AMD 64 systems?

[toezter]

are 64bit processing windows systems worth it if they don't 64bit windows?

post any pro's and con's about them. really considering on making a "mild" gaming system for LAN's.

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

are 64bit processing windows systems worth it if they don't 64bit windows?

post any pro's and con's about them. really considering on making a "mild" gaming system for LAN's.

They do have a 64 bit windows os go to windows xp . com or something like that go to windows main site and youll see it

 

[jeremy.king]

For mild gaming, you say?

I would then just get an AthlonXP and use the extra $$$ to get a better video card and more RAM.

 

[Timelessblur]

the AMD 64 is a much better chip over the XP line. Even if there is no 64 bit software out there the other stuff that is built into the chip makes it a good investemtn. it integerated control modual makes it FSB move at an equivent speed of 1.6 ghz (fast that apple 2.5 ghz computers)

 

[toezter]

For mild gaming, you say?

I would then just get an AthlonXP and use the extra $$$ to get a better video card and more RAM.

ah true. reason why i was thinking of a 64bit system was 1) 2800+ 64 processor goes for $150ish, and mobo's for $100ish. just a few more bucks ontop of an XP setup (3000+) and 2)somthing that will last awhile.

btw, sorry that i posted this in the wrong forum (general chat). i didn't think this would fit in "apple" tech discussion.

 

[spaceballl]

Think about a G5... It is a 64bit CPU without a 64 bit OS. Even Tiger will have a 32 bit kernel, run 32 bit apps, and only have a few optimizations for 64 bit in random server programs. The fact is that Athlon 64s are FAST. Even in a 32bit environement, they for the most part tear apart the P4s. When Windows eventually goes 64 bit, they'll be able to make the upgrade no problem. Hopefully Apple will give us a 64bit kernel by 10.5. Right now the only way to get a full 64 bit environment on the desktop PC is with linux...
-Kevin

 

[greenleaf]

i used to have a 3000+ xp and upgraded to a 3200 64 and i notice a big difference in speed

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Think about a G5... It is a 64bit CPU without a 64 bit OS. Even Tiger will have a 32 bit kernel, run 32 bit apps, and only have a few optimizations for 64 bit in random server programs. The fact is that Athlon 64s are FAST. Even in a 32bit environement, they for the most part tear apart the P4s. When Windows eventually goes 64 bit, they'll be able to make the upgrade no problem. Hopefully Apple will give us a 64bit kernel by 10.5. Right now the only way to get a full 64 bit environment on the desktop PC is with linux...
-Kevin

Unlike Windows/x86, Mac OS X/PowerPC doesn't NEED to be 100% 64-bit to realize the G5's full potential. The changes made in Panther to support the G5 were a good start - I have a feeling that Tiger will really make the G5-based Macs scream.

 

[spaceballl]

Unlike Windows/x86, Mac OS X/PowerPC doesn't NEED to be 100% 64-bit to realize the G5's full potential. The changes made in Panther to support the G5 were a good start - I have a feeling that Tiger will really make the G5-based Macs scream.

Incorrect. Compilers take code and make it into a program. There are compiler optimizations for the G5 which let the software take advantage of G5 special features and extensions. However, if you consider part of the G5's full potential to be a 64 bit processor, then yes, to realize its full potential, it must be running a 64 bit kernel OS with 64 bit apps.

That being said, this is going to be an over all slow process as backwards compatibility needs to stay for the G4/3. The G5 is an AMAZING processor, even without a 64 bit OS behind it.

I am kinda intrigued by the idea of a fully 64 bit system. This summer I'm going to throw together an Athlon 64 system and throw a 64 bit linux distro on there like Fedora or Ubuntu. Should be fun!! Full 64 bit computing.

-Kevin

 

[wrldwzrd89]

Incorrect. Compilers take code and make it into a program. There are compiler optimizations for the G5 which let the software take advantage of G5 special features and extensions. However, if you consider part of the G5's full potential to be a 64 bit processor, then yes, to realize its full potential, it must be running a 64 bit kernel OS with 64 bit apps.

That being said, this is going to be an over all slow process as backwards compatibility needs to stay for the G4/3. The G5 is an AMAZING processor, even without a 64 bit OS behind it.

I am kinda intrigued by the idea of a fully 64 bit system. This summer I'm going to throw together an Athlon 64 system and throw a 64 bit linux distro on there like Fedora or Ubuntu. Should be fun!! Full 64 bit computing.

-Kevin

I understand you, but due to the fact that an overwhelming portion of the Mac OS X applications out there will NOT jump to 64-bit since they don't need it, it isn't possible to have a "pure" 64-bit Mac OS X. The biggest problem with having a 64-bit kernel is that it couldn't exist on its own - it would have to exist alongside a 32-bit kernel for pre-G5 systems (only one kernel would run, of course - whichever is appropriate for the user's Mac). However, having a 64-bit kernel shouldn't affect 32-bit applications, so it may just be laziness on Apple's part.

 

[spaceballl]

Yeah.. what i'm wondering... is if Apple couldn't just have OS X be a multi DVD set in order to have 32 and 64 bit versions of the OS X kernel on there and then 64 bit versions of some of their apps (the ones that would benefit from the switch)... then the installation software will know which one to install. I dunno... Maybe it is far more technical than I think it is, but I don't think so because that's how the linux distros were able to 64bit like the day Opterons came out. Oh well i'm sure Apple will make the right moves... The important thing is for them to eventually bring 64 bit to all of their desktops/laptops so the gradual change can begin... P.S. Merry Christmas!

 

[paul84043]

AMD 64 processors

I have three AMD 64's running in my computer room, ever since I installed my very first one, I have not even turned on my Athlon 2.4 system. They really are that much faster.

The catch is that all the PCI-X MB's are coming out, so do you really want to make the leap now, or would you rather wait a few for the dust to settle, and pick up a socket 949 mobo with a PCI-X slot?

I Poo'd the Screwch and jumped a little fast, but the socket 745(?) 64's are awesome in their own right.

I also am running a demo (1 year) of the 64 bit Windows XP. It's bloody fast, but there is very little support for it as of yet. Nothing more than a novelty at this point.

Good Luck.


BTW, this is my very first post on this forum!! Hi to all....

 

[maya]

I understand you, but due to the fact that an overwhelming portion of the Mac OS X applications out there will NOT jump to 64-bit since they don't need it, it isn't possible to have a "pure" 64-bit Mac OS X. The biggest problem with having a 64-bit kernel is that it couldn't exist on its own - it would have to exist alongside a 32-bit kernel for pre-G5 systems (only one kernel would run, of course - whichever is appropriate for the user's Mac). However, having a 64-bit kernel shouldn't affect 32-bit applications, so it may just be laziness on Apple's part.

From what history has to teach us well recent history at least there are still a few Mac users running Classic as they main OS (OS 9), and the transition for Classic coded software to make the transition to either Carbon or Cocoa took quite some years, still many applications all not all Cocoa so expect the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit applications to take twice as long.

There is very little need for 64-bit computation however it will one day be standard on home users machines that time is not of yet and nor of any importance other than the professional fields.

 

[sushi]

ah true. reason why i was thinking of a 64bit system was 1) 2800+ 64 processor goes for $150ish, and mobo's for $100ish. just a few more bucks ontop of an XP setup (3000+) and 2)somthing that will last awhile.

btw, sorry that i posted this in the wrong forum (general chat). i didn't think this would fit in "apple" tech discussion.

The AMD 64 is a good chip. No arguments there. Personally, I prefer AMD over Intel offerings.

FWIW, if you are looking to save some $, you might want to look at the Athlon XP 2500+. A great CPU for overclocking. In my case, I have two 2500+ running at 3200 just fine. Heat is not a problem. Very stable with 2K/XP.

BTW, in today's world, I would purchase what you need today vice what you might need a year from now. The technology changes so quickly that many times it is better and cheaper to wait.

Sushi

 

[spaceballl]

FWIW, if you are looking to save some $, you might want to look at the Athlon XP 2500+. A great CPU for overclocking. In my case, I have two 2500+ running at 3200 just fine. Heat is not a problem. Very stable with 2K/XP.

Even BETTER if you can get the mobile versoin of the chip you're talking about. Less heat / voltage... more headroom. I like the semprons for overclocking too...

 

[Daveway]

Think about a G5... It is a 64bit CPU without a 64 bit OS. Even Tiger will have a 32 bit kernel, run 32 bit apps, and only have a few optimizations for 64 bit in random server programs. -Kevin

Wait, wait, wait. I thought Steve said at WWDC that Tiger wold be 64bit.

Did i miss something?

 

[spaceballl]

No... you didn't. I thought Tiger was going to be fully 64 bit too. It wil be interesting to see what Steve says about it, but here's a tad of info:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9220
I think he will talk about how Tiger will be optimized for the G5... the G5 has SO much to offer besides just 64 bit support so I think that's how Steve will sorta skirt the issue and when asked about full support, he'll make comments like, "What? Fully 64 bit? These programs don't need that! This OS doesn't need that! It's the servers that will really benefit from an upgrade and Apple Computer is here to deliver that."

Ya know? I dunno... I was kinda excited for a 64 bit Tiger too... what do you all think?

p.s. Just cuz i'm pissed Tiger isn't going a full 64 bit... doesn't mean I don't think it will be sweet . I'm stoked.

 

[spaceballl]

What i don't get... is that OS X is based on Unix, just like Linux. They have similar file setups and structures. The 64 bit compiled binaries for linux have always been able to run just fine along side 32 bit ones. I don't get why they just don't include two kernel versions. Because no matter what Steve says, a 64 bit kernel would be a notch faster than the 32 bit ones. With the extra binary digit, some code execs can be completed in a line less of code and stuff like that.
-Kevin

 

[grabberslasher]

People don't seem to realise that 64bit compiled binaries are actually slower than 32bit ones. 64bit is only for huge programs, not for the OS itself.

If Tiger was fully 64bit then A ) it wouldn't work on G4s and lower, and B ) it would actually be slightly slower on the G5.

 

[spaceballl]

People don't seem to realise that 64bit compiled binaries are actually slower than 32bit ones. 64bit is only for huge programs, not for the OS itself.

If Tiger was fully 64bit then A ) it wouldn't work on G4s and lower, and B ) it would actually be slightly slower on the G5.

People most likely fail to realize this because take linux, where there are two exact same versions, one 64, and one 32, the 64 bit version is benchmarked to be faster. AKA you are incorrect. it's faster.