 Pro to 9800 XT
- P4 3.0Ghz to 3.2GHz

To me thats nuts for spending that much money for a year and you wont even realy notice a difference

Whatever makes them happy I guess

**gkline** · 10-22-2003, 04:50 PM

Talldude a/k/a Officer Cartman has spoken. RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAH!!!!

**Kill-Switch** · 10-22-2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by vairox
no doubt the chip is far cheaper than intels offering, but i see it as buying a 9800pro for halflife 2 when halflife 2 wont be released for 6 to 8 months, when at that time u can get a better card for the same price OR the same card for much cheaper, same thing to me with the cpu...plus the motherboards will probably have newer revisions/updates etc by then....maybe im seeing it all wrong, thats happened before LOL

It's thinking like that that has kept us in the dark ages for so long. If you don't upgrade because you know if you wait it'll be cheaper then you never will due to the fact that by the time you think it's cheap enough the thing you wanted will be near on obsolete and won't be worth buying anyway.

Thread: Is is just me, or?

Thread Tools

Display

Is is just me, or?

Posting Permissions