Intel 64 Bit CPU for the Desktop?

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Gooey_GUI, 18 Oct 2004.

  1. Gooey_GUI

    Gooey_GUI Wanted: Red Shirts

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    39
    I have heard that this is due to be released before Christmas. In fact, it's supposd to be in a few weeks. Is there any truth to this?

    I was going to get an AMD 939, but I want PCI-e and DDR2 as well. Timing for everything is sooner than later. :worried:
     
    Gooey_GUI, 18 Oct 2004
    #1
  2. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    what makes you want DDR2?
     
    Tim S, 18 Oct 2004
    #2
  3. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    13,411
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    you mean this?

    its availible now
     
    Last edited: 18 Oct 2004
    Mister_Tad, 18 Oct 2004
    #3
  4. Gooey_GUI

    Gooey_GUI Wanted: Red Shirts

    Joined:
    3 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    2,336
    Likes Received:
    39
    DDR2 will be better to buy now than DDR memory as the pocket book would rather pay for something more current than the older DDR memory. I know that there is supposed to be something to do with latency that makes both about equal, but wouldn't I be able to upgrade it later? :confused:
     
    Gooey_GUI, 18 Oct 2004
    #4
  5. Tim S

    Tim S OG

    Joined:
    8 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    18,882
    Likes Received:
    89
    Well, DDR2 is only required for Intel setups, and performance on Intel systems isn't great if you're after a good gamer. DDR2 at 533MHz has a difficult task of shaking off DDR at 400MHz - it doesn't, providing the latency is there. The Athlon 64 isn't miles behind in Video Encoding either, certainly nowhere near as far behind as they used to be.

    Retail PCIe AMD-based boards are about 2-3 weeks away, and the price of DDR2 isn't going to drop for a while yet, and latencies would need to drop before it becomes a viable option IMHO.

    I just don't see an Intel setup being a viable option for a while yet, but then, I've seen what's coming next ;)
     
    Tim S, 19 Oct 2004
    #5
  6. dead_man

    dead_man Confucious say: WTF???

    Joined:
    4 May 2004
    Posts:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    0
    ne1 seen any reviews on the intel 64bit cpus?
     
    dead_man, 19 Oct 2004
    #6
  7. Mister_Tad

    Mister_Tad Will work for nuts Super Moderator

    Joined:
    27 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    13,411
    Likes Received:
    1,657
    there is no fundamental difference between the 64bit ones and the 32bit ones
    it isnt like the AthlonXP -> Athlon64, which was a complete new architecture, the performance of the athlon64 has nothing to do with its 64bit capabilities.

    in short, look for reviews of a normal 3.4 prescott and you will have a good idea of the 3.4F performance :thumb:

    so unless you need more than 4GB of ram, or are using lots of 64bit-ready applications, then you wont need it.

    ie, you wont need it :)
     
    Mister_Tad, 19 Oct 2004
    #7
  8. Tute

    Tute What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    19 Oct 2004
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently some of the current CPUs already have it there, it's just "deactivated".

    And the Windows XP 64-Bit preview is pretty buggy at this point in time, you can't tell the differences most of the time, and both nVidia and ATi are struggling with stable WHQL'd drivers for it.

    The only real reason to go 64-bit at this point in time is for the AMDs, which give you awesome performance in the 32-bit applications.
     
    Tute, 19 Oct 2004
    #8

Share This Page