Page 1 of 1
athlon 64 v athlon xp
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:32 am
by Anon
ime looking to upgrade my system in a few weeks but ime not sure where i shud turn.
ive seen some good results from the amd 64's but this means having to totaly rebuild my pc :S
both options are about the same price (maby £10 difference)
help plz (lol)
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 12:22 pm
by Kyllian
No expert, but from what I've been reading/hearing, the 64's aren't worth the $$ at the moment since so few applications actually implement all the extra bells and such of the 64.
More apps will over time, but by then, it'll probably be fairly old chip(in computer hardware standards, a few months old can be considered ancient)
Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:02 pm
by General_Sun
You are insane if you think that a AMDXP is faster than a 64. Look at the numbers, it doens't matter if they have the extra stuff, it's simply faster!
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:39 am
by TKATK
General_Sun wrote:You are insane if you think that a AMDXP is faster than a 64. Look at the numbers, it doens't matter if they have the extra stuff, it's simply faster!
he doesnt mean the XP is faster,just that the 64 is currently overpriced becouse none of its bells&whistles&trains get used currently
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 9:11 am
by Anon
price wise between those pc specs theres not much difference.
but ime gona be running some power hungry apps, i.e. ut 2004 and a game server thats very demanding.
but i have a beta of longhorn (not very good one
)
Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:20 pm
by jb
If price is the same then get the 64. You can get beta versions of WinXP 64 bit leagaly and try it out. The AMD64 also have other enhancments, for example the memory controller is in the CPU it-self not on the "north-brige" like the older chips. Granted its 64bit prefromacne is uknown but its 32bit is as fast or a touch faster than the normal AMD....
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 4:40 am
by Sporx
boo ATI
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:58 am
by TKATK
Sporx wrote:boo ATI
9800 pro>its nvidia conterpart
but the newest nvidia>the newest radeon
thats it
becouse the 9800's counterpart is slower
but the newest one is the only to have PS3.0 support
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 2:21 pm
by jb
TKATK wrote:but the newest one is the only to have PS3.0 support
I would not want to base my buying choice of a $400 on just PS3.0 support. While having PS3.0 support is good, the Farcry 1.2 patched showed that the new ATI cards can keep up and suppase the 6800 even with the 6800 having PS3.0 support. Also back in the 4600 vrs 8500 the 8500 ATI cards could use PS1.4 that should have been faster than the GF4. However in 3d mark 2001 Advanced pixel shader test, the PS1.4 advantage did not help the 8500 to be faster.
Moral of the story don't believe the marketing hype. PS3.0 is a good thing to have but dont by into the gotta have hype. I did back when I got my original GF card. NV promised us 100 TnL titles by xmas of that year. I remember buying the Matrox card to get bump mapping 3 years ago. I remember getting the GF3 to use all of the cool DX8 games that were coming out. And I got the 9700pro to use in all of the DX9 games. Each time I got a card for this feature I had to wait at least 1 year if not longer to see that feature used. And since I upgrade my video every year I never saw that feature used. Well I give my old card to my sons PC, so I did see it used...just not in my PC.
So buy the card cause it playes what you want today well. And save tomorrow...for...tomorrow
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:12 pm
by Anon
jb wrote:So buy the card cause it playes what you want today well. And save tomorrow...for...tomorrow
putting it that way and reading what i have read, i might aswell keep my 9800 pro which i payed peanuts for, and get a slightly fater amd 64, or just save the cash
tnx for the info guys
