64bit cpu's

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

childsy_1985

Member
im thinking of using a 64bit chip when I build my new computer because i heard that they're faster or something but what I need to know is if the 64bit chip will run in any motherboard or do I have to buy a motherboard specifficaly to support 64bit. thanks.
 
Any motherboard where the CPU fits it will run because when 64bit CPUs came out they brought a new socket with them (with the exception of the P4F but I don't think you will find one of those).
 
yea Athlon 64 or intel EM64T?
if it is AMD then you need a 754 or 939 socket. also, they sell $60 semprons that support 64 bit. i suggest athlon 64 though. also, 939 socket will be more upgradeable so get a 939 socket if its in your budget.
if its EM64T then it sucks.
 
What's with this ridiculus fanboyism.

Making such statements without backing it up with facts simply shows how knowledgeable they are. :)
 
Last edited:
tweaker said:
What's with this ridiculus fanboyism.

Making such statements without backing it up with facts simply shows how knowledgeable they are. :)
Click to expand...
Do we really need facts for the obvious? AMD has been the performance king for quite a few months now.
 
clkProject said:
Do we really need facts for the obvious?
Click to expand...

Fanboyism like above is plain stupid and nobody around here likes it.

AMD has been the performance king for quite a few months now.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but when you bring price into the calculation AMD isn't always the obvious choise. Besides, when you need benchmarks (some who can be questioned) to tell a difference, AMD's superiority is even more undermined. Most people won't be able to tell a real world difference in their everyday tasks anyway. AMD doesn't excel in every task there is so let's hold of with the performance king crowning shall we.

Personally I like (and own) both Intel and AMD, for the record.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but when you bring price into the calculation AMD isn't always the obvious choise. Besides, when you need benchmarks (some who can be questioned) to tell a difference, AMD's superiority is even more undermined.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ok.

$1059 - Pentium 4EE 3.73ghz
$995 - Athlon 64 FX-57

Can you answer to that?

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/06/27/athlon_64_fx/page12.html

"It is not particularly surprising to see the Athlon 64 FX-57 outperform its single core competitors. The 2.8 GHz part is even powerful enough to compete with fast Intel Pentium 4 processors in their best areas, such as video or audio encoding or rendering tasks."

Now I know it's comparing against a 3.6GHz P4, which is slower than the 3.73 EE, but the performance increase with the EE would still not be able to match AMD.
 
Last edited:
wow $60 difference. If you are in the market for those processors that means nothing to you. Sure AMD wins in benchmarks but realistically you usually will not see any difference
 
ok read this article http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/09/amd/
this proves that AMD is better. the intel 3.2ghz dual core with hyperthreading enabled on both cores performs worse than a dual core 4800+ running at 2.4ghz. try to beat amd. also, the review shows that intel's processor uses more power while IDLING than the 4800+ does under full load. beat that!
AMD>intel
fanboyism... you're a dumbass
 
Last edited:
another fact to prove you wrong: intel performs with 800mhz fsb... AMD performs with 800mhz/1000mhz fsb HYPERTRANSPORT which works like DDR... it performs like 1600mhz or 2000mhz in many applications... and in the ones that it doesnt, it doesnt need to.
this, in turn, makes up for AMD's only flaw. DDR400 is its top support in RAM. however, reports say that by 2008 amd will support DDR3... who knows.
also, intel makes you spend EVEN MORE FOR FASTER RAM? who wants to do that after spending $240 extra for a worse processor. haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top