Athlon 64

[Kumaiti]

Hi people.

I tried to find clear about this but I couldn't...

IS the Athlon 64 really GOOD or still not useful ??

Also, how I can compare the speeds between a Pentium IV and an Athlon (not necessarily an Athlon 64...)

I am thinking about buying a laptop but I can´t figure out what is the fastest option. I have seen several Pentium IV3.06 and 2.8 HT and AMD Athlon 2500 and I don´t know which is best.

Thanks a lot

[rik148755]

SiSofts SANDRA can give you comparisons between CPUs..
As for whether a 64 is useful, I honestly could not tell you.

SANDRA:

http://www.sisoftware.net/

[Abbadon]

as far as I get it, a 64 will be just as usefull as a 32, up untill the point when we will have a 64bit OS with 64bit applications. Up untill then, regard the 64 as a 32.

To compare intels and amds: Sisoftsandra will do the trick. There are many other benchmark-progrmas about and many many many many review-and-compare-sites (just one of which is toms hardware)

[halovivek]

the main thing is that the 64-bit processor is good for high end operations like servers. i think when it is used in server it is quite ok. now the microsoft company is trying to built the OS in high bit capacity .so it is good

[rik148755]

Quick question: Why did the 64 get released if it can not be fully utilised?

[pave_spectre]

1. Marketing. AMD's 64 bit is a nice little PR boost over Intel, especially since it's still 32 bit compatible.

2. Encourage developers to produce more 64 bit optimised programs, by creating a demand.

3. If you happen to be using Gentoo or SuSe Linux they already have 64 bit support in their official versions.

[rik148755]

I see, thanks for the relpy! ;)

[saphalline]

IS the Athlon 64 really GOOD or still not useful ??As x86 CPU's, the Athlon 64 (K8) family is quite excellent. While not as media-friendly as the P4's NetBurst architecture (with its long pipeline), it is better at less predictable code like games. And the fact that the memory controller is built right into the CPU core sure helps a lot!

Once 64-bit code becomes common, Intel will have released their own bootstrapped 64-bit CPU, so Intel and AMD will be on even ground again. But the idea that you can buy an AMD Athlon 64 now and be set for the next wave of software is enticing. And it may be an upgrade decider for those who don't feel like buying an expensive 32-bit P4 now, and having to shell out money for another 64-bit P4/P5 later.

Like anything else, there are pro's and con's to the whole 32-bit vs 64-bit debate. In the end, only you can decide for yourself, but I will say that the Athlon 64's are darn good processors.

Also, how I can compare the speeds between a Pentium IV and an Athlon (not necessarily an Athlon 64...)I second the recommendation of SiSoft Sandra. How ever you care to pronounce it ;) it's a crack-shot program at comparing different platforms and/or CPU's (depending on how good you are at using Sandra).

Take some time to cruise the web and look for laptop/notebook comparisons in particular. Since you can't design your own laptop, you are at the mercy of what you can find available. Also, I suspect from your comments that you are looking for a top-end laptop. But just in case you want another perspective, consider Intel's Pentium M (aka "Centrino" platform). Designed for lower-end systems, the Pentium M is nonetheless a powerful mobile CPU. Clock-for-clock, it rivals the AMD CPU's in pure power and performance. If you want the fastest kid on the block for a myriad of software programs, I would lean towards the P4 with HT. Slightly cooler than the AMD ones, and just as versatile.

Quick question: Why did the 64 get released if it can not be fully utilised?This happens every time CPU's get "doubled". The only differences this time are 1) AMD did it, not Intel and 2) the previous bit revolutions happened long before computers became widespread.

The last time, when we went from 16-bit CPU's to 32-bit CPU's, was the 386 processor from Intel, released in 1985. This was so long ago that built-in FPU's weren't a standard x86 CPU feature for another 5+ years! Not to mention that 32-bit OSes and software wasn't readily available until the original Windows came out. Even then, it wasn't until Windows 95 that a 32-bit optimized OS came out. Hopefully it won't take 10 years this time to see the advantages of 64-bit code. :rolleyes: