VeeshanVault

64 bit computing... this allows the system to address more memory and process information in larger chunks (trying to not get to technical as that isn't the point). AMD is trying to get deals with games etc... for enhanced speed and other enhancements...

Do you think this could really put a larger dent in Intel's castle? or will most consumers just think it's hype.

Thoughts?
Marb

i personally dont see a reason for the average consumer to buy a 64bit processor anytime soon.

all the apps are 32bit, and i'm not really sure how ready windows is for it.

i dont see CPU power as a limiting factor in PC performance at th moment, but i could be wrong.

Microsoft announced a 64 bit version of Windows XP for the AMD chips as well. It might allow for a little faster access but few people are processor bound right now on Video unless they have the very latest and greatest.

Marb

Well from a game perspective it could allow more CPU devoted to AI.

As Kelshara said there isn't a need right now. But often in the computer industry there isn't a need until after the technology facilitates new functionality.

The move from 32->64 bits is an incredible expanse of register space (small memory locations inside the CPU where most operations are performed) which will allows more operations to be performed within the CPU rather than having to swap to RAM which is a system bottleneck. 64 bits also is a huge boost in speed when working with large values (duh).

We've been through this before (with similar arguments) when we switched from 16bit to 32bit. Lets hope the software doesn't lag behind the hardware as long as it did then and lets also hope the advances of the switch are just as great.

This is a nice upgrade for AMD but they are losing the advertising battle with Intel. They need to take a little money from R&D and market their product. They have lost a lot of market share recently. I will still buy AMD whenever possible but they need to get everyone else to as well.

Intel "Extreme" Edition P4 vs Athlon FX. Always found FS to be pretty reliable.

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/ ... e_edition/

Marb

Athlon 64 is brand new. I give them credit for having the fastest chip as we speak that's available but the Prescott is very close to release and Intel/Pentium has dominated speed/overclocking for awhile now.

It appears, if you are an Athlon supporter, you have a small window of opportunity for bragging rights until Intel takes over again. As with Video cards, I dont play favorites and go for the best, so if the systems being tested are stable and fast with the Athlon64, I'd go for the Athlon 64 but I don't see it being in the lead for long.

Close competition is a good thing.

AMD needs to work on cranking up the m3g4h3r7z or they'll continue to lose to Intel. A gap of 1 GHz (and growing) between flagship CPU's is not something you can close with marketing.

I agree. Personally I've always been a big Intel guy. Right now I'm running an Athlon XP2400+ because it was like $80 at NewEgg and I had gotten a MB for dirt cheap. But when I build a new system I'll probably return to Intel unless something chages. I haven't had any problems with the AMD though which surprised me.

On the other hand if AMD would actually push the Barton core even to 3GHz (not the 2.17 3000+) but really 3 GHz it would smoke any Intel chip... they just need to work on Fab. IMHO.

Marb

AMD still smokes Intel for gaming. If you look at most benchmarking, AMD chips running at lower speeds continually blow away Intel chips of 400 or 500 mhz faster.

MHz isn't everything. Nothing was smoking Intel until the Athlon 64 lately. It was pretty clear that all the geeks were using 2.4Cs for the cost/performance OC chip.

Athlon smokes nothing except the inside of your case because the oversized, overheated chips glow they get so hot.

P4s...smaller, cooler, faster.

While MHz aren't everything, the are certainly a factor in everything. A gap of 150% actual processor speed is nothing to sneeze at.