Athlon64 4000+ with WindowsXP 64Bit, 2Gb's DDR2, NV40 600Mhz core

[videoclone]

I cant wait untill i have a system that has 2GB's of DDR2 Dual channel with a dual channel Athlon64 4000+ CPU running at 2.6Ghz 2600FSB, and an NV40 Card on PCI-X running at 600Mhz core / 1600Mhz Memory with WindowsXP 64 Bit playing a " 64Bit Coded Game " ( ie. The next Unreal T. the programers said will be 64bit )

Computers at the end of this year are going to be Sweet Machines. :Q

This is my next big upgrade that i'm saving up for now

These components will be available at the end of this year probably sooner Would you guys go towards this system or an Intel / ATI R420 - Alternative Probably Pentium 4 4.2Ghz CPU with 1000FSB
and 32bit Code

Intel will be getting a wakeup call very soon if it doesnt get 64bit into there Pentium's ASAP.

Edit DDR2 hehe

 

[siamesenick]

I heard SATA300 is coming out in 2004, too. It's a shame HDDs aren't that fast, though. 300mb/s for one drive? neg

 

[fusionpit]

PCI-X is for Servers, you're thinking of PCI-Express

 

[EarthwormJim]

More likely for Intel systems will be 4ghz+ Tejas with 1.2ghz FSB and rumored 64bit extensions *drools*. One thing, the abreviation for PCI-Express is PCI-E, PCI-X is a 64bit PCI bus used in servers that's been around for awhile.

 

[videoclone]

<EarthwormJim>

The Athlon64 is faster then the P4's at 32Bit they will probably be faster at 64bit as well even if the P4 gets 64bit
it will only keep it competitive not make it faster and 1200FSB is nothing when the Athlon64 runs a clock to clock FSB and for now is only limited by how high the motherboard has the hyper transport bridge and the actual speed of the Memory itself ...but they are increasing these things later on this year ?.
And theres nothing to drools over because MHz Are not what make's CPU's faster these days....

2Ghz Athlon 64 --- blows away a 3.2Ghz P4 ... Open your eyes !!!!

 

[EarthwormJim]

I never actually said it would be faster, and from the way you're talking, Intel is dead already. I mean come on, this is Intel here, the number one CPU manufacturer in the world, I really doubt they are going to get left behind in anything.

An A64 3200+ doesn't blow a P4 3.2ghz away either, in fact they are pretty much even. In some applications (single-tasking and non threaded applications) the A64 is faster (but only around 1-10%) and in others, the P4 is faster (but also only 1-10%). You're also forgetting that future Intel chips will have 1MB of L2 cache, which the A64 already has as an advantage over the P4. So that could mean a 3.4ghz Prescott will be faster than an A64 3400+. Intel also has a nice advantage over AMD with Hyper-Threading. As more and more applications become optimized for it, the P4 will become even faster.

You also seem to be hinting that because a 2ghz AMD part can keep up with a 3.2ghz Intel part means Amd has a better chip is wrong. Each manufacturer choose different CPU design routes. And Mhz do matter, especially for Intel CPU's. It's just much less of a valid point to compare the Mhz of differently designed CPU. Intel went for a longer stage, lower ipc, and higher core speed design; AMD went for a shorter stage, higher ipc, and lower core speed design. Either one works, all that really matters is who's is faster and more scaleable. As of now they're each about even, but it still seems like the P4 is more scaleable than the A64.

 

[Evdawg]

wow i have a feeling im going to be spending a lot of money this year...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Evdawg
wow i have a feeling im going to be spending a lot of money this year...

Yeah, Ev, unlike the past 10 or 15 y, wait. Well, I guess it's going to be like the past 10 years or so, with the exception that it seems we're actually going to be getting a decent return on our expenditures this year!

 

[nowayout99]

I only wish I were patient enough to wait that long. I upgrade every 2 yrs, and I am "due" in a month or 2. These recent A64 price drops make it awfully hard to wait it out too much longer.

The system we REALLY want is always a year away, unfortunately.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: videoclone
I cant wait untill i have a system that has 2GB's of GDDR2 Running at 1200Mhz Dual channel with a dual channel Athlon64 4000+ CPU running at 2.6Ghz 2600FSB, and an NV40 Card on PCI-X running at 600Mhz core / 1600Mhz Memory with WindowsXP 64 Bit playing a " 64Bit Coded Game " ( ie. The next Unreal T. the programers said will be 64bit )

Computers at the end of this year are going to be Sweet Machines. :Q

This is my next big upgrade that i'm saving up for now

These components will be available at the end of this year probably sooner Would you guys go towards this system or an Intel / ATI R420 - Alternative Probably Pentium 4 4.2Ghz CPU with 1000FSB
and 32bit Code

Intel will be getting a wakeup call very soon if it doesnt get 64bit into there Pentium's ASAP.

GDDR2 is for graphics, and GDDR2 will only run to about 1000mhz, GDDR3 is what will be on new graphics cards. DDRII which is the new system memory interface, will debut at 400, 466, and 533mhz according to samsungs website.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: nowayout99
I only wish I were patient enough to wait that long. I upgrade every 2 yrs, and I am "due" in a month or 2. These recent A64 price drops make it awfully hard to wait it out too much longer.

The system we REALLY want is always a year away, unfortunately.

Well, I think you should probably get an A64, unless you are a hard-core user who runs 2 cpu-intensive apps. at the same time, all the time. Oh, and yeah, I got my first computer 23 years ago, and I've been waiting to be able to build the system that I REALLY wanted, since Dec. 1980!

 

[INemtsev]

mid this year about July or June the new socket is coming out thats when I'll upgrade from my 1700+ "B" @ 2.0.....

 

[LoganTeamX]

Smart AMD fans will wait till Q2/Q3 2004 to get a decently-priced FX chip. Dual-channel, on-CPU memory controllers, no need for registered RAM, and disgustingly-fast FPU. The result? Is it any wonder Inte's trying to shoehorn Tejas out the door with a rumoured 150W of heat dissipation? Some say they can't get it cool enough, period, and some say it's because it's a dual-core concept.

Right now AMD does indeed have Intel worried, as not even their vaunted 800FSB can save them from ultra-low memory latencies due to the fact the FX series has negated the need for a Northbridge-resident memory controller (or pair of controllers).

The fact still remains: design differences notwithstanding, the AMD XP T'bred/Barton/A64/FX-XX chips have been proven to be much more efficient at completing instructions, doubly so when compared at the number of clock cycles-per-instruction level. The mere fact that Intel caches are inclusive, and not exclusive like AMD's gives them fits, and rightfully so. They keep ramping up their processor speeds (they've already announced that they had to crank the core on Prescott by another 200MHz to remain competitive) and telling people that HT is the answer to all of their problems.

Answer me this then:

Why was HT incorporated into every Northwood CPU ever made, but only enabled on the top 533 FSB and then the 800 FSB machines? If HT is so amazing, why not call it what it is ("let us fill the long pipelines that we inadvertently didn't test properly")?

Don't get me wrong, they've done some things right (The mobile Banias, for example, is only just now being trounced by the Mobile A64.). Intel just has pulled the wool over too many folks' eyes for too long.

Me? I'll sit back, eat some popcorn, and watch Intel owners become local Kenny Rogers Chicken franchisees by just turning on their PCs

 

[mrgoblin]

Originally posted by: videoclone
I cant wait untill i have a system that has 2GB's of GDDR2 Running at 1200Mhz Dual channel with a dual channel Athlon64 4000+ CPU running at 2.6Ghz 2600FSB, and an NV40 Card on PCI-X running at 600Mhz core / 1600Mhz Memory with WindowsXP 64 Bit playing a " 64Bit Coded Game " ( ie. The next Unreal T. the programers said will be 64bit )

Computers at the end of this year are going to be Sweet Machines. :Q

This is my next big upgrade that i'm saving up for now

These components will be available at the end of this year probably sooner Would you guys go towards this system or an Intel / ATI R420 - Alternative Probably Pentium 4 4.2Ghz CPU with 1000FSB
and 32bit Code

Intel will be getting a wakeup call very soon if it doesnt get 64bit into there Pentium's ASAP.

Guess going to college and getting a car is out the window for that one...

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: LoganTeamX
Smart AMD fans will wait till Q2/Q3 2004 to get a decently-priced FX chip. Dual-channel, on-CPU memory controllers, no need for registered RAM, and disgustingly-fast FPU. The result? Is it any wonder Inte's trying to shoehorn Tejas out the door with a rumoured 150W of heat dissipation? Some say they can't get it cool enough, period, and some say it's because it's a dual-core concept.

Right now AMD does indeed have Intel worried, as not even their vaunted 800FSB can save them from ultra-low memory latencies due to the fact the FX series has negated the need for a Northbridge-resident memory controller (or pair of controllers).

The fact still remains: design differences notwithstanding, the AMD XP T'bred/Barton/A64/FX-XX chips have been proven to be much more efficient at completing instructions, doubly so when compared at the number of clock cycles-per-instruction level. The mere fact that Intel caches are inclusive, and not exclusive like AMD's gives them fits, and rightfully so. They keep ramping up their processor speeds (they've already announced that they had to crank the core on Prescott by another 200MHz to remain competitive) and telling people that HT is the answer to all of their problems.

Answer me this then:

Why was HT incorporated into every Northwood CPU ever made, but only enabled on the top 533 FSB and then the 800 FSB machines? If HT is so amazing, why not call it what it is ("let us fill the long pipelines that we inadvertently didn't test properly")?

Don't get me wrong, they've done some things right (The mobile Banias, for example, is only just now being trounced by the Mobile A64.). Intel just has pulled the wool over too many folks' eyes for too long.

Me? I'll sit back, eat some popcorn, and watch Intel owners become local Kenny Rogers Chicken franchisees by just turning on their PCs

Welcome to AT, fanboi. I'm not taking this flame bait.

 

[RussianSensation]

Videoclone I dont think you should look that far ahead in the future without knowing of the performance advantages that either 64-bit operating system will bring or the Prescott will bring with enlarged cache along with better HT instructions. Also I believe Tejas will be on the horizon by the end of 2004 or Q1 2005.

Just one question, why AMD + Nvidia and Intel + ATI? I am not really certain about the compatibility of those components with each other in terms of providing the best possible performance when such are used in conjuction with one another. I have heard previously that ATI "plays" the fastest on an Intel system since its "better optimized" for it and amd and nvidia should be twins too. I dont want to state an assumption or incorrect conclusion, but I personally do not know of any connection of this sort.

I mean AMD Athlon XP is much slower with a faster Radeon card than an Intel P4 and yet with a Radeon 8500 an athlon xp 1600+ system is faster than a 2.2 ghz p4??? Then again, AMD 64 is faster with NVIDIA 5950 Ultra (not in AA/AF performance though) than P4 with Radeon card??? So its all subjective to the platform (CPU + Chipset + Memory Interface + Graphics Card) Maybe I am making too much of your comment but just wanted a clarification from someone if there is a some sort of benefit to pair one with another??

I say wait for the benches of all the new components.....I remember when pre-production Raptor was slower than a 80gb 8mb cache model, but the final release helped to change that...and how many products have you seen improve with better drivers? Its too early to judge what will be an optimal system in my opinion.

 

[videoclone]

Nvidia Make Chipsets For "AMD" Athlon64 CPU's and All AMD CPU's at that
ATI Make Chipsets for Intel CPU's !!!
Theres your reason ATI is in bed with Intel and Nvidia is in bed with AMD.

Plus i will get more compatibility with a Nvidia Card + Nvidia Motherboard + AMD64 CPU .... even if its just a little No Vidocard Drivers conflics because both Motherboard and Vidcard will be made buy Nvidia.

ATI will also have the same deal Vid card and MB drivers both made by same company. = More Solid Stable System

 

[DAPUNISHER]

But ATI has also made a chipset for AMD before and is evidently going to have one out for A64

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
But ATI has also made a chipset for AMD before and is evidently going to have one out for A64

Well, if it's as slow as their last one, we'll all still be buying the nVidia chipsets.

 

[videoclone]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
But ATI has also made a chipset for AMD before and is evidently going to have one out for A64

Prove IT ..... i've never heard of this ...

 

[aka1nas]

Its the IGP320M. It was mainly used in laptops, though I think there were a few desktop boards. It was a low-end platform that was much much slower than Nforce.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: videoclone
Nvidia Make Chipsets For "AMD" Athlon64 CPU's and All AMD CPU's at that
ATI Make Chipsets for Intel CPU's !!!
Theres your reason ATI is in bed with Intel and Nvidia is in bed with AMD.

Plus i will get more compatibility with a Nvidia Card + Nvidia Motherboard + AMD64 CPU .... even if its just a little No Vidocard Drivers conflics because both Motherboard and Vidcard will be made buy Nvidia.

ATI will also have the same deal Vid card and MB drivers both made by same company. = More Solid Stable System

Also I don't think that you will neccesarily get better performance with an Nvidia with an nvidai chipset versus an Ati card with the same. Driver incompatabilties between the two is a myth. I am pretty sure that both the highest end AMD and Intel chips are capable of keeping even the 9800XT and the 5950 Ultra happy and well fed.

 

[videoclone]

Please read i said stability !!!! "NOT" performance and at that i also said little
Even if its 1% more stable then mixing an Nforce2 Board with an ATI videocard then i would rather get that 1% more solid computer. Thats my point.

 

[aka1nas]

I still don't think that there any any specific driver incompatabilities between nvidia chipsets and ATi cards. Any instabilities are a result of either the individual boards or video cards and their respective drivers. Now if you tell me that Nvidia cards have less stability affecting driver issues than ATI cards, I may be inclined to believe you.(though their last few driver releases haven't been great either)

 

[videoclone]

Anyways AMD64 on Windows XP 64 with 64Bit games is going to be something that intel wont be able to match no matter how fast there CPU's are unless they get 64Bit themselves thats the main reason ive got my eye set on this system with the Nvidia choice of cards well that can always change to ATI if the ATI R420 ends up being heaps better but if its not then I'll stick with Nvidia.