Question about Athlon64

I

Intel182

New Member
The other day, I bought a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz w/ HT. (1 GB RAM) I am a gamer and people are now saying to me that i should have gotten an Athlon64 or an AMD chip at least. What is the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit one? Isn't 3.2 ghz really powerful? And will 32-bit processors become obselete within the next 2 years? Because I am going to upgrade to an Athlon 64 3500+, but not for at least another 1 and a half years.
 
Basically 64bit CPUs can address more memory. A 3.2GHz P4 is powerful, an Athlon64 would be more so but your P4 wont game bad. I think some people will still run 32bit CPUs in 2 years but no more new ones will be sold/designed.
 
Intel182 said:
Ok, thanks Cromewell, I just hope I'm still able to play next-gen games on it:(
Click to expand...

that also depends on your graphics card. Amd 64's are better at gaming because they haev onboard memory controllers.
 
well, unfortunately, its only a 6200 TurboCache, but if I upgrade to, say a 6800 Ultra at least, it should be fine to run all future applications(I hope). Because at the moment, i can only run Call of Duty 2 on medium-high settings in 800x600 and I have a strong feeling that the reason this is happening is because of my 6200.
 
Intel182 said:
The other day, I bought a Pentium 4 3.2 ghz w/ HT. (1 GB RAM) I am a gamer and people are now saying to me that i should have gotten an Athlon64 or an AMD chip at least. What is the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit one? Isn't 3.2 ghz really powerful? And will 32-bit processors become obselete within the next 2 years? Because I am going to upgrade to an Athlon 64 3500+, but not for at least another 1 and a half years.
Click to expand...


To your comment on 32.ghz being powerfull, When comparing AMD and INTEL, do not compare the ghz, the archetecture of the chip's are different a,d 2.0ghz could possibily beat a 3.4ghz intel...
 
uhhhh are you sure a 2 ghz CPU could beat an Intel 3.4 ghz CPU? Thats a bit of an exaduration. It would more likely beat 2.8 or 2.9 ghz Intel CPU, not 3.4. Because if you get a 2.6 ghz AMD chip (OC'd), thatd be the equivalent to about 3.9-4.2 ghz or more. And theres no such home desktop processor speed as of yet, unless its an ex-workstation computer.
 
Actually, it's quite possible. The AMD Athlon 64 3200+ has a clock speed of 2.0Ghz, and would rival a P4 3.4 Ghz in some games.

And yeh, it's the graphics card that's holding you up. If you've got the money, look for something like a 6800GS, or even a 7800GT. For something cheaper, the 6600GT is quite good.
 
Last edited:
Oh, great. Now you guys are making it sound like I wasted my money (even though i probably did). I need someone to say that my compy will last me at least 2 years before i switch to an Athlon64. You guys are making 3.2 ghz sound so weak (it probably is though).
 
Intel182 said:
Oh, great. Now you guys are making it sound like I wasted my money (even though i probably did). I need someone to say that my compy will last me at least 2 years before i switch to an Athlon64. You guys are making 3.2 ghz sound so weak (it probably is though).
Click to expand...

Dont pank, your machine is good. It's true that an amd vs intel comparison based on clock speed is useless, the chips are just totally different. But trust me your 3.2GHz is a powerful chip and will last some time. 2 years is a long time in computing but if you get a good graphics card then your intel will see you playing the top games in 2 years no problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top