-
Ultimate Member
Maybe if there are faster audio editing and utilities available. With computers you need to get the hardware necessary to run the software you wish to use.
-
a good programmer can get around those problems. just look at quake1. no need for a 3D card, but still among the best of it's time.
-
Ultimate Member
A good programmer would probably love to have the 64 bit and HT or dually.
Last edited by genesound; 11-29-2002 at 11:27 AM.
-
AMD Names New 64-Bit Processor
I think I'll go ahead an build a new system anyway. I've really found it beneficial to stay a tad behind the technology... bugs get worked out, more support, and COST goes down.... not to mention when the new stuff starts (i.e. the Athlon 64 {i agree on the naming}), the technology and components you've been wanting to get hold of are even cheaper! Usually.
On an afterthought... I really hope that AMD/Intel begin to concentrate more on the bottlenecks... like the system board, PCI slots (although 64bit is here), etc. Any comments?
Take care folks.
--CWR
-
Member
I have to agree with cntrowland on this one. I haven't been on top of the technology in years, but I'm still plugging along OK. I have a Hewlett Packard system that I bought off a business, because it was going under. A real nice PIII system with a SCSI 160 hard disk-and to my surprise, it had 64-bit PCI slots! Of course, searching for 64-bit PCI cards was a futile effort-they don't exsist for people like me. The chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and right now the CPU isn't that weak link.
-Aarmenaa
-
i'd love a 64-bit pci slot . . .
-
Banned
My biggest concern for all of you is this: Will this be another Cyrix like processor? Cyrix was a **** processor but it kicked **** at office 97 and other operations because it speed up the 16 bit pipeline for those simple operations.
-
-
AMD, (LameHammer), name...
Hi All..., I agree w/you all. The name is sooooo 'Straight' sounding! If they're going to stick w/Hammer..., how about "SledgeHammer" or "JackHammer". Or, even" 'telWrecker" or "InsideStomper"??? ~daav1~ =)
-
Senior Member
-
Ultimate Member
Originally posted by causticVapor
The 386 was 16-bit, while the 486 was 32-bit.
The 486 was a 32bit chip internally, I was looking at the wrong line on my table - I should be more careful. HEHE
Last edited by rraehal; 12-18-2002 at 04:19 PM.
-
Junior Member
Athlon 64 is going to rock!
What people don't get is that the 64-bit processor will replace 32-bit processors on a price point. They won't be horribly more expensive. It essentially displaces current 32-bit processors and takes their current price point. It's like getting a 64-bit upgrade for free! Not to mention that it kicks *** in 32-bit apps too. So if it were out would you rather buy a 64-bit processor that will be supported in the future, has greater functionality, and increased value or 32-bit chips that are built on an aging and soon to be dying archetecture. The current benchmarks are based on a 800Mhz version of the chip, but they still kick major *** for a 800Mhz chip. And I can't wait to see the performance numbers when the ship is running at around the expected clock frequency of around 2Ghz.
Who needs 64-bit now? Well maybe poeople don't now, but when software comes out (it's really simple to port to 64-bit... i read somewhere that it took IBM only a couple of days to port DB2 to X86-64.) and when it does, I can simply run those programs with no system upgrade, while enjoying great performace with current software. I'm definately getting a shiny new Athlon 64 when they come out.
-
i think i still prefer the IBM architecture
-
Member
X86-64
I feel the X86-64 Bit Platform will benifit in many ways.
1) From Toms Hardware it runs at 1.6 Ghz @ 64 bit (Meaning that is 3.2 Ghz at 32 bit speeds)
2) the Mac risc motorola is at 1.25 Ghz they are 64 bit
3) the Transistion between 32 bit and 64 bit this benifits in Both ways (Not all of us will want to fork out 9000 US for Windows XP 64 bit edition
4) we can still run a 32 bit OS and 32 bit applications if we need to goto a 64 bit platform then we do not need to fork out 7000 Dollars for an Itanium II and still Running at 800 - 1000 Mhz
This baby will Probably go for 700 US
These are Just My Views on this Processor
I am Very much looking forward to it
-
I really don't understand it....
All of you asking if you really need the speed??? Would you buy a car that didn't go over 100 MPH??!?!?!??!
Just because the speed limit is 55....
Come on get real!!!!
Most people want the newest out, just because.....AMD see this, I love AMD.
I sat back this upgrading season, no Athlon XPs, or P4s for me, just stuck with my AMD K62 @ 500MHz......
Next season, it's Athlon 64....
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|