x64 computers... input needed. - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - x64 computers... input needed. (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:19:36 PM EDT

[#1]

stil digesting lots of info...

32 vs 64 ?

www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1665

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:19:46 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
I think what he meant was that back when the two companies (AMD and Intel) were both producing 32 and 64-bit chips that ran at the same speeds--the 64's were faster... but the 64's had various other improvements as well.

And now, all the faster CPU's from both companies are 64-bit anyway.
Matter of fact, at my favorite online supplier (Mwave) they have five different families of AMD and Intel chips--and only the cheapest/slowest family of each is still 32-bit....
~

AMD chips that ran at MUCH SLOWER clock speeds were faster and still are... Intel is badly behind.

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:19:52 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
I think what he meant was that back when the two companies (AMD and Intel) were both producing 32 and 64-bit chips that ran at the same speeds--the 64's were faster... but the 64's had various other improvements as well.

And now, all the faster CPU's from both companies are 64-bit anyway.
Matter of fact, at my favorite online supplier (Mwave) they have five different families of AMD and Intel chips--and only the cheapest/slowest family of each is still 32-bit....
~

Right, the only thing that makes 64bit processors faster is that they are actually making them faster than they are making the 32bit processors.
Thus apples to apples, a 32bit processor is no faster than a 64bit processor.

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:23:47 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think what he meant was that back when the two companies (AMD and Intel) were both producing 32 and 64-bit chips that ran at the same speeds--the 64's were faster... but the 64's had various other improvements as well.

And now, all the faster CPU's from both companies are 64-bit anyway.
Matter of fact, at my favorite online supplier (Mwave) they have five different families of AMD and Intel chips--and only the cheapest/slowest family of each is still 32-bit....
~

Right, the only thing that makes 64bit processors faster is that they are actually making them faster than they are making the 32bit processors.

That is because 32bit technology sucks and is dead. No point in being nostalgic by going with a slow CPU.

Thus apples to apples, a 32bit processor is no faster than a 64bit processor.

False.

64bit is going to be the standard. 32 bit is going away. No matter how you try to rationalize it, that is the plain facts of the matter.

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:24:13 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think what he meant was that back when the two companies (AMD and Intel) were both producing 32 and 64-bit chips that ran at the same speeds--the 64's were faster... but the 64's had various other improvements as well.

And now, all the faster CPU's from both companies are 64-bit anyway.
Matter of fact, at my favorite online supplier (Mwave) they have five different families of AMD and Intel chips--and only the cheapest/slowest family of each is still 32-bit....
~

Right, the only thing that makes 64bit processors faster is that they are actually making them faster than they are making the 32bit processors.
Thus apples to apples, a 32bit processor is no faster than a 64bit processor.

NO

AMD 64 bit chips that are clocked SLOWER benchmark faster than Intel 32 bit chips that are faster clocked... this has been true for 2+ years.

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:28:56 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think what he meant was that back when the two companies (AMD and Intel) were both producing 32 and 64-bit chips that ran at the same speeds--the 64's were faster... but the 64's had various other improvements as well.

And now, all the faster CPU's from both companies are 64-bit anyway.
Matter of fact, at my favorite online supplier (Mwave) they have five different families of AMD and Intel chips--and only the cheapest/slowest family of each is still 32-bit....
~

Right, the only thing that makes 64bit processors faster is that they are actually making them faster than they are making the 32bit processors.
Thus apples to apples, a 32bit processor is no faster than a 64bit processor.

NO

AMD 64 bit chips that are clocked SLOWER benchmark faster than Intel 32 bit chips that are faster clocked... this has been true for 2+ years.

I know it has a slower clockspeed, but they are making it faster w/ via other means, not just by making it 64 bit.

And yes I know 32bit is dead.

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:29:44 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

64bit is going to be the standard. 32 bit is going away. No matter how you try to rationalize it, that is the plain facts of the matter.

64 bit is the de facto standard now.

By the end of the year the vast majority of AMD and Intel chips that hit the street will be 64 bit… 64 bit may be a large majority now, hell Celeron processors are 64bit now.

Posted: 1/16/2006 7:35:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I know it has a slower clockspeed, but they are making it faster w/ via other means, not just by making it 64 bit.

And yes I know 32bit is dead.

Now you are dancing… it was you that interjected clock speed in to this as a measure.

Back pedaling now won’t change this post…

I expect that such a source will be comparing 32bit and 64bit of the same clockspeed, fsb, caches, etc...

Trapped yourself... you cannot have it both ways.

Posted: 1/16/2006 9:44:41 PM EDT

[#9]

32-bit isn't dead, , heh heh, , , -if you're buying a new Mac.
--------
Steve Jobs is a fucking idiot.
He dropped PPC so he could take advantage of "faster hardware", and he still chose not to support truly "generic" hardware--and now AMD is running faster than Intel.
So Macs are still gonna be slower!!!

......
He shoulda just sold the OS as installable on any PC, and also sold optional "Apple"-brand PC's.....
~~~~~~~

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:50:07 PM EDT

[#10]

Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

AMD's 64 bit CPUs are faster than the equivelent Intel chip when running in 32 bit mode, which is what that whole argument is about.

What you need in a new rig is dependent on what you do with it. For heavy duty gaming, go with an nVidia nForce 4 SLI system with the fastest CPU you can afford, 2 GB of high quality RAM (Corsair, Kingston, Cruical are all good names) teamed up with dual nVidia 7800GTX.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:52:01 PM EDT

[#11]

If you build your own, don't skimp on the PSU. Get yourself a good one, like an Antec 550W. Otherwise, you're gonna run into crashes and boot problems. I got myself a barebones system from magicmicro.com, and just popped in my own PSU, graphics, RAM, PCIs, and drives. I went to pricegrabber.com and searched for good deals on 300GB SATA hard drives. SATA and IDE are almost the same price these days, and the SATA cables are much smaller.

One extra thing to keep in mind, stay away from Maxtor Diamondmax SATA drives. They don't play well with Nforce-based mobos.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:56:11 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

Really? And I thought the FX60 was a dual core, aren't I the dumb shyte...

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:57:36 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

Really? And I thought the FX60 was a dual core, aren't I the dumb shyte...

The new FX-60 is a dual core... Its bassically 2 FX-55's.......

The normal FX-55 and FX-57 are the last of a dying breed.

Posted: 1/16/2006 10:58:45 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

One extra thing to keep in mind, stay away from Maxtor Diamondmax SATA drives. They don't play well with Nforce-based mobos.

Really? Might wanna tell my Maxtor Abit nForce 4 MB combo about that.

Actually, thats partly right, Its the nForce 4 Ultra and SLi... Of course mine is the Ultra and it worls perfectly fine, so who knows.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:01:23 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
i run 64bit fedora core 4 on my amd 3000+ system. no virus's no spyware. no homepage hijacks. no wallpaper hijacks. works good for internet, email, wordprocessing. only disadvantges. is movies, and audio doesn't always work. depends on system config

Hello their.
I just upgraded to FC4 & have 96% + of all my audio / video up and running.
Drop me A line if you need A hand.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:03:34 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

Really? And I thought the FX60 was a dual core, aren't I the dumb shyte...

The new FX-60 is a dual core... Its bassically 2 FX-55's.......

The normal FX-55 and FX-57 are the last of a dying breed.

Yes, I know.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:06:23 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

Really? And I thought the FX60 was a dual core, aren't I the dumb shyte...

The new FX-60 is a dual core... Its bassically 2 FX-55's.......

The normal FX-55 and FX-57 are the last of a dying breed.

So it is, but at $1300 a copy, who needs it?

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:12:14 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

So it is, but at $1300 a copy, who needs it?

Techno geeks.

It can be found much less than $1300. Ive seen several places that have it at just over $1000....
And the new nVidia cards are coming ouit in March I think.. 7900 series. Mmmmmmmmmmm

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:21:23 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:

One extra thing to keep in mind, stay away from Maxtor Diamondmax SATA drives. They don't play well with Nforce-based mobos.

Really? Might wanna tell my Maxtor Abit nForce 4 MB combo about that.

Actually, thats partly right, Its the nForce 4 Ultra and SLi... Of course mine is the Ultra and it worls perfectly fine, so who knows.

You have the Diamondmax series? I have Maxtor SATAs on an Asus NF4 ultra, but the Maxline III series. No probs here. It's only the Diamondmax series IIRC. Some firmware issue.

Posted: 1/16/2006 11:25:32 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

You have the Diamondmax series? I have Maxtor SATAs on an Asus NF4 ultra, but the Maxline III series. No probs here. It's only the Diamondmax series IIRC. Some firmware issue.

Got 2 of these

Plugged in, partioned and good to go....

Posted: 1/17/2006 4:02:25 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
i run 64bit fedora core 4 on my amd 3000+ system. no virus's no spyware. no homepage hijacks. no wallpaper hijacks. works good for internet, email, wordprocessing. only disadvantges. is movies, and audio doesn't always work. depends on system config

Hello their.
I just upgraded to FC4 & have 96% + of all my audio / video up and running.
Drop me A line if you need A hand.

what do you need to know about my four systems running fedora core 4

Posted: 1/17/2006 6:10:43 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

Really? And I thought the FX60 was a dual core, aren't I the dumb shyte...

The new FX-60 is a dual core... Its bassically 2 FX-55's.......

The normal FX-55 and FX-57 are the last of a dying breed.

So it is, but at $1300 a copy, who needs it?

Me me me me me

I only have an FX-57 in this machine, but overclocked to 3.4 Ghz, it is damn fast, dual core or not

Posted: 1/17/2006 7:47:54 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:

So it is, but at $1300 a copy, who needs it?

Techno geeks. It can be found much less than $1300. Ive seen several places that have it at just over $1000....
And the new nVidia cards are coming ouit in March I think.. 7900 series. Mmmmmmmmmmm

I looked at newegg before posting that.

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

Really? And I thought the FX60 was a dual core, aren't I the dumb shyte...

The new FX-60 is a dual core... Its bassically 2 FX-55's.......

The normal FX-55 and FX-57 are the last of a dying breed.

So it is, but at $1300 a copy, who needs it?

Me me me me me

I only have an FX-57 in this machine, but overclocked to 3.4 Ghz, it is damn fast, dual core or not

img.photobucket.com/albums/v392/adairtd/0001.jpg

I feel ya, I have a 4800+ X2 in my game rig.

Posted: 1/17/2006 9:38:44 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

So it is, but at $1300 a copy, who needs it?

Techno geeks. It can be found much less than $1300. Ive seen several places that have it at just over $1000....
And the new nVidia cards are coming ouit in March I think.. 7900 series. Mmmmmmmmmmm

I looked at newegg before posting that.

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sever things I have seen in this thread that need to be addressed:

The AMD FX series are not dual core. Only the X2 series are.

Really? And I thought the FX60 was a dual core, aren't I the dumb shyte...

The new FX-60 is a dual core... Its bassically 2 FX-55's.......

The normal FX-55 and FX-57 are the last of a dying breed.

So it is, but at $1300 a copy, who needs it?

Me me me me me

I only have an FX-57 in this machine, but overclocked to 3.4 Ghz, it is damn fast, dual core or not

img.photobucket.com/albums/v392/adairtd/0001.jpg

I feel ya, I have a 4800+ X2 in my game rig.

Ill let you know how the FX-60 runs when I get one

Posted: 1/17/2006 10:46:50 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

img.photobucket.com/albums/v392/adairtd/0001.jpg

Dang, this water-cooled stuff always amuses me. Aren't you worried about springing a leak and frying everything?

Posted: 1/17/2006 11:00:00 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:

img.photobucket.com/albums/v392/adairtd/0001.jpg

Dang, this water-cooled stuff always amuses me. Aren't you worried about springing a leak and frying everything?

Nope, not worried at all. As long as the person installing it does it correctly (in this case, me), you shouldnt ever have any issues.

Posted: 1/27/2006 6:50:50 PM EDT

[#27]

well, winXPx64 trial doesn't load on my new PC I just built. (3200 AMD x2/asus A8V)

gonna do straight xppro

Posted: 1/27/2006 7:38:59 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
well, winXPx64 trial doesn't load on my new PC I just built. (3200 AMD x2/asus A8V)

gonna do straight xppro

details??

why error messages. hardware not compatible .... what

Posted: 1/27/2006 7:51:17 PM EDT

[#29]

some sort of memory problem.. I may have figured it out... running a live version of Ubuntu to see whats up.

oh, and I errored... AMD 3800 X2

Posted: 1/27/2006 8:03:55 PM EDT

[#30]

ok, here I am posting via Ubuntu Live x64.. seems to be working ok....

maybe I'll try and run XPx64 again..

(this is all trial.. I bought a 250gig SATA drive to use with this machine but I wanted to see this thing up and running before I hosed that drive

using a 20g IDE drive at the moment.

Posted: 1/27/2006 8:39:52 PM EDT

[#31]

Ok, here's whats happening:

"A problem has been detected and windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer.

A process or thread crucial to system operation has unexpectedly exited or been terminated.

If this is the first time you've seen this Stop error screen, restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps:

Check to make sure any new hardware or software is properly installed. If this is a new installation, ask your hardware or software manufacturer for any widows updates you might need.

If problems continue, disable or remove any newly installed hardware or software. Disable BIOS memory options such as caching or shadowing. If you need to use safe mode to remove or disable components, restart your computer, press F8 to select Advanced Startup Options, and then select Safe Mode.

Technical information:

*** STOP: 0x000000F4 (0x0000000000000003, 0xFFFFFADFE741EC20, 0xFFFFFADFE741EE88, 0xFFFFF800013A8750)

Begining dump of pysical memory....."

happens on "Installing Windows" and everytime at about "34 minutes remaining" it stops and throws out the above BSOD.

Windows XPpro x64 eval
Asus A8V mb
AMD 3800 Athlon 64 X2
Asus v9400 video w/128mb ddr.
ide dvd
ide hdd
fdd
512 Mb PC3200

Posted: 1/27/2006 9:34:55 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Ok, here's whats happening:

"A problem has been detected and windows has been shut down to prevent damage to your computer.

A process or thread crucial to system operation has unexpectedly exited or been terminated.

If this is the first time you've seen this Stop error screen, restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps:

Check to make sure any new hardware or software is properly installed. If this is a new installation, ask your hardware or software manufacturer for any widows updates you might need.

If problems continue, disable or remove any newly installed hardware or software. Disable BIOS memory options such as caching or shadowing. If you need to use safe mode to remove or disable components, restart your computer, press F8 to select Advanced Startup Options, and then select Safe Mode.

Technical information:

*** STOP: 0x000000F4 (0x0000000000000003, 0xFFFFFADFE741EC20, 0xFFFFFADFE741EE88, 0xFFFFF800013A8750)

Begining dump of pysical memory....."

happens on "Installing Windows" and everytime at about "34 minutes remaining" it stops and throws out the above BSOD.

Windows XPpro x64 eval
Asus A8V mb
AMD 3800 Athlon 64 X2
Asus v9400 video w/128mb ddr.
ide dvd
ide hdd
fdd
512 Mb PC3200

A8V... that is an older motherboard I don’t think ASUS is making them anymore... Check what BIOS you currently have on that board you may need to upgrade.

Make SURE you know which version of the A8V you have:
A8V
A8V Deluxe
A8V-E Deluxe
A8v-SE
ect…

I have a A8V Deluxe and have installed Windows x64 with no problems.

Posted: 1/27/2006 10:21:52 PM EDT

[#33]

Other things being equal (and they're usually not) the 64 bit CPUs will often be somewhat slower than 32 bit CPUs for most consumer applications.

The problem is that 64 bit CPUs have pointers that are 64 bits long rather than 32 bits long, which makes the binary code bulkier. That takes up more room in the CPU cache--in effect, the cache holds less code in 64 bit applications than in 32 bit applications, which can cost you about 10% in increased cache misses. There are exceptions to this phenomenon for some applications. SSL seems to run much faster under 64 bits because the registers can hold an entire 64 bit cypher block, and that's a big deal for a server running https handling a lot of connections. (Not so much for a client machine.) The other major 64 bit advantage is the ability to easily address more than 2 GB of memory in a user process, which most consumers don't need to do. And if you do need to do it, you probably want more than 2 GB of physical memory to avoid page faults in your big honkin' application.

In OS X they actually turned off 64 bits for the GUI interface libraries because it was slower than 32 bit code.

Posted: 1/28/2006 5:00:22 AM EDT

[#34]

I know I should have updated bios first... didnt really have a way as this computer I'm on now only has cdrw. I have aquired other means and will do the bios update in a few m inutes.

I found some FAQ on line and have been running Memtest86+ since last night... I've got quite a few errors and they've been pretty much happening in the same tests.
I've got 2 sticks of 512mb PC3200 (non-ECC)... thought I'd have no problem since it worked fine in my 1.4 gig machine I'm replacing.. oh well..

thanks for your input so far.

Posted: 1/28/2006 5:39:24 AM EDT

[#35]

try reseating both sticks of ram

then try just one stick at a time

Posted: 1/28/2006 6:01:42 AM EDT

[#36]

If you want to build an inexpensive computer look up what was the hot set-up two years ago and build one of them.

My current computer is three years old, and it's plenty fast enough to surf ARFcom and pr0n.

Posted: 1/28/2006 6:10:28 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
xp 64bit sucks ass.
2 sets of binary's is sooooo nt 3.51 and its friggin annoying
driver support sucks.
the os is buggy, M$ is firesaleing it because its crap, its cheaper than normal xp because its a substandard products.
Just use XP pro, chances are you'll never have more than 4gb or ram, let alone need to address it in windows.

If you want a 64bit desktop os, try Suse10 x64.

never have more than 4 gigs of ram? 10 years ago i upgraded my 486dx33 from 4 megs of ram to 8.

running a gig right now.

Posted: 1/28/2006 7:17:51 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I got this all for less than 1400 (not counting monitor, hard drives, or optical drives) -

Mostly built it as a budget machine to take to LAN parties, since my main machine is watercooled, and I dont like packing it up and taking it anywhere.

Asus A8N-SLi Premium
Athlon64 4000+ San Diego
eVGA 7800GTX
2gb Crucial (got it cheap at work)
500w PSU
Thermaltake Armor case
Thermalright XP-120 heatsink, and Panaflo 120mm fan

If your budget is less than that, there are a lot of ways to cut costs.

-----------------------------

Jeez you don't play around. That thing has propellors and wings and looks like it's ready for take off.

Posted: 1/28/2006 7:28:53 AM EDT

[#39]

I think it's a memory issue...

one particular stick causes problems...

think I'll get some new ones today and see whats up.

synopsis-

two stick in, Ubuntu live doesnt even finish loading

remove one stick.. Ubuntu works

swap sticks.. Ubuntu doesnt boot fully

place first stick back in and it does boot.

running Memtest86+ on one stick at a time now..

Posted: 1/28/2006 7:38:28 PM EDT

[#40]

I am so PO'd..

I cant get window xp (pro or X64) to finish install.

and I'm having problems with Ubuntu now too..

wtf?

I have NEVER had a problem of this magnitude b4 and I've been doing it on/off since '94. #$%^&*

Posted: 1/29/2006 6:20:09 AM EDT

[#41]

is this running on only one stick of ram?

Posted: 1/29/2006 6:32:21 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
is this running on only one stick of ram?

yes. same results with one or two sticks.

(and yes, the single stick is in the appropriate slot as indicated in the MB manual)

Posted: 1/31/2006 9:12:34 AM EDT

[#43]

Ok in reading this thread, it's now time for me to upgrade my 5 year old computer. One big question though, is there a big difference between PCI Express x16 and AGP 8X? I'm looking at a slight upgrade to the 2006.01.07 standard workstation linked on page 1, but need it to game a bit.

Posted: 1/31/2006 9:22:16 AM EDT

[#44]

what kind of ram is it. name brand. speed, latency

certain brands of memory do not work well in all boards.

Posted: 1/31/2006 9:23:50 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Ok in reading this thread, it's now time for me to upgrade my 5 year old computer. One big question though, is there a big difference between PCI Express x16 and AGP 8X? I'm looking at a slight upgrade to the 2006.01.07 standard workstation linked on page 1, but need it to game a bit.

APG is effective dead, it will be around awhile yet but PCI Express x16 is the future. Most of the new top end and even mid-range video cards are offered in PCI Express x16 only. If you are planning a new computer it makes no sense to go with APG as it is a dead end and PCI Express in going to give the new computer a longer potential upgrade life.

Posted: 1/31/2006 9:58:16 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok in reading this thread, it's now time for me to upgrade my 5 year old computer. One big question though, is there a big difference between PCI Express x16 and AGP 8X? I'm looking at a slight upgrade to the 2006.01.07 standard workstation linked on page 1, but need it to game a bit.

APG is effective dead, it will be around awhile yet but PCI Express x16 is the future. Most of the new top end and even mid-range video cards are offered in PCI Express x16 only. If you are planning a new computer it makes no sense to go with APG as it is a dead end and PCI Express in going to give the new computer a longer potential upgrade life.

Yep

Performance wise - AGP is just as good as PCI-Express. The available bandwidth of the AGP 8x bus hasnt even been remotely challenged yet, but PCI-Express is the new hotness, so AGP is going the way of the dinosaur.