Athlon 64

[friedrice]

I'm sorry if this has been posted.

I just bought an Athlon 64 with the nForce4 Ultra, everything is running sweet. But i'm running the regular Windows 32-bit Pro. I've seen benchmarks for 64-bit windows, and speed seems to be pretty much the same. I'm wondering if there is actually a big difference in performance for the gamer (not the server).

Also I'm having trouble finding out actually how the Athlon 64 works and how 64-bit is better then 32-bit. I'm told something to do with memory, but all I have really found is 64-bit can use more memory (as if i'll ever use more then a 1 gig anytime soon)

So, to round it up, where are some benchmarks that actually make the Athlon 64 shine and why i bought it instead of overclocking the heck out of a Semperon or Athlon XP?

And how does the Athlon 64 work and what makes it better?

If you have links to pages, just post em please. thanks

 

[zakee00]

I'm wondering if there is actually a big difference in performance for the gamer

there is no big difference for ANYONE as far as i know, the only "advantage" is more then 4GB of ram. its all marketing

 

[charloscarlies]

Originally posted by: zakee00

I'm wondering if there is actually a big difference in performance for the gamer

there is no big difference for ANYONE as far as i know, the only "advantage" is more then 4GB of ram. its all marketing

Exactly...I don't get all the hype. The chips are great but 64-bit"ness" is over-rated.

 

[n7]

ATM, the fact that it's 64-bit capable doesn't matter.

That's not what the hype is about.

The hype is over the fact the they do so well in 32-bit software, especially games.

As for posting links to benchmarks...this site is the best review site out there: it's called Anandtech
Maybe you've heard of it

Oh, & you asked what's so good about A64s in games?

Read.

 

[Mik3y]

the fact that the a64 is 64 bit compatible is negligable. the fact that it is a better overall performer then current P4's is though.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

The 64bit capability is more like unexpected sprinkles on an icecream cone. What matters is that even without the negligable sprinkles, AMDs icecream is as good if not better than intel's, especially in games.

64 bit isn't useless, Microsoft even offers a free version of Windows XP Pro x64 (then there's also Linux), although this doesn't mean you can go and use a 64bit OS as a complete replacement to your 32bit ones. Slowly we're seeing more driver support, and even some programs written to give you bonuses in 64bit that you don't have in 32. Performance isn't going to be much of a factor in the near future, a major advantage to 64bit is the use of more than 4GB of ram, which isn't really a problem for your average user anyways... that and it really isn't much of an option, or a good one even if it is as a Gig of blistering fast ram is going to offer a lot more direct bennefits to your average user than 4GB of slow stuf.

 

[McArra]

A64 shows a nice boost in 64bit aplications, look

 

[ironique]

Though there is apparently no diff in performance for the everyday PC user, it would be cautions not to draw any conlusions until winXP 64-bit and developers produce 64-bit appz to go along with it. As for now, the A64 is the gaming CPU to have!!!

 

[Megatomic]

I guess you guys missed the comments made by Tim Sweeney regarding A64 in x64 in regards to gaming. I can't wait for UT2K4 x64.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: ironique
Though there is apparently no diff in performance for the everyday PC user, it would be cautions not to draw any conlusions until winXP 64-bit and developers produce 64-bit appz to go along with it. As for now, the A64 is the gaming CPU to have!!!

Not yet as there are no games that can use 64bit except for like 1 or two. And even then very little support and good drivers.

Also IIRC the A64 isn't a true 64bit processor. I think it has 48bit registers instead of the full 64bit. Not that it matters because that is still a huge amount.

-Kevin

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: ironique
Though there is apparently no diff in performance for the everyday PC user, it would be cautions not to draw any conlusions until winXP 64-bit and developers produce 64-bit appz to go along with it. As for now, the A64 is the gaming CPU to have!!!

Not yet as there are no games that can use 64bit except for like 1 or two. And even then very little support and good drivers.

Also IIRC the A64 isn't a true 64bit processor. I think it has 48bit registers instead of the full 64bit. Not that it matters because that is still a huge amount.

-Kevin

It IS a true 64 bit processor. The memory address registers are 48 bit, but that is not the ONLY thing that makes the Athlon 64, 64 bit. Look up some info on the Athlon 64 architecture, and you will understand.

 

[dhoytw]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
The 64bit capability is more like unexpected sprinkles on an icecream cone. What matters is that even without the negligable sprinkles, AMDs icecream is as good if not better than intel's, especially in games.

64 bit isn't useless, Microsoft even offers a free version of Windows XP Pro x64 (then there's also Linux), although this doesn't mean you can go and use a 64bit OS as a complete replacement to your 32bit ones. Slowly we're seeing more driver support, and even some programs written to give you bonuses in 64bit that you don't have in 32. Performance isn't going to be much of a factor in the near future, a major advantage to 64bit is the use of more than 4GB of ram, which isn't really a problem for your average user anyways... that and it really isn't much of an option, or a good one even if it is as a Gig of blistering fast ram is going to offer a lot more direct bennefits to your average user than 4GB of slow stuf.

The 64 bit version of windows that's out there really doesn't work that great with these chips even though it was designed for 64 bit CPU's. If you look at the benchmarks for an A64 chip one running 32bit edition and one 64bit edition of xp there is really no difference in some cases the 32bit edition is quicker. I understand the chip has potential Microsoft just needs to work on the 64bit edition, This CPU would fly with TurboLinux!!!!!

TurboLinux

 

[MisterChief]

AMD better. Ooga Ooga!

 

[friedrice]

I suppose we won't really know until UT2k4 64-bit comes out. I don't buy much stock in benchmark programs, although they are a good indicator. But, will I need to be running Windows 64-bit edition to run UT2k4 64-bit? Or any other 64-bit program? I assume to use 64-bit drivers I need the 64-bit O/S.

 

[Megatomic]

Yes, and the converse is true. You can't use 32bit drivers in WinXP x64. I have tried, my Leadtek TV tuner has no x64 drivers. Windows refused to install them.

 

[friedrice]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
The 64bit capability is more like unexpected sprinkles on an icecream cone.

That is the funniest thing I've ever read. But so true. Obvisouly if you want the fastest chip your choices are limited to 64-bit edition chips, even though it's for clock speed and not for the 64-bit advantages. 64-bit is going to be a nice free upgrade a year from now when more mainstream stuff comes out. Even though I'm sure half of everyone here would have boughten a new CPU by then anyway

Speaking of which, people keep talking about waiting for Longhorn to come out. But I thought that was coming out at 32-bit first, and a 64-bit version isn't even offical. Of course, that's what I heard awhile ago and that might have changed. Anyone know different?

 

[Jeff7181]

Man I thought these kinda threads ended a year ago. :roll:

 

[daniel49]

QUOTE:
there is no big difference for ANYONE as far as i know, the only "advantage" is more then 4GB of ram. its all marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

which makes me wonder why my socket 754 maxes at 2 gb wastes that advantage

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: daniel49
QUOTE:
there is no big difference for ANYONE as far as i know, the only "advantage" is more then 4GB of ram. its all marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

which makes me wonder why my socket 754 maxes at 2 gb wastes that advantage

That has absolutely nothing to do with the processor... that's the fault of the manufacturer of your motherboard.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: friedrice
I'm sorry if this has been posted.

I just bought an Athlon 64 with the nForce4 Ultra, everything is running sweet. But i'm running the regular Windows 32-bit Pro. I've seen benchmarks for 64-bit windows, and speed seems to be pretty much the same. I'm wondering if there is actually a big difference in performance for the gamer (not the server).

Also I'm having trouble finding out actually how the Athlon 64 works and how 64-bit is better then 32-bit. I'm told something to do with memory, but all I have really found is 64-bit can use more memory (as if i'll ever use more then a 1 gig anytime soon)

So, to round it up, where are some benchmarks that actually make the Athlon 64 shine and why i bought it instead of overclocking the heck out of a Semperon or Athlon XP?

And how does the Athlon 64 work and what makes it better?

If you have links to pages, just post em please. thanks

What makes the Athlon-64 a good choice has nothing to do with it's "64-bitness." The most significant change is the addition of an on die memory controller which greatly reduces memory latency. It's modified pipeline also makes it faster than the Athlon XP that it replaced.

As far as 64-bit goes, most of the benefits you see are due to the processor having double the number of general purpose registers... not because it's "64-bit."

Being a 64-bit processor only means it's capable of processing 64-bit wide integers, as opposed to 32-bit wide integers. Even though there's really nothing able to take advantage of the larger dynamic range, in the future, calculations can be much more precise.

As far as memory... saying that an Athlon-64 isn't a true 64-bit processor is a bit rediculous. It IS a 64-bit processor... it's capable of processing 64-bit wide integers without splitting them up. And yes, it has a 48-bit memory address... but that has nothing to do with it being a 64-bit processor or not. AMD opted not to use a 64-bit memory address because it's not needed. "Anti-AMD people" point out all the time that nobody needs even 4 GB of RAM yet... the Athlon-64's memory address bus is actually only 40 bits wide, the other 8 bits are used for error correction as I remember. Either way... a 40-bit memory address allows up to 1 TB to be addressed (Windows XP 64-bit, however, limits it to 32 GB I believe)... since we're not even at 4 GB yet, I don't see why having a 40-bit address and being limited to 1 TB is so much worse than having a full 64-bit address and being limited to something like 16 million TB.

And finally... with the Athlon-64 came Hyper-Transport... a point to point low latency bus. Hyper-Transport is one reason the Athlon-64 will make such a good dual core processor... it was designed from the very beginning to be dual core friendly... whether that's dual cores on the same die, or dual processors.

Here's a good article if you want to learn more about 64-bit processing, and x86-64.

 

[McArra]

Has somebody had a look at the link I posted??? in 64 bit apps there's a nice performance boost. In bloby dancer(or something similar) demo from nvidia going from 32bits, to 64bits has a 30%!! performance boost. That's nothing?? :S Have a look at the link I gonna post again aand see how 64bit apps (the few avaible that's true) take a very nice boost: look

 

[Big Bunny]

Originally posted by: daniel49
QUOTE:
there is no big difference for ANYONE as far as i know, the only "advantage" is more then 4GB of ram. its all marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

which makes me wonder why my socket 754 maxes at 2 gb wastes that advantage

It's really not much of an advantage anyway. The 32-bit version of Windows limits any single process to using 1.6 GB of your RAM. You can set a switch that will let you use up to 3 GB but I have found it to be very iffy, the programs that grab that much membory tend to lock up on me at some point.

Not that many programs use a huge chunk of memory at one time anyway, except CAD and graphics/video editing software. Even if you max out one process up over 1 GB, it's unlikely you will use up all of a typical machine's 2 GB of RAM unless you are multitasking like a bandit. For your average home user I would think the extra RAM doesn't mean squat.

Not that I don't love my A64 machine ;-)

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
[Also IIRC the A64 isn't a true 64bit processor. I think it has 48bit registers instead of the full 64bit. Not that it matters because that is still a huge amount.
-Kevin

No. As some others have already pointed out. The A64 is a true 64-bit CPU, in any way you may want to consider what it means.
As for myself, I know 16-32-64-bitness is really about addressing, particularly about the virtual space. Here, AMD and x86-64 have reserved the FULL 64-bits for addressing purposes ONLY.
While the hardware implementations currently only use 48 bits for virtual space, that's much more than plenty, since it will only be mapped (current hardware implementations) to 40 bits physical address. Also, as someone else have hinted, the memory controller is the real limitation here. Then comes WindowsXP64, which will also be more limited than hardware.
The x86-64 specs will allow all software to eventually be compatible with a full 64-bit virtual space. This is done by a requirement that addresses are in canonical form. This preserves the high address bits, from being used for some other purpose by some "creative" programmers. So, you're mistaken. Any "memory registers" are indeed actually 64 bit long. Even if only 48 bits are used, all 64 bits are *read*.

And, as I'm repeatedly pointing out on this forum, 32 bits are actually not at all good for 4GB. That's an assumption that is mistaken. In two different ways.

First of all. 32 bit software is not necessarily limited to any "4GB". It can conceivably handle any addressing, and currently available CPUs support 64GB, if I'm not mistaken.

Secondly, FLAT LINEAR VIRTUAL SPACE, is indeed limited to 4GB in 32-bit software. But that's much more severe than it sounds. In practice, it means our current software format, Windows32, is limited to about ~1.5GB, no more, for code and data for one application. And when you run out of virtual space, it doesn't matter at all if you have 512MB ram or 4GB ram, installed on your PC. Your app will terminate.

That's why we need 64-bit software, and thus 64-bit CPUs to run it on. Remember the old 640KB limit of early 8086 PCs? Well, we're there again. Those who think they'll be fine on 32-bit as long as they don't have more than 4GB ram installed, are in for a surprise.

It's important to realize that we need to switch to a new software format!
It doesn't HAVE to be a 64-bit format. But since we must make the transition, it might as well be so. You should also know that since a 64-bit format will retain the flat virtual space of Windows32 (or Linux32) it's actually much more similar, and far easier and cheaper to port to, than any 32-bit format that offers greater (segmented) virtual space than current.
Also, a flat 64-bit format is ULTRA-SUPERIOR to any segmented 32-bit format, in terms of performance, memory protection, maintainability, reliability, possible OS-features, growth, bug freedom, development costs. By an order of many magnitudes. I would say that a 64-bit software format is many, many thousands times superior to a segmented 32-bit format.

 

[imported_cubby]

If I just play sports games is upgrading to a 64 bit CPU worth it. I just ordered an new 6800GT 256 MB video card and am wondering if I should go all the way. I can get a 3200+ and the A8N SLI Deluxe for 370 more. Should I do it? Money is tight but doable.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: cubby
If I just play sports games is upgrading to a 64 bit CPU worth it. I just ordered an new 6800GT 256 MB video card and am wondering if I should go all the way. I can get a 3200+ and the A8N SLI Deluxe for 370 more. Should I do it? Money is tight but doable.

What's the rush? Upgrade when you need to. There's no 64-bit software out yet, and no final WindowsXP64 either. When you need to upgrade, by all means go 64-bit, but wait until you need to.