64bit or not?

[Zar]

Brother wants a new computer, doesnt have a huge budget but wants to know if it is worth it to get a 64bit computer or not. Ideally he wants his computer to last at least 3-4 years, but is not sure whether the rise in price for a 64bit computer is worth paying for (if there will be no use for it, for a few years). Note this computer will be self-built (so will be cheaper than ready made).

Also is http://www.ebuyer.com a good/cheap place to buy hardware? Is there something better.

Also i feel this thread is appropriate in GD (because decision has to be made very quickly.

64 bit - yay or nay?

[Superpig #1]

nay

Get a 1028 bit

[Phang]

i've got a nice shiny Athlon 64 3200. it's cheap, its good, its futureproof. hurrah.

[meglamaniac]

Its complicated.
The cheaper Athlon64s are 754 pin which is a system on it's way out. No more 754 pin processors are being released, which means any system built on a 754 pin processor is going to be un-upgradeable in 12 months time.
However, the more expensive ones are 939 pin, which is AMDs new favourite system. However, the cheapest you can get a 939 pin Athlon64 is £200ish right now (although set to fall significantly by xmas).

Daft eh?
If you're not bothered about upgradability, I'd get a low end 754 pin Athlon64. At least when Longhorn finally comes out you'll be able to run it as it should be run.
Also, if you're into that sort of thing, Athlon64s perform significantly better than their equivilant rated AthlonXP sibling, while using less power and producing less heat, so they're good for building quiet but fast PCs with.

[mist]

personally, i don't see the point in 64 bit yet unless you plan to run linux.

however, as i tend to go through a computer every 12-15 months odds are i'll be buying another before longhorn anyway, hence the lack of interest. ofc, i'd be looking at the fastish ones, which are probably 64 bit at the moment anyway but would view it as a bonus rather than a decision point

-mist

[Structural Integrity]

Depends on what you plan to use the computer for. 32 bit processors will be around for quite a while. So, support for these processors will stay for a while.

I'm not sure if having a 64 bit processor will be a good choice at this very moment. There is no way of telling how fast the 32 bit processors will disappear. There is no way of telling in which way leading edge software (games) will benefit from 64 bit extensions in the future. There is no way of telling when the first Windows with 64 bit support will come out.

At this moment you CAN NOT use the 64 bit processor to its full potential because there is no 64 bit Windows yet. Or you must use Linux.
Thereby, 64 bit processors aren't nescesarilly faster than their 32 bit counterparts because the main benefit comes from increased number precision and not their speed.

But personally I'd buy a 64 bit processor. I'm not much of an upgrader, but if in the future there is software that requires a 64 bit processor, I'll be ready. If for example the new Windows Longhorn is awesome that I must have it, I'll be able to run it.

The 32 vs 64 bit choice is damn hard at this moment. It's a gamble really. If the transition from 32 to 64 will be slow, you can't use it to its full potential. If it goes fast and you buy a 32 bit processor, you will find yourself buying a new motherboard and processor.

BTW: looking at a pricewatch I find that the difference between a XP3200+ and a 64-3200+(sock754) is 30 Euro's.

[meglamaniac]

S/I:
Dunno if you were responding to me in particular or not, but when I was talking about them beating rival chips (even AMD's own 32 bit equivialant) performance-wise I was refering to 32-bit mode only. The difference is less pronounced between an AthlonXP and an Athlon64, but an Athlon64 3000+ will wipe the floor with a P4 3.0Ghz chip.
This is mainly due to the fact that A64's have an onboard memory controller so the latency between the processor and the ram is incredibly low. If I remember rightly it's actually a 2Ghz link between the processor and the ram, compared with 800Mhz at best for a P4 over the FSB - there's just no way to compete with that.
The fact that it's 64-bit compatible is more like an extra bonus than the sole reason to buy one - they are simply vastly superiour processors.

Another point to note is that Microsoft will be releasing Windows XP 64bit edition for AMD-64 extensions (basicly for the Athlon64 and the Athlon64-FX) sometime in 2005; probably in the first half of 2005. So it's really not that long to wait before you can use your 64-bit chip to its full potential. And keep in mind Athlon64's can run 64 bit and 32 bit applications simultaneously so you won't have to abandon all your old software.

Intel, on the other hand, have suddenly found themselves needing to catch up with AMD. They are only just scrambling to produce an x86-64 processor because they never thought there would be a market for one, and on top of that they're making it incompatible with AMD's 64 bit instruction set just to be difficult.
Why they chose to do that is a mystery, because it means a 64 bit version of Windows XP for Intel chips is now a very long way off, if indeed one is ever produced.

At the moment, AMD are simply looking like the better option.

[Structural Integrity]

I didn't know. I thought that the xxxx+ rating of the 64 bit processors could be compared to the old XP+ ratings.
My bad...
Take a 64 bit processor any time. More bang for a buck then. No?

[Deathjam|wee]

there is a windows xp 64bit thing tho

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx

i think its a year long trial thingy

[mist]

you too can be an MS beta tester. w00t.

-mist

[Vaio]

Most of us are MS beta testers, we just don't realise..........

~Vaio~

[Luckeh!!!!]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

S/I:
Dunno if you were responding to me in particular or not, but when I was talking about them beating rival chips (even AMD's own 32 bit equivialant) performance-wise I was refering to 32-bit mode only. The difference is less pronounced between an AthlonXP and an Athlon64, but an Athlon64 3000+ will wipe the floor with a P4 3.0Ghz chip.
This is mainly due to the fact that A64's have an onboard memory controller so the latency between the processor and the ram is incredibly low. If I remember rightly it's actually a 2Ghz link between the processor and the ram, compared with 800Mhz at best for a P4 over the FSB - there's just no way to compete with that.
The fact that it's 64-bit compatible is more like an extra bonus than the sole reason to buy one - they are simply vastly superiour processors.

Actually... the difference between AXP and A64 is almost night and day. An A64 3200+ (2000MHz 1MB cache version) is roughly equivalent to 2.5-2.6GHz AXP in gaming/CPU intensive operations. The fastest AXP is @ 2.2GHz so a large difference from the get go.

AXP PR and A64 PR is in no way compatible.

[meglamaniac]

Ok, my bad - I thought they were closer than that. Still supports my argument that the A64s are simply the better chip at the moment though!

I did a bit more hunting and from what I can gather it works sort of like this:
The PR ratings on AXPs were originally supposed to coincide with intel equivilants in Ghz. So an AthlonXP 3000+ is supposed to equal a P4 3Ghz.
However, the PR ratings are based mainly on how many numbers the chip can crunch every second. What this doesn't take into account is memory transfer rates because it assumes data is coming from the registers on the processor (ie. effectively zero memory latency).
The "old" memory-controller-on-the-northbridge design of AXP and P4 chips slows that a fair bit so holds the chip back. The much faster memory-controller-on-the-processor design of the A64 reduces that bottleneck significantly, so while the chips perform equivilantly under laboratory conditions, in the real world the A64 has a major advantage.

Or so I understand from what I can find.


Anyway, all this is irrelevant, as we all seem to be agreed that they're the better processor by far.