Is such an AMD chip available?

[minofifa]

Hi all,
Well i'm planning on building a computer in fall mainly for use as a DAW (for editing audio and MIDI). I really have my heart set on the AMD 64 3000+. It looks like a great chip at a reasonable price. For me though, my audio programs are not 64 bit, nor will they be anytime soon. Also the drivers for my recording sound cards are not 64 bit and my OS will not be 64 bit. So I'm wondering, am i paying extra money for 64 bit technology when i won't be using it? I know that AMD used to make the barton chip which was not 64 bit but i read somewhere that the 3000 64 chip still outperformed the barton 3000 at 32 bit operations. I was also reading just today that AMD is introducing a new line of chips called sempron or something like that and it says that they will not be 64 bit compatible. I was thinking that this may be a better chip for me to get.

Basiically i'm looking for a chip that will be a great improvement to my p4 1.7 g mobile chip. I think the AMD 64 3000 would be a great choice but i have no use for 64 bit and do not plan to anytime soon.

Thanks for any advice.

 

[CVSiN]

AMD 64 does not require anything to be 64 bit.
in fact nothing we have except for a beta OS is 64 bit right now.. (except linux 64 bit )
my 3000 is being used in regular windows xp pro with SP2 on it and it works fantastic..
faster than my friends 3.06 P4 HT box...
you will be very happy with a 64 3000+

 

[magomago]

who cares if the A64 does 64bit well.

You yourself stated it: The A64 does 32bit very fast and that is all that should be your concern

 

[imported_Homerr]

The Sempron 3100+ looks to fit the bill perfectly.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Almost all the benchmarks you see showing the A64's speed are in 32 bit mode.

There is no reason not to buy an A64 just because you will never use the 64-bitness. It's just there, not hurting anything, like an unused memory slot or USB port on a motherboard.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sempron in socket 754 would be good. You could get a 64bit Athlon chip later and drop it in your mobo.

 

[dmw16]

Part of the A64s fame comes from it's 64bit capability, but I doubt very many are using it for that yet. It is a powerful chip cuz of its onboard memory controller and other architecture improvements.

 

[minofifa]

maybe i worded my thoughts incorrectly. I do like the AMD 64 3000 very much, it's what i'm most likely gonna get. As you all stated, we have no need for 64 bit right now (well at least i don't). So what i was wondering is, is there an AMD chip that will cost less than the 64 bit series because it does not support 64 bit but will still perform equally as good as the athlon 64 3000 at 32 bit applications? I am willing to pay for the performance of the Athlon 64 chips but am hoping to aviod paying for the ability to run 64 bit applications.

in other words, is the sempron = athlon 64 (minus the 64 bit capability)

 

[minofifa]

forgot to mention, thanks for the help. its nice to have some opinions other than a salesperson's

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: minofifa
in other words, is the sempron = athlon 64 (minus the 64 bit capability)

The high end Sempron = (athlon 64) - (64-bit capability) - (half the cache). It performs well and costs very little. The extra cache really isn't needed at this point in time so it doesn't hurt performance too much. Read this article. The top Sempron is very close to the Athlon 64 2800+ performance.

I too thought AMD needed to do this - great performance without the extra cost of 64-bit technology that very few people ever will use. It is nice to see AMD coming through. Unfortunately, there isn't much price reason to buy the Sempron. $120 for the top Sempron vs $140 for the Athlon 64 2800+.

Later when the top Sempron gets some price cuts, I think then it will be a good buy.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: minofifa
in other words, is the sempron = athlon 64 (minus the 64 bit capability)

Performance-wise, essentially.

 

[magomago]

well not exactly.

The 3100+ S754 Sempron preforms a little bit slower than the A64 2800+

Go check out Anand's review and you'll see how the Sempron stacks up~

 

[Mik3y]

the athlon 64 does not cost that much because it has 64-bit capabilities. in fact, you cant call them overpriced when they still cost less then intel's pentium 4's for even better performance and far more longevity. the sempron is not an athlon 64 wtih just 32-bit only. they are a budget class and are lower in performance and are made to compete with the celerons. y would you not want to have 64-bit potential? thats like not wanting a 10,000 horsepower engine in a civic when you could have one for the same price as a normal civic. the 64-bit potential is a plus. you're making it sound as if it should be avoided. other then that, you're saying you want an intel p4.

 

[minofifa]

no, i don't think i want a pentium,
basically i'm after the most cost effective chip i can afford. cost effective for me is
lowest price + highest performance. I'm after the best combination of the two. I want at least the power of an athlon 64 3000+ though. and i also don't want to pay more than 400 (canadian) for it.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Well the 3100+ Sempron is gonna be something like $30 less than the 64 2800+ in price, if what I've heard is correct, so value-wise it's gonna be close until Sempron production and supply hits higher levels.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Mik3y
the athlon 64 does not cost that much because it has 64-bit capabilities. in fact, you cant call them overpriced when they still cost less then intel's pentium 4's for even better performance and far more longevity. the sempron is not an athlon 64 wtih just 32-bit only. they are a budget class and are lower in performance and are made to compete with the celerons. y would you not want to have 64-bit potential? thats like not wanting a 10,000 horsepower engine in a civic when you could have one for the same price as a normal civic. the 64-bit potential is a plus. you're making it sound as if it should be avoided. other then that, you're saying you want an intel p4.

The Sempron 3100+ (Socket 754) is an Athlon64 without the 64-bit extensions and only 256KB of L2 cache (the Newcastle chips have 512KB, the Clawhammers have 1MB). The slower (Socket A) ones are essentially AthlonXP "Barton" chips with a new name.

I agree, though, that there's no need to *not* get the 64-bit version even if you don't think you'll ever need it (since they're such great 32-bit performers), although the Sempron 3100+ will be priced lower than an A64 2800+ (the AT article pegs it at $120) unless the A64 prices drop drastically.

 

[Mik3y]

then basically wut you're asking for doesnt exist and isnt cost effective to produce or even sell. the price you pay for the athlon 64 is for its performance, not because of its 64-bit capabilities. the reason y amd put that in there is because it adds on towards its price for performance category, meaning you get more for wut you pay.

 

[Mik3y]

also, i already find the athlon 64's for socket 754 a pretty good deal for its performance. the new athlons will never get back to athlon xp prices because they are nothing alike anymore. the whole idea is to have their pricings lower hten intel and still have higher performance.

 

[minofifa]

alright, you all make good points so i'm gonna go with the athlon 64. I am building a computer on ncix.com and when i choose the athlon 64 3000+, there is no other info. How do i know if it is a newcastle core or a clawhammer? would you recommed getting the clawhammer or does the price go up to drastically to justify its performance edge over the newcastle?

 

[Varun]

The one I see on NCIX is a Newcastle-you can tell by the fact that it says 512k cache.

I wouldn't really care that much, the clawhammer has 1MB of cache, but runs at a slower clock speed than the newcastle with the same performance rating.

I don't even know if they ever released a clawhammer 3000+, I know there was a 3200+

 

[ts3433]

I think there was a Clawhammer 3000+, same clock as 3200+ with 1/2 cache.
Most, if not all, regular A64's shipping these days should be of the newer Newcastle variety anyway.

 

[glugglug]

According to M$, an average 32-bit application runs 8% faster on a 64-bit OS, purely because of the OS calls being more efficient.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: minofifa
Hi all,
Well i'm planning on building a computer in fall mainly for use as a DAW (for editing audio and MIDI). I really have my heart set on the AMD 64 3000+. It looks like a great chip at a reasonable price. For me though, my audio programs are not 64 bit, nor will they be anytime soon. Also the drivers for my recording sound cards are not 64 bit and my OS will not be 64 bit. So I'm wondering, am i paying extra money for 64 bit technology when i won't be using it? I know that AMD used to make the barton chip which was not 64 bit but i read somewhere that the 3000 64 chip still outperformed the barton 3000 at 32 bit operations. I was also reading just today that AMD is introducing a new line of chips called sempron or something like that and it says that they will not be 64 bit compatible. I was thinking that this may be a better chip for me to get.

Basiically i'm looking for a chip that will be a great improvement to my p4 1.7 g mobile chip. I think the AMD 64 3000 would be a great choice but i have no use for 64 bit and do not plan to anytime soon.

Thanks for any advice.

Um you answered your own question...

 

[Mik3y]

oh ya, to let you know, the athlon 64 2800+ performs better hten the xp 3200+. thats y they cost the same, well, since there was just a price drop on the athlon 64, you can currently get the a64 2800+ cheaper then the xp 3200+.

 

[LordTerrin]

The thing about sempron is that it would work with your current setup, but you have to think about future applications to your computer, and having 64 bit audio processing is a dEFINITE idea to look into. As a fellow DAW owner, I am looking forward very much to 64-bit direct-x and VST plugs, along with a myriad of other technical applications, and I think the a64 2800 or 3000 would be a definite best buy for you.