The Athlon 64 does not need ECC or Registered DDR The Athlon 64 FX-51 Which has 128 bit DDR does need registered DDR. Next year there will be a 939 pin version of the A64 that has 128bit and doesn't require registered DDR
And this is the one im only interested in, and by the time it is actually out there might be some 64bit apps out to which is a bonus!
The old "megahurtz myth". Higher frequency does not equal better performance. I'd go with the Athlon 64 3200+. It's only 10 dollars more on pricewatch (will probably be cheaper very soon), equal or faster than the P4 3.2 in every review I saw, and has the native 64 bit capability that will only make it stay competitive longer.
Well i have one question!!! Every one who read the reviews on the Amd 64 3200+ knows that it is "faster" than a P4 3,2! But (and here comes the question) do you really benefit from the 64 bit architecture now? does it take advantage of this? it seams a bit pointless to buy a Amd 64 if u aint going to use the 64 bit part! If there isn't any product taking advantage from this then i prefer a P4 and maybe later the diferent Amd 64 ZapWizard metioned But this is just my way of thinking!!
I would buy an A64 ( once the pin count is settled ) because that is at a begining of its product cycle ( ie. it should be around for a few more years ) while the P4 is definitely at the end of its product cycle ( meaning that it will soon be on the "we only support this because we have to, but if you call with a problem prepare to hire an assistant to stay on hold for you" ). Plus the AMD community is just better.
for the $700 you (would have) spent on the AMD get a nice P4, and a Swiftech water cooling kit. Or dual Xeon if you are rolling in dough. EDIT: i NEVER in my whole life thought intel would be a few hundred cheaper. What is this world coming to?
There has been 4x times that I can remember that AMD has ever been ahead of Intel. 1)this processor. Though I don't call it ahead as the preformance isn't drastically far apart. 2)When the Barton 3200 came out before the Intel 3200. 3)When 1500-2200 came out since the amd was faster at comparable speeds. 4)can't remember the last. Everyother time intel has been better IMO. They seem just to have more muscle to them sometimes. I like amd's I think they are grand, I just like my intel a bit more. But from the luck I had with my intel board it makes me wish I had a amd.
So, you're saying they can't make the chipsets well, but they do a good job making the processors that go in them? How can you tell the difference? The way I've always seen it is: Intel is an incredible marketing company with a mediocre engineering division. AMD is an incredible engineering company with a horrible marketing division. Thus the sums always give an edge to Intel. Still the actual technology that AMD has put out has always seemed superior to me. The A64 won't cost more for long.
The A64 wont cost more for long no, cause its main feature is useless right now to just about everyone. Anyway, until intel switches to 64bit mainstream, its staying 32bit. They have that much say.
The first was AMDs 386 DX 40 chip if I remember correctly. In any case it was a 386 chip. It was faster than an Intel and back then it was like WOW it's got 40 Mhz and a co-processor already in it, COOOL ... hehe ... that were the days ... Cheers Fred
Your applications don't need to use 64bit, only the operating system, which MS has already put a semi-firm release date on. Personally, I think the changes in underlying support structure is way more significant thatn 64bits. 64bits can actually slow you down. Having all the bus's standardized to HT as well as being able to take advantage of dual channel finally.
Don't know if I was alive back then I just started from when I started being interested in PC's. Hell I even had a cyrix processor at one time. I like having both companies though because it makes cooler stuff for us!
