New Athlon64 vs. P43.2

ThunderBoy · 10-14-2003, 05:01 AM

I'm new to this page but as far as I can tell its the best gaming site on the net. Anyway my real queston is, does anyone know how these two chips perform? From what I can see on paper the Athlon64 is more powerfull but for some reason I also see that most of the performance PC companies (i.e.-Alienware, FalconNW, Voodoo, ect...) continue to put P4s in their systems. Anybody got any decent explanations or insights?

interman · 10-14-2003, 05:55 AM

the a64 is indeed the faster of the two, but why those companies aren't going for it is beyond me. Could be that they simply have contracts with intel, but then again, you'll get the best box if you build it yourself

Dennis S. · 10-14-2003, 06:04 AM

Maybe because there's no software that supports the advantages of 64-bit architecture?

ThunderBoy · 10-14-2003, 08:44 AM

Hmm.. Guess it'll remain a mystery.

Joseph G. · 10-14-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis S.@Oct 14 2003, 05:04 AM
Maybe because there's no software that supports the advantages of 64-bit architecture?

I heard that UT2004 support 64 bit processing architecture, but i am not quiet sure...

10-14-2003, 10:58 AM

Doesn't matter if not much software currently supports 64bit, it is still faster then the P4 3.2 in 32bit applications...

Version · 10-15-2003, 11:50 AM

As stated above it's still faster even though it's 64-bit architecture doesn't give it an advantage in 32-bit applications, there is also the matter of it already being 32-bit, when a 64-bit Windows operating system is available to the mass market people will be able to upgrade to it and take advantage of it's 64-bit architecture straight away and not have to upgrade to a 64-bit Processor.

As also stated, you get a better system if you build it yourself, so does it really matter to us.

Doug · 10-15-2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis S.@Oct 14 2003, 06:04 AM
Maybe because there's no software that supports the advantages of 64-bit architecture?

Whaaaat! Linux etc has had x86-64 for a LONG time now. And as IRS said, there's a version of UT2k3 that runs in 64bit, UT2k4 probably will (I guess?) and there is a beta version of Windows XP for the Athlon 64.

Syfer · 10-15-2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis S.@Oct 14 2003, 05:04 AM
Maybe because there's no software that supports the advantages of 64-bit architecture?

microsoft is finishing their 64bit windows.
ut2k3 takes advantage of it, ut2k4 will as well.
there will be more applications taking advantage of it as well.
but anyway, the athlon 64 wins in every 32bit application as well :thumbup:

Version · 10-20-2003, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doug@Oct 15 2003, 11:36 AM
Whaaaat! Linux etc has had x86-64 for a LONG time now. And as IRS said, there's a version of UT2k3 that runs in 64bit, UT2k4 probably will (I guess?) and there is a beta version of Windows XP for the Athlon 64.

Linux utilizing 64-bit arcitecture means nothing to the windows users of the world, no one is going to use linux because of it's 64-bit support heh.

And UT2003 does allready use 64-bit if it's available.

And prior to AMD releasing the 64-bit chips longhorn was in alpha stages, it still is, they're just bullshiting, I mean dam, it's due for release in 2006, there is also no public beta, this is ms we are talking about, beta, heh, only if you feel like downloading a leaked copy from a pub somewhere.