*HOT!* Pentium4 Emergency Edition for only $857 at the Egg! :D

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: formulav8
You can get a AthlonFX cheaper than that.

Jason

you can get an athlonfx and a motherboard for that price :Q

 

[NightCrawler]

Windows XP 64 edition will offer about 20% speed bump......not bad but not twice as fast. People with Athlon 64's and the preview edition have said they noticed a difference to how Windows XP ran.

Some games will be optimized for AMD64 !

 

[Snoop]

Some games will be optimized for AMD64 !

UT2k4 is going to have a version optomized to run on x86-64 (i heard its basically ready to roll, their waithing on windows 64). Also i understand Half Life 2 will have a x86-64 version.

 

[laugh]

you can only buy 99. too bad i want to buy 10000 to build a cluster and beat the crap out of VT's Mac cluster.

 

[Gagabiji]

Originally posted by: QSnexus
"twices as gooder"

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mjquilly
whatever, the opteronion has 64 bits, that's twice as many bits, so it IS twices as gooder. and the SATA drives have about 3-4X the throughput on all the benchmarks i've done.

mmm onion

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Redviffer
From the article:

Gaming is the one area in the preview that is a disappointment. As you can see, the standard benchmark games under XP64 Preview were 4% to 51% slower than 32-bit, with the average speed about 20% slower. It is far too early to reach any conclusions in this area, but there is a lot of driver optimization to be done to make up this kind of delta. With the CPU and memory providing faster 64-bit performance, we have to believe the drivers play a big part in this disappointing gaming performance.

I'm thinking this is certainly a driver issue, as everything else shows a gain from 32 to 64bit. Certainly not 2x performance though.

i' dhave to say that the windows xp 64 beta problems are not because of the processor. in linux the amd64 is pretty much universally faster.

the main difference given that no one uses 4 gb of ram, from using 32 or 64 on an amd64 chip, is that the 64bit mode, allows you to use 16 general purpose registers. compiled 64bit code or a 64bit kernel, will have been compiled to not have to do as many register swaps, etc. thats proabbly where the 5-10% improvement is coming from.

 

[toant103]

Originally posted by: mjquilly

Originally posted by: GetSome681

Originally posted by: formulav8
You can get a AthlonFX cheaper than that. And it is faster in most things. And you have a free performance boost when you upgrade to windows xp 64bit.


Jason

When are people going to realize that moving from 32 bit to 64 bit doesn't equal 2x the performance. Sure it adds performance in other areas, but the switch from 32-64 itself doesn't.

check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.

hahaha

 

[JerkyChew]

With a 64-bit proc, I just have to install 2 copies of XP 32-bit, and they both run at 100%, right?

 

[moks78]

check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: QSnexus
"twices as gooder"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64 = 32 X 2 ...twices as gooder!...correcto mundo! 2X many bits 2x faster! LOL!

 

[KillaKilla]

[MOCKING] t3h 32 bitz0rz h4s b33ned t3h pwnz0red! w00tzorz!!!1!!!two!![/MOCKING]

Regardless ,the A64 +3000 outperforms the P4 exlax edition. Also, it'll get even better once XP64 gets a SP or two out...

 

[Madcat207]

While this is a crap-fest, i need to point out some things..

1) the Xp64 thing... how relevant is that? I mean, right now, there are no external ATI drivers, and one set of NV beta drivers (same for chipsets, etc). Give it time. Also, while gaming isnt as good, encoding flat out rocks (100-200% increase in speed).

2) When will YOU guys learn there is more to the A64 than just the 64? For one, it has a much better memory bus, and a much better FSB architecture. The 32bit performance has been improved, and SSE2 added. THEN you can add in the 64bit and increased memory handling..

3) I can get a 1MB 3400+ for ALOT cheaper than i can get this "emergency edition". Or, if you want to talk about wastes of money, look at the "lavacott"....

 

[etee]

for the record the new architecture is called AMD-64 not x86-64, as originally planned on. AMD is following in footsteps of Intel and their 64-bit architecture EPIC (aka IA-64).

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: mjquilly
whatever, the opteronion has 64 bits, that's twice as many bits, so it IS twices as gooder. and the SATA drives have about 3-4X the throughput on all the benchmarks i've done.

actually 64 bit binaries are slower then their 32 bit counterparts, as theres no optimized software available. Its just more leading 0 for the processor to deal with

 

[ActuaryTm]

Originally posted by: mjquilly
whatever, the opteronion has 64 bits, that's twice as many bits, so it IS twices as gooder. and the SATA drives have about 3-4X the throughput on all the benchmarks i've done.

One has to be overwhelmingly impressed by this insight. We should all keep a careful watch for mjquilly winning a Darwin award. Very soon.

 

[Faster7]

"Pentium4 Emergency Edition"

I got a good laugh out of that...

 

[TrentSteel]

Originally posted by: rdgr8

check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: QSnexus
"twices as gooder"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64 = 32 X 2 ...twices as gooder!...correcto mundo! 2X many bits 2x faster! LOL!

Confirmed!

 

[CGRDylo]

price went up to $865, making it no longer as good a deal

 

[GotIssues]

Originally posted by: TrentSteel

Originally posted by: rdgr8

check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: QSnexus
"twices as gooder"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64 = 32 X 2 ...twices as gooder!...correcto mundo! 2X many bits 2x faster! LOL!

Confirmed!

Ahahaha

 

[mjquilly]

i just found out that if you drill small holes at the 4 corners of the operonions, they decapitate heat much better. i can't believe the performance i'm seeing!!!!!!!!!


<- wondering how many of you are still taking these statements seriously, and how rediculous i have to get before you stop.

 

[geekender]

The heat spreader on the 64bit chips is so big that you no longer need a heatsink. Besides, heatsinks trap all that hot air underneath anyway. You will see a huge performance boost by removing the heatsink I hear.

 

[Lurker1]

Originally posted by: Triggerhappy007

Originally posted by: GetSome681

Originally posted by: formulav8
You can get a AthlonFX cheaper than that. And it is faster in most things. And you have a free performance boost when you upgrade to windows xp 64bit.

When are people going to realize that moving from 32 bit to 64 bit doesn't equal 2x the performance. Sure it adds performance in other areas, but the switch from 32-64 itself doesn't.

Jason never mentioned anything about 2X the performance.

it's 2+ times the performance for 64 bit operations, and you get 16GB of memory addressing space. Additionally, IO may be faster, or it opens the possibility of larger drives. (Don't know the actual innards of file system drivers and how they handle large disk addressing, clusters of sectors was the original answer to exceed the memory addressing space on disks).

So, no, for 16bit integer ops, it won't be faster. For 64bit integer or doubles (or anything else 64bit) you betcha.

Now, what's the real scoop on that: for 99% of your everyday tasks (email, web surfing, gaming) there will be no real difference, as none are written for 64bitness. Scientific/photographic type programs generally are more cutting edge in this realm.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: JerkyChew
With a 64-bit proc, I just have to install 2 copies of XP 32-bit, and they both run at 100%, right?

Weh have teh winnar!

 

[Tom93R1]

Originally posted by: halik


actually 64 bit binaries are slower then their 32 bit counterparts, as theres no optimized software available. Its just more leading 0 for the processor to deal with

I work for a software company, when we benchmark against our competitors on 64 bit Solaris machines we run with 32 bit software because it is faster. All those extra 0's in front of the memory addresses slow things down quite a bit. 64-bit is only better when you have HUGE files that need manipulating. Very rarely is 64-bit an advantage, expecially to the home user.

 

[eyeguy]

I found a 4 bit cpu
chipmonc
the we will have no leading zeros

Originally posted by: Tom93R1

Originally posted by: halik


actually 64 bit binaries are slower then their 32 bit counterparts, as theres no optimized software available. Its just more leading 0 for the processor to deal with

I work for a software company, when we benchmark against our competitors on 64 bit Solaris machines we run with 32 bit software because it is faster. All those extra 0's in front of the memory addresses slow things down quite a bit. 64-bit is only better when you have HUGE files that need manipulating. Very rarely is 64-bit an advantage, expecially to the home user.

chipmonc