64 Bit people.

[oldman420]

did you see any performance improvements between 32 and 64 bit cpu's at the same clock?

 

[skene]

Yes, but I don't think it's because it's a 64 bit cpu. The performance difference is mostly because the amd64 is a newer and better design then the xp. I don't know how the 64 and sempro compare, but I think the 64 has the edge there too. In all honesty, unless you're going to run linux, you won't be using the 64 bit aspect anyways. FYI, I definelty noticed a speed increase switching from 32 bit to 64 bit linux on my 64 3000+ though.

 

[Algere]

Yes (AXP 2400+ - A64 3000+) 😛

 

[invalidiuser]

As long as you can find all the drivers you need for all your hardware I would also. Wish the manufacutures would hurry up with all the drivers so I can switch to 64bit OS also.

 

[gobucks]

64-bit linux is looking damn good. On average, about 20% faster which is nice for an essentially free upgrade.

As for Windows, the new build is encouraging, but all over the place. Some apps (visual studio is one, i believe) almost doubled, some showed modest improvement, and some were actaully slightly slower. It's pretty much like when Hyperthreading was first introduced.

When comparing 64-bit chips, look at it this way: Athlon 64 chips outperform their cheaper Athlon XP cousins by a lot in 32-bit mode, due to a much better architecture. In fact, the A64 2800+ is just as fast as a 3200+ Athlon XP. Athlon 64s generally perform slightly better than the P4, with slightly slower results in video encoding. However, since they are priced the same as the P4 (cheaper now after the price cut, since intel won't cut prices this year), you are essentially getting slightly better performance in 32-bit apps for free, plus a free boost to 64-bit when the time comes. When you look at it that way, this question becomes less important. Even if 64-bit sucks ass (which it won't) the Athlon 64 is still the best value. 64-bits is just the icing on the cake.

I guess to answer your question, if you already have a good system now, and are deciding on whether you need to upgrade, the answer is probably not yet. In a few months, the A64 platform will have an established PCI-express base, with nForce4 Ultras and K8T890 Pros everywhere. Dual core will be here soon. If you can, I'd wait until December or January to upgrade. If, on the other hand, you know you need to upgrade and are trying to decide between an Athlon XP, 64, or P4, then I'd say the A64 provides the most performance and best features, including 64-bits, for your money. If 64-bits cost a premium over the P4, then the answer may be different, but since it's "free," i say, why not go with a 64-bit chip?

 

[uOpt]

Anandtech did the 32 bit code versus 64 bit code comparision here:
http://www.anandtech.com/linux...oc.aspx?i=2114&p=3

Personally I am a bit disappointed with the performance of my AMD64 3400+ in 32 bit mode.

I need it to do development on 64 bits, but performance-wise for now it's not as much abve my P4 2.8C as I thought, or above the XP 2500+ for that matter. Maybe running 64 bit FreeBSD and Linux will improve things.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

athlon 64's feel faster than xp's and p4's cause they have the onboard memory controller and thus a "fsb" as it was known on those other platforms that is the same as the chip speed. this leads to much lower latency and general speed with memory dependant tasks.

the 64 bitness of it has nothing to do with the performance now. they have about a 25% performance increase over xp's at same speed and about 1.5 times the speed of the chip to compare to p4c's

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: MartinCracauer
Anandtech did the 32 bit code versus 64 bit code comparision here:
http://www.anandtech.com/linux...oc.aspx?i=2114&p=3

Personally I am a bit disappointed with the performance of my AMD64 3400+ in 32 bit mode.

I need it to do development on 64 bits, but performance-wise for now it's not as much abve my P4 2.8C as I thought, or above the XP 2500+ for that matter. Maybe running 64 bit FreeBSD and Linux will improve things.

I wouldn't put too much faith in to that benchmark. GCC is well optimized for 32bit x86, but anything else isn't nearly as good. They've got some time to go before the x86-64 compiler pushes out code that's as tuned; Intel is going to be the first big 64bit vendor.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
athlon 64's feel faster than xp's and p4's cause they have the onboard memory controller and thus a "fsb" as it was known on those other platforms that is the same as the chip speed. this leads to much lower latency and general speed with memory dependant tasks.

the 64 bitness of it has nothing to do with the performance now. they have about a 25% performance increase over xp's at same speed and about 1.5 times the speed of the chip to compare to p4c's

So youre implying that it would take a 4.5ghz P4 to compare to a 3000+? lmao.

 

[CraigRT]

I went from a 2500+ Barton to my 3200+A64 using Windows XP 32 bit with SP2, and it's much faster in general use.
I don't even care if this CPU is 64 bit... whatever existing non-beta 32bit OS you use on it right now (XP Pro), is faster than it's older AthlonXP counterparts.

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer
athlon 64's feel faster than xp's and p4's cause they have the onboard memory controller and thus a "fsb" as it was known on those other platforms that is the same as the chip speed. this leads to much lower latency and general speed with memory dependant tasks.

the 64 bitness of it has nothing to do with the performance now. they have about a 25% performance increase over xp's at same speed and about 1.5 times the speed of the chip to compare to p4c's

So youre implying that it would take a 4.5ghz P4 to compare to a 3000+? lmao.

I think he implied that an Athlon 64 at 2.0 Ghz would perform roughly equal to a 3.0 Ghz P4C.