Z
zalzon
with 64 bit computing on the horizon, does it make any sense to buy an
overpriced 32 bit chip? I can understand if it was a cheap 32 bit
chip but for the cost of a prescott i could get an AMD 64 3000+
Is anyone here considering a Pentium EE or a Prescott as their next
purchase?
overpriced 32 bit chip? I can understand if it was a cheap 32 bit
chip but for the cost of a prescott i could get an AMD 64 3000+
Is anyone here considering a Pentium EE or a Prescott as their next
purchase?
A
Anon
zalzon said:
While AMD is the better choice for many reasons, 64 bit isn't one of them.
Any processor purchased today will be long since upgraded/replaced before 64
bit software is common. -Dave
Z
zalzon
Depends on what u mean by "long since". Longhorn may be out by the
end of this year for all we know or early 2005. Is that far away?
How wierd is it to spend 1000+ dollars on a computer only to find out
that 1 yr later you cannot upgrade to the next version of the OS!
That's crazy.
The key concern is that big changes will be happening this year aside
from 32->64 bit chips. The PCI bus will also be going to Express PCI.
The IDE will switch to SATA (though it won't make much difference in
performance). The motherboards will go from ATX to the new BTX form
which Intel is promoting. Lord knows what changes will be happening.
Its clearly a bad time for upgrading.
All this makes me scratch my head and wonder why would anyone be
investing in an expensive 32 bit chip today? They should have dumped
the prescott and got working on a 64 bit desktop version of the Xeon.
Z
zalzon
correction replace the word "longhorn" with xp64 which will be out
before the year is out. Longhorn will come (according to M$) in 2005.
before the year is out. Longhorn will come (according to M$) in 2005.
U
Uncooked meat prior to state vector collapse
zalzon said:
I might, if the price is right on prescott. I would have a lower price to
upgrade since I'm currently running a socket 478 in an 875p. If I were to
build from scratch I would lean toward AMD.
D
Dashi
Sure I may get two or three of them.
Dashi
Dashi
Uncooked meat prior to state vector collapse said:
A
Anon
No, it's crazy to adopt a new OS the same day it is released. If you count
from the time Windows XP was released, I replaced every component in my
computer twice before I finally decided to give XP a chance. By then, most
of the bugs were worked out of XP. The average computer system is replaced
about every two years. If XP 64 is a good OS, I might install it on my
computer in 2007, assuming it IS released in 2005. Of course, by then I
will probably have replaced my CPU twice.
You're also assuming that Microsoft would be stupid enough to release an OS
that most computers couldn't run. That, quite simply, isn't going to
happen. So while it might be called "XP 64", count on it running just fine
on any Prescott chip (for example).
But even assuming that XP 64 will not run on P4 chips sold today (highly
unlikely) . . . It is NOT going to cost you a thousand bucks to upgrade your
hardware to something that will run XP 64, if that's what you want to do.
At most, you will need a new motherboard, CPU, case and power supply.
That's the worst case scenario. It amounts to about four hundred bucks for
a 64 bit upgrade at TODAY'S prices. Fast forward to 2005, and the same
hardware will be sold used for about fifty bucks maximum. And comparable
new hardware will be running about $200 total.
It's the same old story. If you want to build, BUILD. Don't wait for the
next (insert favorite flashy bleeding edge technology component here). If
you do, you will never build, because there is always something newer and
better just a few months (or a few WEEKS, even) away. -Dave
S
Stacey
Anon wrote:
Exactly. I wanted something faster than my 2.4 P4/533 845G and just before
Xmas bought a 2.8/800 865. I was going to wait for the prescott but after
reading about adding pipelines etc, decided a 2.8C was all I wanted. It's
running at 3.4 and I'm happy til next year anyway!
Exactly. I wanted something faster than my 2.4 P4/533 845G and just before
Xmas bought a 2.8/800 865. I was going to wait for the prescott but after
reading about adding pipelines etc, decided a 2.8C was all I wanted. It's
running at 3.4 and I'm happy til next year anyway!
A
Anon
Stacey said:
OK, I've gotta ask, even though it's totally OT. Is "Stacey" a female?
Don't see too many females building their own systems. If so, welcome to
the club.
And an overclocker as well. I'm impressed. Really. I don'tusually advise overclocking, but I know it does take a pretty good
understanding of hardware to do safely and effectively, and so I am
impressed. And I'd be curious as to how you got into this hobby that so few
females seem to have an interest in. Of course, if you're not female, I've
probably just insulted you, so maybe I shouldn't s -Dave
Z
zalzon
She has been around for a long time. She can intimidate any man with
her knowledge of computers. So beware.....
her knowledge of computers. So beware.....
R
ray hartman
BigA:
Yep.
S
Stephen Austin
But, if XP64 is simply a 64bit version of the current WinXP, then why
would it *need* to run on 32bit architectures? For any consumer, if they
have a 32bit machine, purchase the already existing 32bit WinXP. If they
have a 64bit machine, purchase the upcoming 64bit version of WinXP.
I haven't read up on this or anything, so I could be talking a load of
****. However, since M$ are planning on releasing Longhorn sometime 2005,
it wouldn't make an awful lot of sense to put many upgrades and changes in
the 64bit version of XP. It *should* just be a copy of WinXP, except
64bit. Of course, if they have made significant changes, then I would
agree with you that it probably will run on existing architectures.
Steve
M
Matt
Anon said:
Ah, so at least half of computers will have 64-bit CPUs before MS
releases a 64-bit OS. It would seem to follow that if the median
lifespan of a computer is two years, MS will not release a 64-bit OS
until quite a bit more than two years after the first 64-bit computers
are sold. If the median computer lasts three years, we won't see a
64-bit OS for more than three years after the first 64-bit computers are
sold. Wow, Dave---thanks---I didn't know.
S
somebody
The lowdown on the Prescott is that it's 5% to 9%, and even 20% (yep!
worst case, twenty!) _slower_ than the P4 at the same clockrate.
Check out the websites that do a lot of _RELEVANT_ benchmarks,
anandtech, aceshardware, firingsquad.
Sandra, PCMark, SysMark, and tomshardwares homemade graphics
benchmarks are crap, because they correlate very poorly to reality.
Basically these benchmarks tote to 'measure' various aspects of the
cpu. In reality those 'scores' becomes so architecture dependent, that
they're worthless.
Check out actual games/media/application benchmarks and Winstone
(which is made up from parts of applications) instead.
Intel has done another inefficient, but good for high clocks. However,
it's not likely to be interesting before 4GHz.
But they're successful, selling clockrates, sofar. :-/
But no, you have to be a complete idiot to buy a P4EE. - Really,
frankly!
Again check out the _RELEVANT_ benchmarks, (which you won't find many
of, on tomshardware...) It's only 1-3% faster than the normal 3.2P4C.
Which again, is how many % faster than the $180 2.8P4C?
1000 bucks! - Really now...
ancra
Z
zalzon
Intel is already planning on making 32 bit chips with 64 bit
extensions. Its what Intel will be working on now that the Prescotts
are out the door.
AMD already is committed to 32-64 bit desktop chips.
When M$ releases Win64, i do not think its going to be for 32 bit
chips at all. What would be the point. Its going to be for hybrid
32-64 bit chips which both AMD and Intel will be cranking out in full
force.
I understand & appreciate the guy's points though about upgrades..etc.
However the situation to me kind of seems like the transition from 486
processors to Pentium processors. The folks were plugging in their
newly purchased $1500 dollar systems when they were handed the news
that 486 was obsolete. All software suddenly had a Pentium 90 minimum
requirement almost overnight.
My point is that there is no point getting an expensive 32 bit
processor today unless you want to be behind the power curve when it
comes to upgrading OS. It may make sense to get a cheap AMD 2.5 Ghz
machine though. If you want to go expensive, then get an AMD 64 bit
system, not an EE or a expensive Prescott.
extensions. Its what Intel will be working on now that the Prescotts
are out the door.
AMD already is committed to 32-64 bit desktop chips.
When M$ releases Win64, i do not think its going to be for 32 bit
chips at all. What would be the point. Its going to be for hybrid
32-64 bit chips which both AMD and Intel will be cranking out in full
force.
I understand & appreciate the guy's points though about upgrades..etc.
However the situation to me kind of seems like the transition from 486
processors to Pentium processors. The folks were plugging in their
newly purchased $1500 dollar systems when they were handed the news
that 486 was obsolete. All software suddenly had a Pentium 90 minimum
requirement almost overnight.
My point is that there is no point getting an expensive 32 bit
processor today unless you want to be behind the power curve when it
comes to upgrading OS. It may make sense to get a cheap AMD 2.5 Ghz
machine though. If you want to go expensive, then get an AMD 64 bit
system, not an EE or a expensive Prescott.