If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Howdy!
"JK" wrote in message ... Good post! The Intel supporters seem to be cluless. Will they be advising those with a 32 bit processor to upgrade to Intel's 64 bit processors early next year when 64 bit Windows is released? a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink. Because it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel) b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the Itanium (Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64 extensions. c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth. RwP |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie
or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth. why? because they are waiting for a sensible amount of useable software to actually spark the sales of 64 bit tech....instead of the 1 in 100,000 hobbyists using betas of OS's or running 32bit stuff. Bout time AMD took 'point' take a few shots to the head, instead of Intel. This whole thing reminds me of HDTV.... "Ralph Wade Phillips" wrote in message ... Howdy! "JK" wrote in message ... Good post! The Intel supporters seem to be cluless. Will they be advising those with a 32 bit processor to upgrade to Intel's 64 bit processors early next year when 64 bit Windows is released? a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink. Because it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel) b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the Itanium (Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64 extensions. RwP |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
JAD wrote: c) Intel has shot itself in the foot, true enough. No need to lie or tell falsehoods about it ... better to just tell the truth. why? because they are waiting for a sensible amount of useable software to actually spark the sales of 64 bit tech... The beauty of AMD's X86-64 is that the Athlon 64 and Opteron are great performers running 32 bit software. The idea of this is to get a large installed base of 64 bit processors, so that software makers will have an incentive to write 64 bit software for it. .instead of the 1 in 100,000 hobbyists using betas of OS's or running 32bit stuff. Bout time AMD took 'point' take a few shots to the head, instead of Intel. This whole thing reminds me of HDTV.... AMD has made 64 bit processors affordable for average people with prices starting at under $150, and systems with an Athlon 64 starting at under $800(without a monitor). "Ralph Wade Phillips" wrote in message ... Howdy! "JK" wrote in message ... Good post! The Intel supporters seem to be cluless. Will they be advising those with a 32 bit processor to upgrade to Intel's 64 bit processors early next year when 64 bit Windows is released? a) Intel's been shipping a 64 bit processor. Sales stink. Because it stinks for 32bit software (the place AMD outdid Intel) b) 64bit Windows has been available since 2001 - for the Itanium (Intel's 64 bit processor). Doesn't work with the AMD 64 extensions. RwP |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes
out, but I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase - and even then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's called future proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to pay silly money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless anyway with todays software. well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the real 64bit software to be out. Then if you want to do this with an AMD go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked and dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then amd....with the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff is decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I say for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's logo on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for tech/software to catch up to one another. "GTS" wrote in message ... "JAD" wrote in message ... Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you have before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that Intel won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take the point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone the increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let them get wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? "GTS" wrote in message ... SNIP Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The results are so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the Intel's cannot. Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta Windows64. Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as one that does 32&64 well. Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64 chips... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
JAD wrote: Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes out, but I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase - and even then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's called future proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to pay silly money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless anyway with todays software. well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the real 64bit software to be out. Why do that when an Athlon 64 3000+ is so inexpensive(only around $150 for a socket 754 one) and such a great performer running 32 bit software. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 makes sense for many people even if they don't plan on ever upgrading to 64 bit software. Then if you want to do this with an AMD go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked and dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then amd....with the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff is decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I say for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's logo on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for tech/software to catch up to one another. "GTS" wrote in message ... "JAD" wrote in message ... Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you have before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that Intel won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take the point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone the increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let them get wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? "GTS" wrote in message ... SNIP Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The results are so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the Intel's cannot. Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta Windows64. Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as one that does 32&64 well. Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64 chips... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen!
yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its been drummed for 10 years ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? Most people buy computers to last 2 to 5 years. what does that have to do with that statement? Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3 years? You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain the same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do, except test for filthy rich companies, limited amounts of everything else, at a higher price, OR wait until the prices fall and there is mainstream everything to go with it? "Matt" wrote in message ... JAD wrote: Now let's see ... if a 64-bit system costs no more than a 32-bit system ... which should I buy ... hmmm ... I just don't know ... let me get back to you on that ... Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
JAD wrote: Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen! Very funny. Large amounts of 64 bit X86-64 software is in development now. yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its been drummed for 10 years HDTV sets are finally about to become affordable for the average person. Some are predicting 32" lcd tv prices dropping to as low as $1,200 within 2005. While $1,200 would still be considered a high price for a television by many people, it is still affordable for large numbers of people, while around $4,000 is totally out of the question for most people. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the 64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft probably delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be much more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to go along with it. Most people buy computers to last 2 to 5 years. what does that have to do with that statement? Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3 years? You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain the same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do There is plenty of 32 bit bit software that runs great on an Athlon 64 or Opteron. The Athlon 64 is already inexpensive. An Athlon 64(socket 754) at around $150 is around the same price as a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz which is only 32 bits. , except test for filthy rich companies, limited amounts of everything else, at a higher price, OR wait until the prices fall and there is mainstream everything to go with it? "Matt" wrote in message ... JAD wrote: Now let's see ... if a 64-bit system costs no more than a 32-bit system ... which should I buy ... hmmm ... I just don't know ... let me get back to you on that ... Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OK so what if the price is so low you can't resist now......LOL it
will only go down, and the headaches decreased. MB variety INCREASED - SOFTWARE availability INCREASED Huge players in the worlds economy don't make huge mistakes. You may think you have the whole story ha ha jokes on Intel/AMD which ever the flavor of the moment but we only hear what is released. Things are done for a reason.......64bit.......why not a completely NEW platform,,,,,dare I say 128bit? or something completely unlike anything before? Do you think Usenet people have all the inside, hell no. Its our opinions and speculations. Even Intel/AMD employees don't have all the info on any given project. Obviously there are reasons to build NEW and paying high for the bragging rights of 64bit. Without quoting prices its fair to say that an athalon32 would be cheaper still and scream out 32bit processing, so bang for the buck = using 64bit to run 32bit at a high price. instead of a reasonable Intel or Athalon to do the same thing. Then 2 years from now you update your MB and CPU. In the box you have. MAYBE even find a board that has dual processor support (64or32bit)...... I can get outrageous too........... "JK" wrote in message ... JAD wrote: Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes out, but I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase - and even then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's called future proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to pay silly money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless anyway with todays software. well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the real 64bit software to be out. Why do that when an Athlon 64 3000+ is so inexpensive(only around $150 for a socket 754 one) and such a great performer running 32 bit software. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 makes sense for many people even if they don't plan on ever upgrading to 64 bit software. Then if you want to do this with an AMD go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked and dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then amd....with the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff is decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I say for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's logo on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for tech/software to catch up to one another. "GTS" wrote in message ... "JAD" wrote in message ... Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you have before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that Intel won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take the point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone the increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let them get wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? "GTS" wrote in message ... SNIP Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The results are so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the Intel's cannot. Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta Windows64. Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as one that does 32&64 well. Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64 chips... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
LOL your very selective on what you chose to comment on...
That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the 64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft probably delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be much more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to go along with it. Hey YO!!!! anybody in there....that is merely AN OS,, whoopee so what? play 64 bit solitaire? type a 64 bit letter? "JK" wrote in message ... JAD wrote: Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen! Very funny. Large amounts of 64 bit X86-64 software is in development now. yeah LOL reminds me of HDTV...........get it? just now and its been drummed for 10 years HDTV sets are finally about to become affordable for the average person. Some are predicting 32" lcd tv prices dropping to as low as $1,200 within 2005. While $1,200 would still be considered a high price for a television by many people, it is still affordable for large numbers of people, while around $4,000 is totally out of the question for most people. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? That will probably change within 6-9 months with the release of the 64 bit version of Windows XP. My opinion on this is that Microsoft probably delayed 64 bit Windows XP to give them enough time to port many applications to 64 bit. The Windows 64 bit introduction will imo be much more successful if there is plenty of 64 bit software available to go along with it. Most people buy computers to last 2 to 5 years. what does that have to do with that statement? Do you think that 64bit will still be thought of as NEW in 3 years? You guys are saying that the price of the 64 bit chips will remain the same for three years? So buy NOW with limited stuff to do There is plenty of 32 bit bit software that runs great on an Athlon 64 or Opteron. The Athlon 64 is already inexpensive. An Athlon 64(socket 754) at around $150 is around the same price as a Pentium 4 2.8 ghz which is only 32 bits. , except test for filthy rich companies, limited amounts of everything else, at a higher price, OR wait until the prices fall and there is mainstream everything to go with it? "Matt" wrote in message ... JAD wrote: Now let's see ... if a 64-bit system costs no more than a 32-bit system ... which should I buy ... hmmm ... I just don't know ... let me get back to you on that ... Oh! I know! 64-bit software is a pipe dream! It'll never happen! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
JAD wrote: OK so what if the price is so low you can't resist now......LOL it will only go down, and the headaches decreased. MB variety INCREASED - SOFTWARE availability INCREASED Huge players in the worlds economy don't make huge mistakes. You may think you have the whole story ha ha jokes on Intel/AMD which ever the flavor of the moment but we only hear what is released. Things are done for a reason.......64bit.......why not a completely NEW platform,,,,,dare I say 128bit? or something completely unlike anything before? Do you think Usenet people have all the inside, hell no. Its our opinions and speculations. Even Intel/AMD employees don't have all the info on any given project. Obviously there are reasons to build NEW and paying high for the bragging rights of 64bit. Without quoting prices its fair to say that an athalon32 would be cheaper still and scream out 32bit processing, Not for demanding applications such as games, Photoshop, CAD, etc. The Athlon 64 chips are faster than the 32 bit Athlon XP chips at running 32 bit software not because of the 64 bit ability, but because of the integrated memory controller(s), SSE2, and other refinements. Look at these Doom 3 benchmarks for example. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7 so bang for the buck = using 64bit to run 32bit at a high price. The price on the Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) is quite low. Only around $55 more than an Athlon XP3000+(okay, the socket 754 motherboard is around $20-25 more than one for an Athlon XP). The Athlon 64 3000+ outperforms an Athlon XP3000+ even at Business Winstone 2004. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6 and by a much larger margin in more processor intensive software. An Athlon 64 3000+(socket 754) is very close in price to a 32 bit Pentium 4 2.8 ghz, so this nonsense about paying a high premium for a 64 bit processor doesn't make much sense. instead of a reasonable Intel or Athalon to do the same thing. Then 2 years from now you update your MB and CPU. In the box you have. MAYBE even find a board that has dual processor support (64or32bit)...... I can get outrageous too........... "JK" wrote in message ... JAD wrote: Well you may be able to buy a new CPU everytime a new flavour comes out, but I would be looking for at least 3 years out of a new purchase - and even then I just move the older one onto the home network. It's called future proofing - if you are buying a new chip NOW and don't want to pay silly money for a 64-bit only Intel which would be pretty useless anyway with todays software. well DUH that's why I'm saying 'use what you have' and wait for the real 64bit software to be out. Why do that when an Athlon 64 3000+ is so inexpensive(only around $150 for a socket 754 one) and such a great performer running 32 bit software. An upgrade to an Athlon 64 makes sense for many people even if they don't plan on ever upgrading to 64 bit software. Then if you want to do this with an AMD go for it, but do you think by then that Intel will have leaked and dropped unto the market their next scheme, then somewhere down the line AMD drops a bomb, then Intel then AMD then Intel then amd....with the stock market teetering on the brink, do you think this stuff is decided by a bunch of high schoolers on a class project? Hype hype hype, and god knows that without that 1 in 100,000(completely fictitious) doing their testing for them (FOR FREE, or should I say for a profit, reminds me of buying a tee-shirt with a company's logo on it), we would be paying more and waiting even longer for tech/software to catch up to one another. "GTS" wrote in message ... "JAD" wrote in message ... Tell me, are you just really trying to use up what time you have before Intel releases its 64 line? Or is it you believe that Intel won't enter the market? R&D costs a bunch, letting amd 'Take the point' for once, is IMO, good marketing strategy( let alone the increased practicality in waiting for 64bit software). Let them get wounded. ! beta OS or linux....WOW!!!!! sounds like fun....? "GTS" wrote in message ... SNIP Who cares if the Intel chips are faster in some benchmarks? The results are so close, but the AMD's can run 64-bit software, which the Intel's cannot. Many are already running 64-bit software - either Linux or beta Windows64. Why buy a chip that only supports 32bit, for the same price as one that does 32&64 well. Also Windows XP SP2 has enhanced AV capabilities with the AMD64 chips... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell | LuvrSmel | Overclocking | 1 | January 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 08:20 PM |
Ghost speed differerent in AMD & Intel | Zotin Khuma | General | 7 | November 17th 04 06:56 AM |
Best 'bang for buck' CPU at the moment? | Cheddar | Homebuilt PC's | 9 | June 4th 04 01:40 AM |
Gigabyte GA-8IG1000 Pro or Intel D865GBFLK ? | Piotr Makley | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | March 10th 04 03:39 PM |