PDA

View Full Version : AMD upgrade, any experts?



Bulwark_
04-06-2005, 12:24 AM
I know there's many people in here using AMD, so I'd like to borrow some of your knowledge! So here it is. I've been using intel processors since, oh maybe 1992. Anyway, my current system is over 2 years old and so I'm probably going to do an upgrade within the next month.

I'm planning on going with AMD, but I'm not exactly familiar with that processor. So... right now I'm leaning towards the 3500+. Anything higher and it's getting out of my price range. Problem is I don't know too much about the S939 mobos. I'm thinking about getting the ASUS A8N-E. Is that any good? I ask because it doesn't seem too bad at $170 CAD. Any recommendations for a good mobo or is the A8N-E fine?

Also, which brand of RAM would be best? According to the ASUS A8N-E pdf manual, the DDR400 Qualified Vendors List has these brands: Hynix, Mosel, Infineon, Kingston, Samsung, Micron, Winbond, and VALUE seLecT.

I can get a Samsung 1024MB for... hmmm, price went up, but it's going for about $191 CAD now.

Oh, one more thing, video card. Maybe a dumb question but... Is it better to use Radeon or GeForce with AMD?

Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bulwark_
04-06-2005, 12:24 AM
I know there's many people in here using AMD, so I'd like to borrow some of your knowledge! So here it is. I've been using intel processors since, oh maybe 1992. Anyway, my current system is over 2 years old and so I'm probably going to do an upgrade within the next month.

I'm planning on going with AMD, but I'm not exactly familiar with that processor. So... right now I'm leaning towards the 3500+. Anything higher and it's getting out of my price range. Problem is I don't know too much about the S939 mobos. I'm thinking about getting the ASUS A8N-E. Is that any good? I ask because it doesn't seem too bad at $170 CAD. Any recommendations for a good mobo or is the A8N-E fine?

Also, which brand of RAM would be best? According to the ASUS A8N-E pdf manual, the DDR400 Qualified Vendors List has these brands: Hynix, Mosel, Infineon, Kingston, Samsung, Micron, Winbond, and VALUE seLecT.

I can get a Samsung 1024MB for... hmmm, price went up, but it's going for about $191 CAD now.

Oh, one more thing, video card. Maybe a dumb question but... Is it better to use Radeon or GeForce with AMD?

Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Silencer_42
04-06-2005, 12:31 AM
I am on my third AMD chip (3200+) but i'll be using Intel next. I'm not an expert but in my experience AMD is the cheaper alternative so if you can afford it go Intel. I say this because I occasionaly have gaming LANS where a friends Intel computer that in theory should be a little slower than my PC is a little faster and his motherboard was quite older as well. (I'll never admit his machine is better) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have a ATI (radeon) with the AMD and it works fine. But ATI vs NVIDIA (GeForce) is like AMD vs Intel. If you can afford it go for high end Nvidia cards but the mid range priced cards are both quite good.

Don't take my word for this though, it's hard to keep up with new hardware when your not currently buying anything. =)

Frederf220
04-06-2005, 12:41 AM
That's all pretty cutting edge. Infineon, Kingston, Samsung, Micron are the brands I recognize as good. 191$ CAD is 156 US... but I dunno what type the new mobo's take. Try pricewatch, your price seems very fair.

I haven't heard anything about geforces and ati's prefering any one processor over the other.

Bulwark_
04-06-2005, 12:56 AM
The problem I have with intel right now is they don't have 64bit processors. What I've been told by a friend of mine is, the 600 series, and other intel processors which are capable of running 64bit, are not true 64bit processors. Because AMD came out with 64bit, intel quickly threw together a dual core system which is actually 2 32bit processors. Or something along those lines. I've also heard that intel won't have out real 64bit until around the fall.

alanschu
04-06-2005, 01:37 AM
AMD tends to be really good gaming machines.


If you are planning on getting an Athlon 64, make sure you get one of the newer ones (which probably is going to be the case)...I think it's Socket 939. Avoid the Socket 754(or something like that). The socket 939s support dual channel memory and a faster HyperTransfer rate. Also, even with equivalent ratings, the 64 bit processors still beat the 32-bit AMD processors (that is, two processors clocked the same) even when running only 32-bit software.

As for Intel....you could spend a lot more and get a small performance gain if you really want. I haven't used an Intel machine since 1999, since I find them to not be worth their money. I also prefer the technology behind the AMD processors compared to the Intel processors, but that's a whole other story.

And if you are planning on getting 1 GB of memory, I'd recommend getting 2 512 MB modules, in order to take advantage of that dual channel memory (twice the bandwidth for virtually no cost).

As for memory, Kingston probably has the highest price, but I find it to be far more reliable, and it comes with a lifetime warranty (which may or may not be important to you). Their RAM definitely is the most compatible, however any manufacturer on the supported vendor list should work fine. Make sure it's PC3200 (DDR400) for maximum performance. I'm not sure if DDR333 is still used or not...but keep an eye out for that stuff.

One thing to note though, check the RAM part number before buying it. Usually the supported RAM lists a specific part number....for whatever reason, even getting the exact same type of module manufactured by the same company might not be very stable at all (it wasn't for me). There are certain differences between part numbers that I don't completely understand. Just make sure you get a part that works for your motherboard/processor.


As for ATI vs nVidia...probably doesn't matter much. Both high end cards are too expensive but plenty fast. I find the value cards for ATI tend to be a bit better (the 9600 was great when it came out), but I'm not sure what's big and what's not at the moment. I have an Athlon64 with a Radeon 9800 Pro, with 2x512 MB PC3200 and there is nothing that my computer cannot handle.

I *think* there might be some newer technology on the latest chips that my 9800 Pro doesn't quite have anymore (I remember one demo where I couldn't select a graphics option...I think it was Chronicles of Riddick), but you'd probably be getting something better than me anyways :P

One thing to consider, apparently there is a compatability problem of some sort with Silent Hunter 3 and nVidia cards...so if you plan on playing a ton of SH3, you might want to lean towards ATI. If not, either company is fine.

Archanon
04-06-2005, 01:45 AM
@Bulwark_

That's not correct... The intel 64 bit cpu's are just as true 64 bit as AMD's 64 bit cpu's. The performance is slightly different, but they are after all different cpu's, so that's normal

@Silencer_42

If you are a gamer, Intel is the worst choice you can make... The MAD cpu's with integrated memory controller are way better on that.....

Now on to the questions:

The A8N is a good board, but you'll need a pci-x vidcard, beware of that...

Silencer_42
04-06-2005, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Archanon:
@Silencer_42

If you are a gamer, Intel is the worst choice you can make... The MAD cpu's with integrated memory controller are way better on that.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When I built my PC I was told a similar thing except that the most expensive Intel cpu's were better but in the price range I was in (I have AMD 3200+) I was better off getting AMD.

InfectiousDust
04-06-2005, 02:27 AM
Take a look at my sig for my system's specs. I've built my rig around the AMD 3500+, and this CPU will run laps around most P4's available right now.

I wanted to make a couple of comments regarding rianschu's post. First off, there is much better RAM available than Kingston. Corsair and OCZ are two example that are definately worth checking out. Secondly, alanschu is quite right about checking your RAM's model. Make sure that the RAM you would like to buy is compatible with your motherboard. Check the mobo company's website for compatibility tables, or e-mail them and ask. Finally, the newest NVidia cards don't seem to have as much problems with SH3 as older models. My 6800GT is as smooth as silk, and I've had no problems so far. Oh yes, alanschu is also right about the Socket 939. Don't settle for the 754, you will be disappointed. Dual-channel memory makes a big difference.

If you have any specific questions Bulwark, feel free to PM me. I'll be more than happy to answer any of your questions.

alanschu
04-06-2005, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's not correct... The intel 64 bit cpu's are just as true 64 bit as AMD's 64 bit cpu's. The performance is slightly different, but they are after all different cpu's, so that's normal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true. The Itanium processor and the Athlon64 bit processor are very different beasts.

The Athlon64 also holds a 32-bit core in addition to the 64-bit core, so it can run 32-bit applications natively. The Itanium requires software emulation, and ends up running 32-bit applications slower than 32-bit machines. It's also not a consumer based chip...it's used for servers and whatnot, and most consumer software has no support for it whatsoever.

I have heard about an Itanium 2, but I don't know the details of it however. Perhaps they copied AMDs idea and put a 32-bit core on it too. But from what I know, the Intel 64-bit processor was purely 64-bit, and was designed for workstations and servers. It ran games like ****.

tankeriv
04-06-2005, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alanschu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That's not correct... The intel 64 bit cpu's are just as true 64 bit as AMD's 64 bit cpu's. The performance is slightly different, but they are after all different cpu's, so that's normal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true. The Itanium processor and the Athlon64 bit processor are very different beasts.

The Athlon64 also holds a 32-bit core in addition to the 64-bit core, so it can run 32-bit applications natively. The Itanium requires software emulation, and ends up running 32-bit applications slower than 32-bit machines. It's also not a consumer based chip...it's used for servers and whatnot, and most consumer software has no support for it whatsoever.

I have heard about an Itanium 2, but I don't know the details of it however. Perhaps they copied AMDs idea and put a 32-bit core on it too. But from what I know, the Intel 64-bit processor was purely 64-bit, and was designed for workstations and servers. It ran games like ****. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Itanium 2 has already been released http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And no way intended as gaming cpu's btw

alanschu
04-06-2005, 02:53 AM
Yeah...I don't follow Itanium at all, so I had no idea it had been released http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ChaytonWarrior
04-06-2005, 03:28 AM
AMD is the way to go, Intel has been sleeping now since a few years only anymore. Besides who pays more for either the equal or even lesser performance?
The only good thing Intel has in favor towards AMD is this new BTX case, but they were only forced to research that because of their dumbness. While the new AMD chips build less heat these days, the Intel new chips even produce more heat than the old Athlon XPs. Which means that the only thing in which Intel was always better so far compared to AMD is now gone too.

ASUS is general great, however if its true that the board you looking for has no AGP slot anymore, then i would advice not to go with it. This PCI Express is these days simple a joke, cost a lot but has no advantage, the graphic cards of today have only recently began to take advantage of the AGP8. For the future it sure will be the way to go, but then it will be also much cheaper.

As for the RAMs best is if you go for either Kingston or Corsair, i myself go for Kingston (which btw sucks in my country, send you a package with "life time warranty" but in every store you hear that you only get 5 years, costumer service of Austria *rolls eyes*)

Question is also if you want to get the WinXP 64 bit edition, if not then you may consider in taking a Septron, as these have the same build up like the 64bit chips but only go for 32 bit. And if you have no software that supports 64bit, then its basicly useless. A Septron would be cheaper, and you can use the same motherboards from the old Athlon XP, there i would recommend than the A7V880 from ASUS, only bad point it has that it seems not to come with a gameport anymore, thought thats not sure since i got a friend who has the same and he did got a gameport with it.

Archanon
04-06-2005, 03:43 AM
@alanschu

When i was referring to Intel's 64 bit cpu's I didn't mean Itanium, because that cpu is totally unsuitable for gaming....

I was talking about the 6xx Pentium 4 series which is in fact just a 'copy' of the athlon64 (which means both are x86-64)....

CaptainBeefhead
04-06-2005, 03:55 AM
Lifetime warranty isn´t it the lifetime of the product being at the retail market only. And that would be like 4-5 years. But I think it would be slightly more than this for ram modules.

bweiss
04-06-2005, 05:04 AM
Running an AMD Athalon64 4000+ here, and it is beautiful. I made the leap from Intel and may never go back. I've never seen anything this fast but more importantly, this stable.

SubQual
04-06-2005, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bulwark_:
Anyway, my current system is over 2 years old and so I'm probably going to do an upgrade within the next month. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay before you go spending money, what speed processor do you have now?

The reason I ask is that the baby tweakers and geek wannabes will say run for super high end. The truth is even many 2 year old systems can run todays games just fine.

My main computer is a Pentium 4, 2.4 Ghz using a Radeon 9700 Pro. Thats right folks a 2 year old PC. Guess what, there is not a single game on the market I cannot run at 1280x1024 with mid range AA and AF. (If the game supports it) At 1024x768 I run max AA and AF and the games are SMOOTH.

Oh sure I know in benchmarks my numbers are slower, news flash, I do not PLAY benchmarks.

The computer wannabes out there will use benchmarks to show anything but in truth a benchmark is a clinical conditions based test that is NEVER accurate in real life performance.

If you have anything in the 2.4 Ghz range I would hold off on a new mainbaord and CPU for a while longer. new gneration of even faster stuff will be out soon. If you do need to upgrade look at overclocking the CPU. I can get mine up to 2.8 Ghz with standard cooling. Also jack the RAM. I took advantage of a deal at New Egg, right now get Corsair Value Ram (2x512 for a 1 Gig Upgrade) for $88 with free shipping. Using this myself, best RAM buy you will find.

If overclocking is not an option for you, look at some of the 3 Ghz Intel processors. New Egge again has a 3.0 Ghz for $180. That is not all that expensive and if your mainbaord supports the chip your work is a lot easier.

As for video I tend to go ATI exclusively. nVidia dealt poorly with 3dfx customers when they did the buy out and as a company they are a pain to deal with. ATI has a great development team and they actually listen to the consumers when fixing driver issues, plus their new driver team is the best on the market.

It is no longer true that a system is outdated when it is 6 months old, or 1 year or even 2. Anything with a 2 Ghz processor, good ram and video can be a solid machine today with the current crop of games and anything likely to come out this year.

Save your money wait for the new tech of this year to hit. Then the upgrade you are looking at now will be a ton cheaper and still give the benefit you want.

quillan
04-06-2005, 07:57 AM
Which processor is better changes from time to time. AMD was much more powerful than Intel about 3-4 years ago, right after the Pentium 4 was released. Up through about the Athlon XP 2200+, AMD maintained their lead. With the XP processor line, it really started hitting its performance limits then, and Intel came out with the Northwood core which supported 800 mhz bus speeds. From that point, Intel outperformed AMD in practice. That changed again with the Athlon 64 processors. The 64 bit part doesn't really matter on the desktop. What matters is the memory controller is built in to the processor, so it makes it much faster to access memory. In games, the Athlon 64s outperform anything Intel has at the equivalent or even a bit higher price point. I'm expecting that Silencer has an Athlon XP 3200+. That chip didn't come close to a 3.2 ghz P4. Even the 2.8 ghz really outperformed it. But, in games, the Athlon 64 3000+ gives better performance than a 3.4 ghz Pentium.

The Athlon 64 3500+ is a really good chip. That's what I've been leaning towards as well. Make sure you get one with the Winchester core (90 nm production process). They run a bit cooler and can be overclocked better (if you're into that) than the Newcastle core. Any A64 between the 3000+ and the 3500+ would be good. Asus is a really good motherboard manufacturer.

As to memory, some of the names on your list are chip manufacturers, not the memory stick companies. Hynix, Infineon, Samsung and Winbond make the chips that are used on the DIMMs. Other companies take the chips and place them on their own PC boards to make the memory sticks. Micron is the only one I'm familiar with that both manufactures the chips and sells the memory sticks. Other good memory companies are Corsair, OCZ, Mushkin, Kingston, and Crucial (which is a division of Micron).

With AMD, I don't think video card brand is really a problem. I've used both nVidia and ATI at different times on my system, and haven't had any problems either way. I do suggest that, unless you plan on dumping 700+ dollars on the absolute top-of-the-line video card, you go with nVidia if you're buying right now. You'll get better performance for the money out of nVidia, at least at the moment.

gregs4163
04-06-2005, 08:29 AM
AMD all the way! to say that AMD is lesser of an alternative is ludicrous AMD is the cutting edge
in perfromance and design and all with 1.0+ Ghz less clock speed! They run cooler and allow for alot more hardware options and usually at a lower price point. Intel has the market share and got Big, Fat & Lazy and fell asleep at the wheel! thats why I switched 3 years ago and not looking back. I just upgraded to an Athlon 64 3500+ winchester core w/Asus A8N SLI board, this thing screams performance and runs 40 degrees C stressed 30 degrees C Idle!

ShadowDancer666
04-06-2005, 08:32 AM
I picked up an Athlon 64 3000 1gig corsair and an Nvid fx 5700 for 900 Euro's XP Home, HD 160gb, DVDRW blah blah. Nvid are in co-op with AMD so their cards should be better with the set up.

Has been a great game machine and handles well on everything I have played so far, SHIII runs well, no bugs no stutter

Slingn
04-06-2005, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ShadowDancer666:
. Nvid are in co-op with AMD so their cards should be better with the set up.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? Nvida and amd are in coop? Thats interesting. You want to post some kind of link to where you got the information?

As far as the ford vs chevy, aahhh I mean amd vs intel, just check the benchmarks. There are plenty out there. The performance differences are small and the whole price difference thing is not what it once was. Some of you seem to be blinded by what you have, and cannot be unbiased.

gregs4163
04-06-2005, 09:15 AM
Slingn, I beg to differ. You mention benchmarks, what you leave out is what they compare? Say a 2.2 Ghz AMD against a 3.2 Ghz Intel and they're about the same. Come on..... clock for clock the AMD blows it out of the water! (Pun Intended) The Athlon design is superior!

quillan
04-06-2005, 09:37 AM
Not superior, just different. AMD has always gone more for IPC (Instructions Per Clock) rather than just speed. P4s are much better than AMD processors when it comes to media encoding (music and video) and 3D content creation.

However, I think the price difference is bigger than you realise, Slingn. Take, as an example, the Athlon 64 3500+ the original poster is considering. In US dollars, you can get one at newegg for about $270. A P4 3.46 ghz Extreme Edition costs $1045, and the 3500+ performs better in games. That's over a $700 difference, and you still get better performance. I admit, it's not really a fair comparison, but it's still true. The closest price point to the 3500+ is the 3.2 ghz model 640. In a game, the 3500+ will give much better performance. Whether you can tell the difference is another matter, highly dependant on what other components you've got in your computer and what settings you're running in the particular program.

Slingn
04-06-2005, 12:08 PM
Well, I agree, the price difference is a little larger than I initially thought, and when you also add in the generally more expensive mobo needed for the intel, that difference grows even more. Still, I dont thnk it's as significant as it was a few years ago. Oh, and just for the record, I am an AMD guy. I€ve been off the Intel for a couple years now, but I still haven gotten my pin,. ( oh wait, that€s another club).

Anyway, like you said, its not really fair to compare that intel EE, but overall, I think if you forget chip speed ratings, and or model #s, and just compare the dollar to performance ratio, its still pretty close between the brands. And the benchmarks I mentioned were just the general performance benchmarks for all models, not specifically comparing one chip to another. So yes, if you compare clock for clock, AMD does own, especially in the gaming market, but I think the dollar/performance ratio is more relevant here.

Anyway, I was just trying to nix the whole amd vs intel flame fest, that usually ensues in these threads, by pointing out there really isn€t that much difference. Yes, if you€re a gamer, like most of us are, than AMD generally wins those battles. But the difference is not that great, and some people do more then just game, so there are other factors to be considered. Amd has been able to pull away a tad with the newer stuff, but expect intel to make their run too. Either way, both can power very viable systems for any use. Neither is an outright dog (well, we're not talking about celerons are we?), and regardless of your preference, it doesn€t make someone a fool for going the other way. And if you haven't noticed, I€m not shy about pointing out foolishness.

Good luck to the original poster with whatever cpu you decide on. Just make sure the rest of your parts are good too. Nothing brings down a nice shiny new cpu more than mixing it with el cheapo ram, mobo and psu, or graphics card.

ivoloos
04-06-2005, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bulwark_:
I know there's many people in here using AMD, so I'd like to borrow some of your knowledge! So here it is. I've been using intel processors since, oh maybe 1992. Anyway, my current system is over 2 years old and so I'm probably going to do an upgrade within the next month.

I'm planning on going with AMD, but I'm not exactly familiar with that processor. So... right now I'm leaning towards the 3500+.

(...)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm an Intel user too.
I see it this way (IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ):
That 3500+ is a nice one. Good performance for an acceptable price. I see the motherboard is a 'VIA' board. Maybe it's a idea to take a look at a nforce4 mobo. the SLI deluxe board preforms very well and has an affordable price, compared to boards of other manufacturers.

About that RAM thing. Is that samsung memory 2*512 or 1*1024MB? I think it's better to do a 2*512 (2*1024 is too much expensive).

And the videocard... yeah... that's up to you, I think.

EDIT: yesterday, NVIDIA has launched it's nforce4 MCP with SLI, for Intel. I have taken some looks at some previews and results are quite impressive.

Bulwark_
04-06-2005, 12:38 PM
Thank you all for your comments! There has been quite a mix of information here, so I'm not sure what exactly what I'm going to do yet.

@ Archanon: Can you please direct me to a link where I can find intel 64-bit processors? I've been all over intel and cannot find the exact words "64-bit" on any of their processors.

@ SubQual: Oops I didn't list my current system specs. P4 2.4, 1Gig, ATI Radeon 9000 128meg. Do you know what new tech is going to be released this year moderately priced?

@ quillan: You mentioned OCZ ram, but I don't see that on the list I had. I can pick up a 1gig stick for about $230 CAD. And it's funny that you mentioned the intel 640 in another post. That's basically what I'm deciding on... the 3500+ or the 640. The thing with the video cards, AMD has SLI which you're probably familiar with. It only supports the 6600 and 6800 at the moment I believe. But I don't plan on ever using two video cards anyway. I'll see what the prices are like... I would kind of like to get an AIW maybe the X800XT. I'll have to check with a friend of mine on what kind of pricing I can get.

Again, thanks for all the info guys. I'm not sure what I'll do yet, but I mostly use my computer for gaming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ivoloos
04-06-2005, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bulwark_:
@ Archanon: Can you please direct me to a link where I can find intel 64-bit processors? I've been all over intel and cannot find the exact words "64-bit" on any of their processors. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Intel has labeled it's 64-bit support as EM64T, or "extended memory 64 technology".
The 6xx series do support it. For details you'd better take a look at
Intels desktop processor list (http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/processors/index.htm)

lbhskier37
04-06-2005, 12:54 PM
Someone earlier advised to stay away from a board without AGP, but I am going to have to disagree. If you are the type of person that keeps a computer for more than a year you will want PCI express so you can have a future upgrade path. Regardless of whether the performance is needed, AGP is dead in the future. Also the price for PCI-E cards isn't that bad, you can get a Nvidia 6600 GT for fairly cheap. About the 64bit, if you buy windows xp pro, microsoft will upgrade you to xp pro 64bit for free when it comes out, another good thing if you are going to keep your box for a long time. Another big advantage with going with a socket 939 amd chip aside from its better performance in games is that when AMD comes out with dual cores they will be compatible with socket 939, whereas the new dual core Pentiums will require a different motherboard. Just a thing to think about if you wanna look towards the future.

Bulwark_
04-06-2005, 12:57 PM
Yes I've been there, and I know about EM64T. So why isn't it called 64-bit? I am looking for a definite answer, and intel is very good with the way they word their product descriptions. Nowhere does it call them 64-bit. Capable of supporting 64-bit software, yes. The EM64T is something like a dual core processor, like atually 2 32-bit. This is what a friend of mine researched. So intel, even the 6xx series is not TRUE 64-bit.

lbhskier37
04-06-2005, 01:05 PM
yeah EMT64 is true 64 bit. Your friend was confused. Intel is also releasing a chip with two processors on the same die, both of which support EMT64, but EMT64 is also on thier single core chips. EMT64 is a bit different from AMDs implimentation but it still has all it needs to function as a full 64bit processor. I am guessing they call it EMT64 because AMD has a copyright on the term X86-64(just a guess).

quillan
04-06-2005, 01:17 PM
Here's the thing, and excuse me for shouting, but I want to make a point: YOU DON'T NEED 64 BIT ON THE DESKTOP YET! All the software that runs on 64 bit is for server applications. The reason AMD went 64 bit is they were developing a cheaper 64 bit server processor (Opteron) and expanded it into the desktop. With Opteron, AMD provided a processor that could run both existing 64 bit code as well as 32 bit code, without anything having to be ported over. There is NO 64 bit code for desktop yet. The Windows XP 64 bit edition is about to come out, but drivers for it are somewhat hard to find. Having it won't do you any good right now, unless you are using this computer in a commercial application. The capability is good to have, because in a couple of years, I do expect some 64 bit software, but it isn't here yet.

Bulwark, as I said, the list you have isn't (for the most part) companies you can buy memory from. Have you looked at the memory in your computer now? It's a series of chips mounted on a small narrow PC board. Those chips are memory chips; the entire board assembly is called a DIMM, for Dual Inline Memory Module. Infineon, Hynix, Samsung and Winbond do pretty much nothing but manufacture the chips for others to build DIMMs. Micron does both; their completed memory modules are sold under the Micron and Crucial names. Kingston, OCZ, Mushkin, Corsair and so one are companies that take the chips the first group makes, and builds memory modules using them. I can find a rare few memory modules that Infineon sells. Samsung has quite a lot more, but the modules from Kingston, OCZ, Mushkin et al all use chips made by the big manufacturers. They work fine.

ivoloos
04-06-2005, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quillan:
Here's the thing, and excuse me for shouting, but I want to make a point: YOU DON'T NEED 64 BIT ON THE DESKTOP YET! All the software that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, not yet. But you don't have many choice when all of the new processors come with 64-bit support http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ivoloos
04-06-2005, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bulwark_:
Yes I've been there, and I know about EM64T. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So why isn't it called 64-bit? I am looking for a definite answer, and intel is very good with the way they word their product descriptions. Nowhere does it call them 64-bit. Capable of supporting 64-bit software, yes. The EM64T is something like a dual core processor, like atually 2 32-bit. This is what a friend of mine researched. So intel, even the 6xx series is not TRUE 64-bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As said before, EM64T = 64-bit. It's Intels 'marketing' name for the x86-64 architecture. You have to keep in mind, 64-bit and dual core are two separate things.

ivoloos
04-06-2005, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bulwark_:
Yes I've been there, and I know about EM64T. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So why isn't it called 64-bit? I am looking for a definite answer, and intel is very good with the way they word their product descriptions. Nowhere does it call them 64-bit. Capable of supporting 64-bit software, yes. The EM64T is something like a dual core processor, like atually 2 32-bit. This is what a friend of mine researched. So intel, even the 6xx series is not TRUE 64-bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As said before, EM64T = 64-bit. It's Intels 'marketing' name for the x86-64 architecture. You have to keep in mind, 64-bit and dual core are two separate things.

I've read that in the new Pentium extreme edition processors, Intel continues the support Hyperthreading[1]. In the normal dualcore Pentiums (the "Pentium D"), Intel will stop the support of Hyperthreading.

[1] so, it will have 2 physical and 2 logical cores, as seen here:
http://pics.computerbase.de/artikel/454/8.png

SubQual
04-06-2005, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bulwark_:

@ SubQual: Oops I didn't list my current system specs. P4 2.4, 1Gig, ATI Radeon 9000 128meg. Do you know what new tech is going to be released this year moderately priced? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your system in the end is nearly idential to mine. The only bottleneck you are running is the Radeon 9000.

At New Egg you can get a Radeon 9700 Pro AIW for $165, Sapphire 9800 Pro (128 meg) for $158 or a Sapphire 9800 Pro (256 Meg) for $202.

Any of these teamed with your current system will keep you gaming smooth and happy for another year if not two.

In the meantime, AMD and Intel are both getting busy with thier dual core processors. These are the future of processors and both companies will sink their hearts into them. The result will be some nice price cuts on Intel and AMD chips currently out.

If your mainbaord can support it, you can get a 3 Ghz Intel for under 200$ and have enough power to game for some time.

My advice is do not let everyone talk you into grabbing the biggest you can get. I work in the industry and my LAN Party buddies laugh at the fact my system is so behind the curve compared to theirs. Yet when game day is here my system does just as good as any of theirs.

You do not need a massive upgrade only some tweaking and a new video card. Save the money for more games, a bigger monitor and maybe a night out with the wife.

Your system is still a solid game machine, just a video upgrade to keep it running smooth and your are good for another year..

ivoloos
04-06-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SubQual:
You do not need a massive upgrade only some tweaking and a new video card. Save the money for more games, a bigger monitor and maybe a night out with the wife. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree on you with that. Only upgrading a couple of parts (processor, ram, graphics, and whatever needed more) is enough.

Bob_Gilroy
04-06-2005, 04:04 PM
I've always run my $149 s939 3000+ at speeds comparable to the 3800+ with no problems... The winchesters will easily clock to 2.4 Ghz.

Bulwark_
04-06-2005, 04:21 PM
Thanks again for the info guys.

@ quillan: Okay, well thanks for making me look stupid. I know what ram looks like but that was a cute description. I built my last two computers so I think I know. What I am not familiar with is AMD and how it differed from intel. And to clear up the RAM... this is the list I was referring to, and I was listing the brands.

http://img235.exs.cx/img235/920/ramlist4fp.jpg

Supr
04-06-2005, 04:34 PM
winbond BH5's. Those are good, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif right?
wern't the ch5's like the best?

quillan
04-06-2005, 04:47 PM
I'm not trying to make you look stupid, Bulwark. I didn't know how much you knew. I've never seen that list you posted, nor have I ever seen any memory modules sold under the Hynix name. In fact, I'd never seen one under Infineon until today, nor had I ever seen any chips from Kingston. I thought they strictly made the finished product. However, again, in the list, the Vendor column would be the people you buy from, while the Brand column is the chips used on the DIMM.

lbhskier37
04-06-2005, 04:59 PM
I would definitly recommend the kingston stuff if you aren't going to overclock. As long as its on the recommended list for the board you are buying you will be ok. Kingston is usually low priced and works perfect, no sense in spending a bunch on overclockers ram just to run at stock speeds.

ivoloos
04-06-2005, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bulwark_:
Thanks again for the info guys.

&lt;&gt;list&lt;/&gt;

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kingston and corsair are both good.

edit: OK too late http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif