Did I make the right decision? I ignored the AMD64 and went with the XP.

[tec699]

My Computer:

420 watt Enermax PS
MS Windows XP
Gigabyte Nforce 2 (Ultra) mobo
AMD XP 2.6 Barton
2x512 (1gb total) Corsair 3200 ddr (dual channel enabled)
Geforce Fx 5900 (256 mb)
Audigy 2
120 gig hd 7200 rpm WD (8mb cache)
40 gig hd 7200 rpm WD
48x52x24 TDK CDRW
16X52X Toshiba dvd player
Logitech Wireless Keyboard/mouse (MX 700 series)
Dell 19" Ultra LCD monitor
Comcast Cable

I mostly play games on my PC. The reason that I didn't go the AMD 64 route was because most games and software don't take advantage of the 64 bit processing. Yea, I do know the benefits of 64 bit and I know that it runs 32 bit software just fine, but I didn't want to dive into 64 bit just yet. Also, the new mobo revisions will be out this year and that had me worried.

Well did I make the right decision by going the 32 bit route? I'll get the AMD 64 but I want to wait till it matures and comes down in price. How long should my system last before I'll need to go the 64 route? And finally will my system handle HL2, Doom3. Far Cry and all the other games that will be out for the 2004-05 year?

thank you.

 

[CrackRabbit]

The A64 will in 99% of situations be faster than an Athlon XP even in 32 bit code, but its on a socket that will be killed and replaced soon leaving no upgrade path.
For todays games though your system should simply rock, and if you wanted to upgrade to an A64 in the future you dont have much to replace.

CrackRabbit

 

[John]

tec699, that's a nice system you've pieced together. If you're an avid o/c'er the mobile 2400/2500/2600's scream.

 

[dullard]

I think you did just fine. The Athlon 64 is useful for two reasons: (1) its 32-bit performance is outstanding and (2) it has the potential to run 64-bit for programs that almost no one has yet and few people need yet. Right now I say forget #2. In a year I'll be singing a different tune. Forcus on #1. The Athlon 64 3000+ is fast but it isn't so dramatically fast that you'll regret not getting it (I'd say roughly 25%-35% faster than the 2600+ on most programs). And it costs $120 more just for the CPU. So yes you went down a bit in speed, but you saved at least $120. I think right now the 2600+ is probably the best price/performance ratio of any CPU currently made by any company. Enjoy your fast computer (and $120) - don't worry about future programs that you don't have and probably don't need.

 

[Berkut]

If he wanted to move up to A64 in a year, what would he need to replace?

 

[Xpl1c1t]

Socket 754 wont die out too quickly, it will be a great socket for the value buyer in the future. AMD will continue to manufacture A64s and will start making some new XPs for this socket as well.

 

[tec699]

Originally posted by: dullard
I think you did just fine. The Athlon 64 is useful for two reasons: (1) its 32-bit performance is outstanding and (2) it has the potential to run 64-bit for programs that almost no one has yet and few people need yet. Right now I say forget #2. In a year I'll be singing a different tune. Forcus on #1. The Athlon 64 3000+ is fast but it isn't so dramatically fast that you'll regret not getting it (I'd say roughly 25%-35% faster than the 2600+ on most programs). And it costs $120 more just for the CPU. So yes you went down a bit in speed, but you saved at least $120. I think right now the 2600+ is probably the best price/performance ratio of any CPU currently made by any company. Enjoy your fast computer (and $120) - don't worry about future programs that you don't have and probably don't need.

Exactly what I was thinking. There just aren't many 64 bit applications to take advantage of and don't you need an operating system that will use the AMD64? I know Longhorn will use the AMD64 to it's fuul potential so I'm waiting till this is released. Plus with the revamping of the motherboard such as PCI Express I'll wait a year or two till upgrading to the AMD64.

 

[NightCrawler]

Socket 939 will the rage in less then 12 months best to buy a good AXP and wait. Some of the current A64 boards are flaky still but do perform well. I was kinda disappointed in 754 and don't know why they didn't just launch 939 from the very start.

 

[zodder]

Originally posted by: Berkut
If he wanted to move up to A64 in a year, what would he need to replace?

Just the mobo. Everything else can stay.

 

[zodder]

Originally posted by: Xpl1c1t
Socket 754 wont die out too quickly, it will be a great socket for the value buyer in the future. AMD will continue to manufacture A64s and will start making some new XPs for this socket as well.

This is how we've gotten our best overclockers the past few years. As chips migrate to the "value" line of AMD, overclocking results seem to get much better. Also, by that time, the socket 754 mobos will be a very mature platform and quite a few mobo manufactures will have some highly overclockable boards.

 

[sandorski]

I think your reasoning for not going A64 is completely mucked up, now if it was based on Price then you may have a point. I would have went A64 though, there is no reason not to from a Hardware specific point of view.