Didn't wait long enough...I actually went with the 32 bit system already

Just got the parts (actually all of them) during the course of the week.

I didn't go with the 64 bit processor because I read about it being slower (or not using it to the full potential) since I will be running mostly 32 bit applications.

I will upgrade to 64 bits in the future if needed. I kept the budget for this system low, so I can upgrade if needed.

Thanks.

Reply

Ehh, Wrong on that. AMD 64 is True 64 bit, It isn't just a 32-bit extension.



I think I would get the 64-bit processor, I find 64 bit to be powerful, and completely reliable.

Reply

Firends,
AMD and Intel 64 bits, are EXTENSIONS so they are not only backward compatible 32bits they ARE 32 bits.
I personally use an intel 820 chip, it's 64 bits, and have other intresting features as speedstep. It's fastest when u enable the EMT64.

Reply

I will hold off on the 64 bit system upgrade for the time being then, just to be on the safe side. But is it ok to buy a 64 bit motherboard and use a 32 bit processor on it? So that if I do intend to upgrade in the future, I can just swap out the CPU instead of changing the whole mobo.

Reply

I see this alot. I've worked around 64-bit systems (DEC Alpha and Sun Ultra Sparc) systems in the graphics industry for nearly eight years now. People think that 64-bit buys you power and speed, but that is not necessarily the case.

First off, to take advantage of 64-bit processors not only does your OS need to be 64-bit, but programs need to be optimized for 64-bit systems. While high-end software, like the Mental-Ray rendering engine, Final Cut Pro, Avid, and other such programs can benefit from the extra horse power, you will actually see a decrease in performance from your old 32-bit applications like Office and most games.

We learned this early on with SUN systems. Most of our workstations we purchased were 32-Bit. Why? The Applications we used for design work were horribly slow on 64-bit workstations. In fact we ordered a batch of 5 64-bit work stations, it sucked so bad that within six weeks we ordered 25 32-bit workstations for the department.

Now our servers, on the otherhand, were almost all 64-bit systems. Why? Because the 64-bit systems did number crunching extremely well. So in our case, we would model on the 32-bit systems and render/simulate via network on the 64-bit render farm.

People that claim that 64-bit chips are "faster and better" oftentimes mistake the 64-bit performance for improvements in clock speed.

Back when I worked around ALPHA machines the debate amoungst the techs was what made Alpha so fast. Was it the 64-bit processors or the fact they were 500Mhz or 650Mhz when your average home/office computer was a Pentium 166?

Personally I am looking foreward to the next generation of Intel chips. Why? Because of the performance per watt they are aiming for. Everyone that I know with AMD64 systems, and many with Intel P4 3Ghz+ models too, are having major system cooling issues. Just about everyone I know that built a new PC for BF2 had heat issues reguardless of being home built or an ordered custom machine.

Most people wonder why I like the performance vs. watt, but I work in an office with over 300 servers in a special climate controlled room about 1800 sq. feet. It costs more to regulate the tempature and humidity in that room as it does for the rest of the 7500 Squarefoot office.

When I had a one bedroom apartment, I rarely ran the heat in the winter, I had it set to 65 and rarely ran. But I did run three computers, 1 Dual Pentium Pro 200 server, 1 Quad Alpha 500, and a 1.2Ghz AMD T-bird (With the side off to help cool it). Those three systems put out enough heat to keep my 650Sq. Foot apartment comfy when it was 10 degrees F outside.

Personally, I would get an Intel 32-bit machine and wait until there are enough programs and a really good OS to take advantage of the 64-bit system.

Reply