DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> With the new 64 bit Athlon kicks ....
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 24 of 24, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/24/2003 02:00:34 AM · #1
Beats P4 hands down!
PCWorld
09/24/2003 02:08:06 AM · #2
Too bad you can't run anything on it yet. There are no 64bit apps. And actually intel released a new P4 chip that competes with it, AND it's still 32bit.
09/24/2003 02:15:15 AM · #3
Originally posted by ddsoul:

Too bad you can't run anything on it yet. There are no 64bit apps. And actually intel released a new P4 chip that competes with it, AND it's still 32bit.

Actually it's the other way around. It's AMD that is compatible with 32 and 64 bit apps.
09/24/2003 02:39:37 AM · #4
is there no place in the world I can hide from this AMD vs Intel craphology? ...lol
Read //www.tomshardware.com if you wanna see some fair comparison of the two

Endless disgussions with no closure whatsoever

p.s I got both intel and AMD and I´d toss the AMD for the Intel anytime

Message edited by author 2003-09-24 02:50:31.
09/24/2003 01:06:54 PM · #5
Good man!

Originally posted by Nazgul:

is there no place in the world I can hide from this AMD vs Intel craphology? ...lol
Read //www.tomshardware.com if you wanna see some fair comparison of the two

Endless disgussions with no closure whatsoever

p.s I got both intel and AMD and I´d toss the AMD for the Intel anytime
09/24/2003 01:38:34 PM · #6
Just to get my two cents in, you have to have a 64 bit capable operating system to get what the new AMD has to offer. Otherwise, your not getting nearly what the benchmarks say. The next Windows operating system is suppose to be 64 bit compatible, but won't be out until 2005 or 2006. Intel has the capability to produce 64 bit chips, but are waiting until the market has a use for them. Basically, it's a marketing ploy by AMD to make their chips sound better, just like when they came out with the XP chips at the same time as Windows XP. I have nothing against AMD and their chips, just wanted to point this out.
09/24/2003 01:58:38 PM · #7
Actually, Intel has been shipping 64-bit processors for over 2 years. But they are made for the server/workstation market. The Itanium chips are 64-bit. The original was 64-bit only, and was mostly for software application creation. The Itanium 2 is also 32-bit compatible, and is one of the reasons for the depressed stock price at Sun.

Currently, there is no need for 64-bit desktop processors, because there are no applications avaiable. You can bet Intel is working closely with software companies, and will have a chip ready when the applications are available.

Also, the high-end desktop market is not growing much right now. Most of the volume is in mobile, and low/mid level desktop.

Gamers are the only ones pushing the high-end.

Message edited by author 2003-09-24 14:02:15.
09/24/2003 02:25:29 PM · #8
Originally posted by Zeissman:

Gamers are the only ones pushing the high-end.


Just wait until Doom 3 is released. The market will go crazy!

Screenshots

Message edited by author 2003-09-24 14:29:28.
09/24/2003 06:43:34 PM · #9
I guess you could try tomshardware.com. But then again, not everyone is worried about how many fps they're potentially going to push in q3 or whatever.

"The next Windows operating system is suppose to be 64 bit compatible, but won't be out until 2005 or 2006."
Oh, I could've sworn I read this earlier today, stating in 1H of 2004 64bit version of XP will be released.
"Basically, it's a marketing ploy by AMD to make their chips sound better"
Actually no. AMD wants to be the first out of the gate. Everything is increasing, 64 bit is a natural progression. Do you think computing is going to survive forever in 32bit code?
Right now I do think Intel is a little muffled. They've put so much time and R&D into Itanium(2) chips and the Opteron has already passed it up in sales. Intel is down-playing x86-64 architecture because the Itanium is IA64, which are not compatible. Yes, the Itanium can run 32bit code, but at about half it's rated speed. Just wanted to point this out.
09/24/2003 07:08:23 PM · #10
Originally posted by Zeissman:

...Currently, there is no need for 64-bit desktop processors, because there are no applications avaiable. You can bet Intel is working closely with software companies, and will have a chip ready when the applications are available.

Also, the high-end desktop market is not growing much right now. Most of the volume is in mobile, and low/mid level desktop.

Gamers are the only ones pushing the high-end.


Apple's G5 (64-bit), currently shipping, runs 32-bit apps in OS X. Both Jaguar (10.2.7 at present) and Panther (10.3) currently handle whatever apps exist already.
09/24/2003 07:41:32 PM · #11
I've been an AMD fan for years. But as Tom's Hardware points out, never overclock them and for gosh's sake, fans, lots and lots of fans!!! Intel's chips are frankly built to better specs, but for my money, that's not quite enough to pay double....
09/25/2003 03:49:35 AM · #12
there is already a beta version of a 64bt Windows XP so that wount be that far off.
09/25/2003 07:10:36 AM · #13
Originally posted by matt betea:

"The next Windows operating system is suppose to be 64 bit compatible, but won't be out until 2005 or 2006


Remember, this is Microsoft we're talking about... ;)
09/25/2003 07:13:59 AM · #14
its already in working Beta :o

Tomshardware used the 64bit version of XP for the testing of the new 64bit Athlon
09/25/2003 07:42:42 AM · #15
Originally posted by Zeissman:

The Itanium 2 is also 32-bit compatible, and is one of the reasons for the depressed stock price at Sun.

Not that this is getting off the topic of photography.. How does the the Itanium 2 being 32 bit compatible affect Sun?

====
Added "compatible"

Message edited by author 2003-09-25 07:43:25.
09/25/2003 11:39:05 AM · #16
All right, I'll bite.

I think it would be quite interesting to take a lot of points that people have made and examine them a little more closely, just in case I may have missed something that somebody was trying to say.

Athlon 64 does indeed beat the P4 quite easily, and actually yes there are already 64-bit applications for it. So let's give that one amiss as it's irrelevant. You may also be interested to know that the Athlon 64 actually surpasses the Pentium 4 in 32-bit benchmarks, as the Athlon 64 is both 32-bit and 64-bit compatible. Also the Pentium 4 that was recently released to be able to defeat the Athlon in benchmarks is in fact not the P4 at all. If you have a much closer look at the specifications then you will find out that it is dual processor chip, that is not supported by the Pentium 4 processor. This chip is in fact a Xeon, and is therefore designed as a workstation and not a desktop chip. Interesting then that as someone claimed that Intel chips are technically superior that Intel cannot complete with AMD at this juncture.

It is however a bit too early to tell just how brilliant the Athlon 64 is, there is no doubting that the architecture is absolutely brilliant. There is however a new Intel chip around the corner called the Prescott -- this will most likely be called the Pentium 5 when it comes to market, though this is speculation at the moment.

Also for those of you who are interested toms hardware guide is actually largely sponsored by Intel, and cannot be considered impartial. In fact they have repeatedly put AMD down when most other sides agree that AMD were actually superior to Intel in those departments. Whilst we're on the subject of hardware guide's why not have a look at the Athlon 64 benchmarks that someone commented were misleading as you need a 64-bit operating system to attain those benchmarks. Just as a little point to note the Athlon 64 in 32-bit compatibility mode (which is actually a mode native to the processor) actually spanked the Pentium 4 in most benchmarks, especially the independent ones. For those of you interested in processors, and benchmarks, you may be interested to find out that actually Intel has a rather large hand in most of the benchmarks that are written -- they are therefore misleading and completely unfair as they are biased.

As for Windows XP 64, it is due for release sometime next year -- even though some people believe it may actually be out this year, that does seem very unlikely. As for the marketing ploys that 64-bit represents, would it surprise anyone to hear that Intel is absolutely full marketing ploys? Intel has one the largest marketing budgets of any company around, so anyone claiming that 64-bit is a publicity stunt should have a look at the publicity stunts that Intel use.

Also someone mentioned that Intel has had a 64-bit chip for two years, well how wonderful as they sold less than 50,000 of them so far from all the stats that are currently available to people. It may not interest most of you but the Alpha was actually 64-bit about a decade ago, and has sold hundreds of thousands of units, actually scratch that it's properly closer to tens of millions. If you want proof of that then why not have a look at the national laboratories in the United States, which if you add them all up you probably got well over 100,000 Alpha's between them. Also Sun have been producing 64-bit chips for longer than Intel have, as have Hewlett-Packard and IBM. Rest the immortal soul of Digital Equipment Corporation, one of the greatest computer companies that has ever been. Digital were the company that released the Alpha by the way.

Interesting also that top end processors are not in huge demand, as they never have been and they never will be. Most people are reasonable enough to understand that you do not need to pay over the odds just have an extra 2 percent performance. This is even more so the case between AMD and Intel, where usually AMD are able to keep up with and sometimes outperform Intel -- usually for a much reduced price.

Interesting point that you make about overclocking swashbuckler. You'll find that AMD chips are more overclockable, and run far more stately than Intel chips once that they are overclocked. You will also find that they last a lot longer. In case you want to look it up, just find out what happens when you increase the voltage on the Pentium 4 -- I'll give it a month to live, as they are atrocious if you up the voltage. AMD on the other hand have very little difference between the Athlon 2500 and the Athlon 3200. As a little secret between us, the top Athlon's aren't even multiplier locked, and can be overclocked as easily as ever.

Interesting last point that was made about how Itanium might be affecting sun, with the huge volume of Itanium sales, I really cannot see why anybody would say that Itanium is harming sun. What you will find is really harming sun is the fact that IBM have finally decided to go for them. If you review the history of the computer industry then you'll find out during the 1980s IBM were hit with a crippling anti-trust case, ever since that case IBM has been very reluctant to beat up on its smaller competitors. After the ruling by the Department of Justice on Microsoft however IBM have finally been shown that they can actually get away with past business practices. IBM has therefore finally decided to unleash its resources on the likes of sun, and is also going after every other market that it considers to be viable and profitable. Finally a little point about Itanium, its main competitor is the IBM power 4 processor, and the IBM processor spanked the Intel processor in terms of both sales and performance. So much for Intel superiority.

Oh and a final point for all you who actually use the Pentium 4, welcome to the real world, you are using a lab experiment and not a true processor designed for the desktop. ROFLMFAO it pains me to tell you that actually the reason that the Pentium 4 has so many shortcomings, and only started to do better than the Athlon after software finally caught up with its pathetic instruction set and architecture, is the fact that you have bought a laboratory experiment. To liken this to the real world, its as though you were expecting a baby but got a test tube instead. I will admit however that the Pentium 4 is probably the most successful laboratory experiment in terms of revenue that there has ever been -- that does not however excuse its shortcomings.

Incidentally the Intel Prescott actually has 64-bit extensions, even though Intel themselves say that they won't be needed until 2010 (Thats 6 years early then???), as the Prescott will launch in December I would welcome any explanation as to why that might be. In the meantime however I will offer my own explanation, Intel are worried that the AMD 64-bit extensions will take off, and Intel will be left in AMD's dust. This is as 64-bit processors can significantly outperform 32-bit processors most of the time. The final part of this is that Intel may be using 64-bit extensions that AMD designed, as it has recently been alleged that Microsoft told Intel that they would not be upgrading Windows for yet another 64-bit architecture. Apart from the fact that Prescott actually has 64-bit extensions, the rest of that paragraph was speculation -- but very well founded.

Well that was my two cents, though it felt more like 20 dollars.
09/25/2003 11:55:31 AM · #17
Very interesting reading there sn4psho7
09/25/2003 12:48:52 PM · #18
great post sn4psho7, i couldn't have said it better. Being the brother of someone who won the Area 64 amd contest, and having been in san francisco for the launch of the athlon 64, and also the brother of an owner of an athlon 64 (which by the way should be running by tonight), i'm extremly existed about this new leap into 64bit. It's also interesting to note that alot of games are already 64 bit optimized (granted not publicly available, but soon).. i've played 64 bit optimized versions of unreal 2003, america's army, and a couple more games..

One thing thats been failed to mention about the itanium's 32 bit compatibility, is that it makes your pentium 200 feel like a supercomputer.... it's apparently very very slow, since it emulates 32bit and isn't on-die like the athlon64...

Also interesting, is that while the athlon 64 beats the P4's in most tests, and is a very impressive chip simply in 32 bit mode, once 64 bit software catches up, it'll get a free boost (and in some cases, quite substantial boosts) and great scalibility (16 terabytes of ram anyone?), unlike the P4, which will need a new chip altogether to do 64 bit.. I feel you're alot safer for the future getting the athlon64, considering microsoft is backing it, and while most people dont like microsoft, they still rule the PC market's OS share.

granted i may be a bit biased since i got a free trip to san francisco and has been around AMD PR for the last 4 days, heheh..
09/25/2003 01:52:29 PM · #19
Being the technology dolt that I am, how exactly does the new 64 bit architecture effect digital still photography, and will all this new power really effect the home user not into games? Do we really need all this computing power?
09/25/2003 02:13:55 PM · #20
Well, it depends on your usage. It DOES make quite a difference in Photoshop for example, effecting speed (about 2 x compared to the fastest machine available, say, last month). I played with an Apple G5 (64-bit, dual processor) last night. It was fast, and I mean faaaast! Do I need it? No. But then I don't produce animated movies either, nor do I ever intend to coordinate cell research for a leading university or plan to administer a galaxy. ;-)

Here's a link on the only machine currently available to people like you and me. It's fairly intelligible too: //www.apple.com/powermac/video/introvideo320.html

Message edited by author 2003-09-25 14:14:41.
09/25/2003 02:17:29 PM · #21
Itanium itself is part of suns problem. The fact that Intel/MS/Dell-HP are moving into their territory.

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by Zeissman:

The Itanium 2 is also 32-bit compatible, and is one of the reasons for the depressed stock price at Sun.

Not that this is getting off the topic of photography.. How does the the Itanium 2 being 32 bit compatible affect Sun?

====
Added "compatible"
09/25/2003 02:21:41 PM · #22
XEON processors are just P4s with extra cache. In the past, they were not cost affective for the desktop market, but now there is OEM demand to sell them for certain desktop applications, like high-end gaming systems.
09/25/2003 02:31:09 PM · #23
"Also someone mentioned that Intel has had a 64-bit chip for two years, well how wonderful as they sold less than 50,000 of them so far from all the stats that are currently available to people. It may not interest most of you but the Alpha was actually 64-bit about a decade ago, and has sold hundreds of thousands of units, actually scratch that it's properly closer to tens of millions. If you want proof of that then why not have a look at the national laboratories in the United States, which if you add them all up you probably got well over 100,000 Alpha's between them. Also Sun have been producing 64-bit chips for longer than Intel have, as have Hewlett-Packard and IBM. Rest the immortal soul of Digital Equipment Corporation, one of the greatest computer companies that has ever been. Digital were the company that released the Alpha by the way. "

If DEC had sold 10s of millions of Alpha's, they would still be in business. The Alpha was a great chip, with great technology - I believe Intel bought some of the technology from them- but it never marketed the chips well, and it was not a big seller.

The workstation/supercomputer market used to be controlled by a very few players, and was high-cost low volume. That is changing, and thus Intel and AMD are entering the market.

"Interesting also that top end processors are not in huge demand, as they never have been and they never will be. "texttext

Not sure where you are getting this info. The top-end chips used to always be in short supply, that is not the case today. Budget PCs are a bigger part of the market than ever before.
09/25/2003 05:23:43 PM · #24
Alpha is still being sold -- case rested.
Itanic is floundering -- case rested...

Sorry but it is true as of today, I know Itanium is powerful, but it currently has little support.

DEC were run but fools thats why they died not Alphas failure. Yes Intel AND AMD use Alpha technology, Intel are counting on it to make Itanium a success.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/27/2021 11:36:27 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/27/2021 11:36:27 AM EDT.