Would you consider buying an Athlon 64 now if....

[Nebor]

No way, Intel told me that I don't need 64bit computing.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: viper6
Just purchased the parts from NewEgg for my new 64 3200+ system. MSI Motherboard with VIA chipset, 1GB GEIL PC3500 RAM, FX5600 Ultra w/ VIVO and dual SATA 120GB drives for Raid. I know it will be faster than my P4 1.6 with GF 5200!

MSI motheboard???

**shudders**

 

[Cypherdude1]

No, I would not purchase an Athlon 64 now. I have purchased 2 AMD CPU's since 1998, a (1998) $135 OEM K6-2 350 and a (2001) $125 Retail Box Athlon TBird 1400/266. The most I will pay for a CPU is $230, about the Athlon 3000+ level. $400 and $735 are just too much for the new A64's. I'll wait until next year when the prices come down, as most reasonable people will. Besides, my 1400 TBird runs fine, running everything I want with very good speed. I don't play games anymore. :wine:

Originally posted by: Chadder007
If AMD could get Microsoft to help the 64bit initiative by maybe including a coupon or free upgrade to WindowsXP 64 (with WinXP already purchased of course) when it comes out....would you consider going ahead and buying an Athlon now?

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

No...for two reasons.

1) I just bought a bunch of 32 bit athlon xp gear in may, I don't need to upgrade yet.
2) The processor + motherboard will still be too expensive.

 

[Sid59]

yes. eventually.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: synapse02

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: synapse02
atleast for games.. otherwise a P3 933 with 512Mb+ of ram should be able to handle any app just fine

Why pay that much to game when you could get a Console for much cheaper than the cost of the CPU?

because of all the titles available to the PC. The multiplayer experience. Satisfaction in making an upgrade..

I am by no means a hardcore gamer, but im pretty sure Tron2.0 Warcraft3 Everquest are not on any console to name a few. When was the last time you had a deathmatch like CounterStrike with 30+ guys on a console?

Never as I am not a gamer. Still it seems rather foolish to spend that kind of money just to eek out a few more FPS. Now if MS had the 64 bit OS out and there were applications that took advantage of it and it greatly improved your productivity then it would be worth it IMO.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
No it would be a huge waste of money for me.

Same here. My 1800+s are still kicking butt and taking names.

 

[mposis]

Still too expensive for me.

 

[Budmantom]

I will especially when the prices come down or if there is a big difference in performance.

 

[synapse02]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: synapse02

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: synapse02
atleast for games.. otherwise a P3 933 with 512Mb+ of ram should be able to handle any app just fine

Why pay that much to game when you could get a Console for much cheaper than the cost of the CPU?

because of all the titles available to the PC. The multiplayer experience. Satisfaction in making an upgrade..

I am by no means a hardcore gamer, but im pretty sure Tron2.0 Warcraft3 Everquest are not on any console to name a few. When was the last time you had a deathmatch like CounterStrike with 30+ guys on a console?

Never as I am not a gamer. Still it seems rather foolish to spend that kind of money just to eek out a few more FPS. Now if MS had the 64 bit OS out and there were applications that took advantage of it and it greatly improved your productivity then it would be worth it IMO.

I didnt buy it purely for games, In fact until lately I havent played games much at all.

It will be running SQL server2000 development and a few IDEs most of the time. I needed a new computer now, so why buy 32bit when i can get the potential of a 64bit system. As long as you dont get the 2.2 its about the same or less as a highend P4 system.

You are also getting 1mb L2 cache, memory latency about half of a similar system without the ondie mem controller.. there are other advantages as well..

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: synapse02

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: synapse02

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: synapse02
atleast for games.. otherwise a P3 933 with 512Mb+ of ram should be able to handle any app just fine

Why pay that much to game when you could get a Console for much cheaper than the cost of the CPU?

because of all the titles available to the PC. The multiplayer experience. Satisfaction in making an upgrade..

I am by no means a hardcore gamer, but im pretty sure Tron2.0 Warcraft3 Everquest are not on any console to name a few. When was the last time you had a deathmatch like CounterStrike with 30+ guys on a console?

Never as I am not a gamer. Still it seems rather foolish to spend that kind of money just to eek out a few more FPS. Now if MS had the 64 bit OS out and there were applications that took advantage of it and it greatly improved your productivity then it would be worth it IMO.

I didnt buy it purely for games, In fact until lately I havent played games much at all.

It will be running SQL server2000 development and a few IDEs most of the time. I needed a new computer now, so why buy 32bit when i can get the potential of a 64bit system. As long as you dont get the 2.2 its about the same or less as a highend P4 system.

You are also getting 1mb L2 cache, memory latency about half of a similar system without the ondie mem controller.. there are other advantages as well..

Good point, I stand corrected.

 

[synapse02]

if i was dropping coin just for a gaming system.. Id wait for the sisR659? The 1200mhz quadchannel rambus setup..

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: synapse02

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
The nForce3-150 doesn't look too bad to me. 😕

I think the fact that the nForce3-150 has a PCI/AGP lock which is overclocker friendly GREATLY outweighs the slight performance increases the Via chipset holds over it. Could possibly get a A64 3200 to 2.3-2.4 Ghz on the nForce3 but only 2.2 on the Via... I'm willing to bet the nForce3 would be faster.

There is more than a slight difference.. Im not sure that the SK8N allows changing the PCI/AGP ratios, i dont remember seeing that. This thing is to the point where a few more mhz on the CPU is not going to make much of a difference. There are much worse bottle necks down the road. Im using a raid array and that seems to make a large diff in over all performance. IF you are totaly bent on performance, you would buy a new vid card everytime one is released, that would make the largest difference in system performance.

Who's talking about the SK8N? That link is a link to a review with a Chaintech nF3 board... and it does just as well as any of the KT800 chipset mobo's.

Quake 3 - 1.2% faster
UT2k3 Flyby - 0.7% slower
UT2k3 Botmatch - 1.1% faster
Gunmetal Bench 2 - near identical
Gunmetal Bench 1 - 0.3% slower
X2 - 4.7% slower
MPEG4 Encoding - 1.5% faster
Content Creation & General Usage - near identical

All of the nForce3-150 boards that we have seen offer a PCI/AGP lock, but we have yet to see a VIA board with a working PCI/AGP lock

 

[synapse02]

They should have tested the SK8V..
Ive experienced a fairly large difference in performance between the 8V and the 8N.

 

[bolido2000]

Too expensive. I spent 150 bucks total for a 2500+ plus A7N8X Dlx MB and I'm running 3200+ speeds now.

 

[synapse02]

thought you guys(girls) might want to read this..
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113516,00.asp

 

[synapse02]

even if 64bit apps are slow to take off, i dont think it is over ambtious. If they can sell the 64bit part at the same price as the 32bit which takes no performance hit and actually features other benefits such as larger L2 cache and on-die mem controller.. I wouldnt keep making the 32bit parts either.. or after enough time has passed that ppl with 32bit boards feel the need to upgrade..

 

[hans007]

i already have bought one.

a 2800+ ES one for $150. no way id pay $400.


granted its slower, but i wanted to be all cutting edge haha.

 

[alexruiz]

I will be getting a laptop powered by an Athlon 64 3200+ shortly, and an FX-55/FX-57 by next year July.....

 

[flexy]

i wait 'til we have 256bit cpus...64bit is not enough 🙂

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: mposis
Still too expensive for me.

>>>
Motorola MC68000 at 7.1Mhz 1986
Motorola MC68020 at 14.2Mhz 1993
Intel 80486DX at 33Mhz 1995
AMD 5x86 at 133Mhz 1996
Cyrix 6x86 at 133Mhz 1997
AMD K6-2 at 266Mhz 1998
Intel CeleronA at 300Mhz 1998
AMD AthlonXP at 1.3Ghz 2001
AMD Athlon64 at 2.6Ghz 2004
>>>

Amiga User ? Hey 🙂

 

[Corsairpro]

no because I won't be in the desktop market until summer 05

 

[ForsakenMaster]

The Xp Athlon is a TOTAL RIP OFF it is nothing more then a Opteron with a new name tag.
Personaly i would buy a 1.4 Opteron for $225.00 and a Asus SK8N and save over $150.00.
Money better spent on ram oh did i forget to mention the Athlon 64 mobo only support 4 gig of ram and the opteron support 8 yet another reason to go Opteron

 

[Compddd]

Im ditching my 3.0C setup for a A64 3200 one, was thinking about going with the Asus board, seems to work fine for NFS4, so Im gonna go with it 🙂

 

[synapse02]

the XP and the Opteron couldnt be more different.. They are about 50million transisters different.. Try plugging an opteron into ur XP board..