• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

*HOT!* Pentium4 Emergency Edition for only $857 at the Egg! :D

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Windows XP 64 edition will offer about 20% speed bump......not bad but not twice as fast. People with Athlon 64's and the preview edition have said they noticed a difference to how Windows XP ran.

Some games will be optimized for AMD64 !
 
Some games will be optimized for AMD64 !
Click to expand...
UT2k4 is going to have a version optomized to run on x86-64 (i heard its basically ready to roll, their waithing on windows 64). Also i understand Half Life 2 will have a x86-64 version.
 
you can only buy 99. too bad i want to buy 10000 to build a cluster and beat the crap out of VT's Mac cluster.
 
Originally posted by: mjquilly
whatever, the opteronion has 64 bits, that's twice as many bits, so it IS twices as gooder. and the SATA drives have about 3-4X the throughput on all the benchmarks i've done.
Click to expand...

mmm onion
 
Originally posted by: Redviffer
From the article:

Gaming is the one area in the preview that is a disappointment. As you can see, the standard benchmark games under XP64 Preview were 4% to 51% slower than 32-bit, with the average speed about 20% slower. It is far too early to reach any conclusions in this area, but there is a lot of driver optimization to be done to make up this kind of delta. With the CPU and memory providing faster 64-bit performance, we have to believe the drivers play a big part in this disappointing gaming performance.

I'm thinking this is certainly a driver issue, as everything else shows a gain from 32 to 64bit. Certainly not 2x performance though.
Click to expand...


i' dhave to say that the windows xp 64 beta problems are not because of the processor. in linux the amd64 is pretty much universally faster.

the main difference given that no one uses 4 gb of ram, from using 32 or 64 on an amd64 chip, is that the 64bit mode, allows you to use 16 general purpose registers. compiled 64bit code or a 64bit kernel, will have been compiled to not have to do as many register swaps, etc. thats proabbly where the 5-10% improvement is coming from.
 
Originally posted by: mjquilly
Originally posted by: GetSome681
Originally posted by: formulav8
You can get a AthlonFX cheaper than that. And it is faster in most things. And you have a free performance boost when you upgrade to windows xp 64bit.


Jason
Click to expand...

When are people going to realize that moving from 32 bit to 64 bit doesn't equal 2x the performance. Sure it adds performance in other areas, but the switch from 32-64 itself doesn't.
Click to expand...

check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.
Click to expand...
hahaha
 
check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: QSnexus
"twices as gooder"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
64 = 32 X 2 ...twices as gooder!...correcto mundo! 2X many bits 2x faster! LOL! 😀 😉
 
[MOCKING] t3h 32 bitz0rz h4s b33ned t3h pwnz0red! w00tzorz!!!1!!!two!![/MOCKING]

Regardless ,the A64 +3000 outperforms the P4 exlax edition. Also, it'll get even better once XP64 gets a SP or two out...
 
While this is a crap-fest, i need to point out some things..

1) the Xp64 thing... how relevant is that? I mean, right now, there are no external ATI drivers, and one set of NV beta drivers (same for chipsets, etc). Give it time. Also, while gaming isnt as good, encoding flat out rocks (100-200% increase in speed).

2) When will YOU guys learn there is more to the A64 than just the 64? For one, it has a much better memory bus, and a much better FSB architecture. The 32bit performance has been improved, and SSE2 added. THEN you can add in the 64bit and increased memory handling..

3) I can get a 1MB 3400+ for ALOT cheaper than i can get this "emergency edition". Or, if you want to talk about wastes of money, look at the "lavacott"....
 
for the record the new architecture is called AMD-64 not x86-64, as originally planned on. AMD is following in footsteps of Intel and their 64-bit architecture EPIC (aka IA-64).
 
Originally posted by: mjquilly
whatever, the opteronion has 64 bits, that's twice as many bits, so it IS twices as gooder. and the SATA drives have about 3-4X the throughput on all the benchmarks i've done.
Click to expand...

actually 64 bit binaries are slower then their 32 bit counterparts, as theres no optimized software available. Its just more leading 0 for the processor to deal with
 
Originally posted by: mjquilly
whatever, the opteronion has 64 bits, that's twice as many bits, so it IS twices as gooder. and the SATA drives have about 3-4X the throughput on all the benchmarks i've done.
Click to expand...
One has to be overwhelmingly impressed by this insight. We should all keep a careful watch for mjquilly winning a Darwin award. Very soon.

 
Originally posted by: rdgr8
check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: QSnexus
"twices as gooder"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
64 = 32 X 2 ...twices as gooder!...correcto mundo! 2X many bits 2x faster! LOL! 😀 😉
Click to expand...

Confirmed!
 
Originally posted by: TrentSteel
Originally posted by: rdgr8
check your math son, 64 DOES equal 32 times 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: QSnexus
"twices as gooder"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
64 = 32 X 2 ...twices as gooder!...correcto mundo! 2X many bits 2x faster! LOL! 😀 😉
Click to expand...

Confirmed!
Click to expand...

Ahahaha
 
i just found out that if you drill small holes at the 4 corners of the operonions, they decapitate heat much better. i can't believe the performance i'm seeing!!!!!!!!!


<- wondering how many of you are still taking these statements seriously, and how rediculous i have to get before you stop.
 
The heat spreader on the 64bit chips is so big that you no longer need a heatsink. Besides, heatsinks trap all that hot air underneath anyway. You will see a huge performance boost by removing the heatsink I hear.
 
Originally posted by: Triggerhappy007
Originally posted by: GetSome681
Originally posted by: formulav8
You can get a AthlonFX cheaper than that. And it is faster in most things. And you have a free performance boost when you upgrade to windows xp 64bit.
Click to expand...
When are people going to realize that moving from 32 bit to 64 bit doesn't equal 2x the performance. Sure it adds performance in other areas, but the switch from 32-64 itself doesn't.
Click to expand...
Jason never mentioned anything about 2X the performance.
Click to expand...

it's 2+ times the performance for 64 bit operations, and you get 16GB of memory addressing space. Additionally, IO may be faster, or it opens the possibility of larger drives. (Don't know the actual innards of file system drivers and how they handle large disk addressing, clusters of sectors was the original answer to exceed the memory addressing space on disks).

So, no, for 16bit integer ops, it won't be faster. For 64bit integer or doubles (or anything else 64bit) you betcha.

Now, what's the real scoop on that: for 99% of your everyday tasks (email, web surfing, gaming) there will be no real difference, as none are written for 64bitness. Scientific/photographic type programs generally are more cutting edge in this realm.
 
Originally posted by: halik


actually 64 bit binaries are slower then their 32 bit counterparts, as theres no optimized software available. Its just more leading 0 for the processor to deal with
Click to expand...

I work for a software company, when we benchmark against our competitors on 64 bit Solaris machines we run with 32 bit software because it is faster. All those extra 0's in front of the memory addresses slow things down quite a bit. 64-bit is only better when you have HUGE files that need manipulating. Very rarely is 64-bit an advantage, expecially to the home user.
 
I found a 4 bit cpu
chipmonc
the we will have no leading zeros



Originally posted by: Tom93R1
Originally posted by: halik


actually 64 bit binaries are slower then their 32 bit counterparts, as theres no optimized software available. Its just more leading 0 for the processor to deal with
Click to expand...

I work for a software company, when we benchmark against our competitors on 64 bit Solaris machines we run with 32 bit software because it is faster. All those extra 0's in front of the memory addresses slow things down quite a bit. 64-bit is only better when you have HUGE files that need manipulating. Very rarely is 64-bit an advantage, expecially to the home user.
Click to expand...

chipmonc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top