MikeTR wrote:Athlon64 3000+(on Asus A8V Deluxe) or Pentium 4 2.8C (on Asus P4C800-E Deluxe)?
21st Hermit wrote:They love this sort of question.
Ian wrote: have ASUS's K8V SE Deluxe and I love it. The thing has been rock solid so far. The only issue I've had so far is compatibility with some SATA devices. Some (especially optical drives) require Intel.
tazdevl wrote:64 bit at this point is academic and shouldn't be the basis of your decision.
tazdevl wrote:If you like to multitask, P4 with Hyperthreading is a very nice thing to have.
Shredder wrote:tazdevl wrote:64 bit at this point is academic and shouldn't be the basis of your decision.
True only if you are one of those people constantly upgrading computer hardware. Otherwise, it's considerbly a safe and a good choice to go 64bit now.tazdevl wrote:If you like to multitask, P4 with Hyperthreading is a very nice thing to have.
Hyperthreading is just icing on a cake. Its usefulness varies alot depending the applications. In most cases, it doesn't do anything. SMP setup with two processors or more is better and true solution to multitasking.
tazdevl wrote:1) It is academic because no one has an idea how well a full out A64/64bit system will run. Don't bother bringing up Linux. When MS does grelease its 64bit OS, there's no guarantee there won't be a host of problems.
tazdevl wrote:Not to mention, 64bit performance is pretty much on par or under with 32bit based on all the tests I've seen. No one really knows what kind of a lift shifting to 64bit will provide, if any at all. Figure app, driver support and optimizations will take about 9-12 months after release before things are totally stable
tazdevl wrote:You buy hardware for what it can do today because it generally falls short in terms of promised future performance, stability and compatibility.
tazdevl wrote:2) Ummm SMP wasn't listed as a possibility. Let's try to stay on track. HT is taken care of at the OS level. There is a benefit even if the app isn't tweaked for it.
pranav81 wrote:I have seen that when HT is enabled,the perforance increment is about 1.5 times by average.
pranav81 wrote:So whats the point in buying a 64 bit processor and run a 32 bit OS on it?
Where and how did you get that signicant number?
If HT gives such significant number, why doesn't Intel come up with HT2 or double HT?
concentrate on HT to provide needed performance/price instead of its Xeon SMP?
pranav81 wrote:Shredder,I think that we think differently.As you MAY be knowing that the processors 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, K5, K6, K6-II, K6-III are now old.You try and run Windows XP on some of those.
pranav81 wrote:What I mean to say is that,why should anyone go for a 64 bit processor and run a 32 bit OS on it,if there is no specific point there.Instead go for a 32 bit processor like P 4 or Athlon and run 32 bit OS on them.If you would see in economical point of view,you will see that you get a Athlon cheaper than Athlon 64.
pranav81 wrote:You will have to contact Intel for more details.
pranav81 wrote:You may say that the difference is not big enough,but the fact is that you dont need a 64,bit processor which is costly than 32 bit one,to run 32 bit applications.
pranav81 wrote:Why buy a 23 room house if you are only going to use 3 rooms?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
|All Content is Copyright (c) 2001-2016 CDRLabs Inc.|