Aviatrr 0 #1 March 10, 2004 I'm buying a new desktop, and trying to decide which processor to go with. I'm looking at the AMD64(3000, 3200, 3400) and the P4(3.0 and 3.2). I've been told by one of the guys at a local computer store that the AMD runs 9 calculations per clock cycle, and the P4 runs 6....so the AMD seems to run faster, even though the clock speed is slower(he was comparing an AMD64 3200+ to a P4 3.2Ghz). Another reason he recommended the AMD64 is because when Microsoft updates WinXP to 64bit, the processor will be able to fully utilize its design, and will have a significant jump in power(as compared to the 32 bit OS). Jeanne - any timeframe on the 64bit OS? Another thing he had to say was that many programs state to turn the Hyperthreading feature off on the P4 because the programs don't run well with it. I'll be using this system mostly for video editing, CD/DVD burning, and the occasional high end game. Any recommendations from the much more computer savvy? Any truth to the salesman's claims? Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #2 March 10, 2004 Until you've got a slew of 64bit apps, the 64bit CPU won't be a much benefit to you. Does AMD do a 3000+/3200+/3400+ in a 32bit version? That might be a bit more affordable. For what it's worth, I've used AMD CPUs since the days of the 486 and never had a problem. They're less expensive than their Intel counterparts and perform (in my experience) just as well if not better. As far as video editing is concerned, if you're really looking for raw speed, then a dual CPU system, as much RAM as you can afford, a slew of FAST disk, and a multithreaded video editing program is the way to go. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 March 10, 2004 QuoteJeanne - any timeframe on the 64bit OS? I have seen it around and its running on many an Itanium here... but I will do some checking with the dev guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YellowDog 0 #4 March 10, 2004 I think you should just bypass the PC and go for Mac. If you're doing video editing or other graphics, Apple computers have raw speed in a comfortable, intuitive atmosphere. It might cost a bit more, but so worth it (IMOHO). ---> One Half of Almost Nearly Normal <--- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aviatrr 0 #5 March 10, 2004 QuoteDoes AMD do a 3000+/3200+/3400+ in a 32bit version? That might be a bit more affordable. Yea, they do...but the price difference on the 3000 and 3200 is very small($15-20 I think) between the 32bit and 64bit....but it's a significant difference on the 3400. Supposedly, based on what I've heard and read on some of the computer review websites, there are a lot of companies just waiting for a true 64bit OS and then they will launch their new programs to take advantage of it. It's on the web, so it must be true.. Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #6 March 10, 2004 FWIW Windows is in beta testing on x86-64, I think through the standard microsoft developer programs they have. There's 64-bit versions of many unix and unix-like operating systems, but IMO the only halfway good ones are commercial--ie, Solaris, AIX, and HPUX (havent used HPUX myself, just going on my impression with this one). Like 90% of all open source libraries are 32-bit or have flaky 64-bit support--notably glibc--so you'll end up with 32-bit apps on 64-bit hardware and o/s. I suspect it'll be the same with Microsoft's first 64-bit platforms. nathanielMy advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #7 March 10, 2004 The AMD64 runs 32bit programs and64bit - there is no loss getting the 3200 and most tests seem to show it runs faster. In fact, it can run some 32bit programs faster. check out www.hardocp.com www.anandtech.com or any of the other geek sites out there._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #8 March 10, 2004 QuoteI think you should just bypass the PC and go for Mac. If you're doing video editing or other graphics, Apple computers have raw speed in a comfortable, intuitive atmosphere. It might cost a bit more, but so worth it (IMOHO). Actually, in a slew of recent tests, the P4 and the AMD64 both beat out the MacG5 in 90% of benchmark tests, including DV editing._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bch7773 0 #9 March 10, 2004 I would go with the AMD... I too have also heard about the pipeline or something on a AMD chip is shorter (and therefore faster) then Intel chips. but if you are gonna be doing a lot of video editing, put a lot of RAM in there. And a nice video card for the games too. MB 3528, RB 1182 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
indyz 1 #10 March 10, 2004 I pretty much agree with what everybody else has to say. I prefer AMD processors for my personal stuff, ideally with an nForce-based motherboard. I also usually build my computers from scratch. If I was buying prebuilt, I would look for the best combination of price, performance, and a brand I trust. There is a good chance that it would lead me to an Intel solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shunkka 0 #11 March 10, 2004 man u really use all this resources? dont forget the RAM for cd/dvd video editing dont forget 2 buy a good (professional) video card... sometimes it helps much than a faster processor anyway... enjoy ur new toy ------------------------- "jump, have fun, pull" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #12 March 10, 2004 QuoteI also usually build my computers from scratch. Ahem...those of us who have literally built computers "from scratch" (by wire-wrapping the chips together on the motherboard, programming the ROM, etc.) might take exception to your remark...I think you mean "assembled from components"... just kidding Okay, okay......one could easily take this out to "In the old days, we made our own transistors, and we were glad to have 'em!" Reminds me of the Dilbert strip where a guy is telling Dilbert that "back in the old days, we had to do all our own coding with ones and zeros, and we didn't have any ones." Dilbert says "Zeros? We had to use the letter 'o'". mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MagicLou 0 #13 March 10, 2004 I'm currently typing this on a Dual Opteron running Windows XP PRO. AMD64 rules for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is a new platform with room to upgrade. Athlon XP is a great chip, but at the end of it's life cycle. Pentium 4 (whichever socket or chipset they're flogging this week) is also at the end of it's life cycle. Intel has announced their support for 64 bit x86 (although they won't pubicly give AMD recognition) The other is that your current Windows XP (32 bit) will suffer no performance hit running on AMD54 and you can upgrade your OS to 64bit whenever you feel the driver and application support is sufficient. (this will happen more quickly now that Intel has followed AMD's lead.Lou ___________________________________ . . . now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb - Dark Helmet Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
