I'd have to go for AMD Athlon 64, first because its a 64-bit processor, I know at the time only linux can run in 64bits, but that will change, secondly, because even being a 64-bit processor is better at games than any P4(32-bits), and third because when 64-bit software arrives, what will Intel do? manufacture a processor on the fly? I think that by when the time comes AMD will have more experience in the 64-bit field than Intel. And finally look at the prices, a 64bit processor of the same speed is about $50 cheaper. It is not that Linux isn't friendly, it's just that linux knows to choose its friends.

0

I forgot to mention about the Atlhon 64's 1600MHz Bus, compared to the 800MHz of Pentium 4's AND about the fact that for example an Athlon 64 3000+ does not run at 3.0GHz but beats all the way down the P4 3.0GHz. It is not that Linux isn't friendly, it's just that linux knows to choose its friends.

0

Well i've gone from a Petium 4 2.66 GHz HT and a FX5700 256MB when that was fairly new and it served me well but had problems with a few games and compatablility. and i know it's not a fair comparison by any stretch :) but my new x800 xt platinum rocks on my new system, i doubt ill go back to nvidia or intel until they come up with somthing pretty special or different. btw i look at the Athlon 64's as a kind of future proofing. After all its the way of the future. Gigabyte K8NSNXP-939 Athlon 64 3500+ Dual - Corsair TwinX CMX512-3200XL Gecube X800 XT Platinum Seagate 200 Gig Coolermaster Wavemaster Silver

0

"Not by much? I don't have an Athlon64, but I'd say it's more than that, being 64 bit afterall." Again, unless your OS is 64-bit, this doesn't do anything for you. "Not to mention it's massive bus speed." "I forgot to mention about the Atlhon 64's 1600MHz Bus, compared to the 800MHz of Pentium 4's..." It's bus speed is 200MHz (400DDR). The Intel P4's are you guessed it 200MHz bus. Both companies spin this number to come up with "effective numbers" because they figured out ways to enhance the efficiency of the bus. Intel claims theirs effectively improves the efficiency 4x, while AMD now claims 8x. There's truth to all this because there has been improvements in efficiency, but you can't believe AMD's actually is 1600MHz bus effectively, or Intel's is 800MHz. It's marketing. Proof is in the benchmarks - if the marketing were true, P4's would have dogged the Athlon XP's back when they were claiming 800MHz bus speeds. Or now, the Athlon 64's should be slaughtering Pentium 4's because they supposedly have 2x the bus speed. Look at the benchmarks! http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/index.html (This is why I'm not in any big hurry upgrading my motherboard, CPU, and fan right now.) So yeah, p4's aren't much slower in games. Look at the benchmarks if you don't believe it. Do I recommend Athlon 64's to gamers? Absolutely! A little better performance for LESS MONEY (that's the key!) = a good thing! MCSE, MCSA Messaging, baby!

0

Heropsyco, i agree with you, the real question is not really which is better, but which is cheaper for comparable performance! Which right at the moment, Athlon XP and Athlon 64 have the upper hand by being much cheaper then the comparable P4's. Gigabyte K8NSNXP-939 Athlon 64 3500+ Dual - Corsair TwinX CMX512-3200XL Gecube X800 XT Platinum Seagate 200 Gig Coolermaster Wavemaster Silver

0

Mitch, "and third because when 64-bit software arrives, what will Intel do? manufacture a processor on the fly? I think that by when the time comes AMD will have more experience in the 64-bit field than Intel." Dont want to rain on your parade mate,but Intel have been making 64bit processors for a fair while now, just not for the home market. I would think that they could switch without much problem should the need arise. ATI ROOOLS!!!, LOL just trying to wind you up. So long, and thanks for all the fish! Douglas Adams. Processor=P4 3GHzHT Motherboard=ASUS P4SD-LA with Intel 848P chipset ATI 9600XT 128meg. 160g HDdont know which kind

0

I don't want to rain on your parade, but you didn't quote Mitch. ;-) "...but in my defense, it was dark, I was drunk, and it was delicious!"

0

So why then Intel hasn't changed over to the 64-bits? and yes I know its been making 64 bits processors but not for the desktop, are they trying to make all the people switch to 64 bits when the next windows comes? I'd better pay for the future in advance than paying for a 32bit processor and then paying again only to switch to 64. It is not that Linux isn't friendly, it's just that linux knows to choose its friends.

0

Psycho, LOL its a fair cop guv'nor. I'm just used to it being mitch on the AMD/Nvidia soapbox. Mike, they havent switched because they don't see the need to currently. I wasn't having a go, just saying that i don't reckon they would have too much trouble making 64bit processors, when you seemed to think they would be left behind when the need arose. Or maybe i misunderstood your post. So long, and thanks for all the fish! Douglas Adams. Processor=P4 3GHzHT Motherboard=ASUS P4SD-LA with Intel 848P chipset ATI 9600XT 128meg. 160g HDdont know which kind

0

I think P4s (for home users) with 64-bit memory support are already around - I think they're the 'f' chips, and cost about £40 more than a normal P4. Just thought I'd mention it... Wouldn't the apps/games you use have to be optimised for 64bit, even if you had a 64bit OS and chip? P4 LGA775 3.0GHz 2x256Mb DDR2 533MHz XFX 6800GT PCI-E

0

Ok guys, I'm over my little tirade :-) so you can stop cracking jokes and making wierd comments about me, like: "I'm just used to it being mitch on the AMD/Nvidia soapbox." And putting words in my mouth. Thanks for somewhat defending me, Psycho. I'm beginning to respect you more and more. Intel Xeons are 64bit, so why aren't they in desktops (like PCs for the typical strict no-nonsense parents with the philosophy that all PC games are evil)? Oh yeah- they have no need for technology like that. They just want their Pentiums that they've come to know and love. BTW: I just described my parents perfectly. But seriously-I'm just speculating. There's a 64-bit Farcry out, yay.

0

"Ok guys, I'm over my little tirade :-) so you can stop cracking jokes and making wierd comments about me..." LOL, I have to be honest that I didn't catch it wasn't you at first, either. Namely because it was "Mike", not "Mitch". "Thanks for somewhat defending me, Psycho. I'm beginning to respect you more and more." See? I'm not THAT bad! ;-) "Intel Xeons are 64bit, so why aren't they in desktops (like PCs for the typical strict no-nonsense parents with the philosophy that all PC games are evil)? Oh yeah- they have no need for technology like that. They just want their Pentiums that they've come to know and love." LOL...you almost went without bashing Intel and people who buy them. Intel's belief is that 64-bit for the consumer market without a mainstream consumer 64-bit OS available (WinXP) is pointless. Remember at the time this decision was made, it was more than a year ago, and to this date, there's no credible timeline for the release of the final WinXP 64-bit version. Intel instead chose to focus on improving other aspects of their CPU's for 32-bit applications in their p4 line. AMD decided to make CPU's that can do both. However, even though I do like the Athlon 64 CPU's more, it must be admitted that touting 64-bit support has more to do with marketing, and less about making the better CPU. While AMD doesn't hide it, they don't seem to be going out of their way to inform consumers 64-bit does nothing for them unless they're running a 64-bit OS. Intel in this instance is right that 64-bit is fruitless for consumers right now. Too bad they couldn't exceed the 32-bit performance the Athlon 64's offer. I don't give a crap either way - I like the Athlon 64 because it gives on par or slightly better performance for what I do, but I won't be conned into believing 64-bit is the reason why. One other comment I feel compelled to make concerning the "parents" you refer to buying P4's. First off, a P4 in no way inhibits being able to play games; 64-bit also does NOTHING for you for gaming unless you're gaming in Linux, and who is doing that?! Secondly, I don't mean to sound condescending, but most people buy their computers out of sheer ignorance. They buy AMD based systems, believing they perform as well or better than Intel based systems, but actually never doing their homework to see if this is true. Or, they buy Intel systems believing Intel are more trustworthy and reliable and better performing because they know Intel and don't know AMD, or because Intel used to blow AMD out of the water in performance (remember when Celeron 300A's outperformed K6-3's in graphics?). They consistantly overemphasize the importance of the CPU speed in how well the system performs overall, and ignore how RAM, video card, hard drive speeds, and other such factors have a major impact on how their systems perform depending on the apps they run. I don't blame consumers; I know computers REALLY well, but I haven't the first clue about cars comparatively, so I buy based on what others say, and past experiences. Therefore, because I've been burned by GM and Ford cars repeatedly, I don't buy them anymore, but I buy Japanese cars like Toyota and Honda. I'd buy a Honda or a Toyota tomorrow if I had to, yet I don't truly know if a Honda Civic is a better car than say a Chevy Malibu. I just know my 1998 Civic has 140K miles and is still running strong, where as my 1992 Cavalier died with 80K miles on it. Times could have changed since then, but heck if I know. I'll read a bit to try to confirm I'm still right, but do I really know? The answer is no. ;-) "...but in my defense, it was dark, I was drunk, and it was delicious!"

0

I'm not bashing intel, I'm just observing that 64-bit is a step forward in technology, however little and however great the marketing scheme. I'm just saying that a change in standard, or even a change in name, is not comfortable for old geezers. Like this- my Mom would say: "Xeon, 64bit? Why couldn't they just stick with Pentium?" Get my drift? I'm not neccessarily bashing people who buy intels, it's just that the general public (like my parents, schools, businesses, etc) have only heard of Pentiums. Therefore, that's what they're going to use. And it's fine for what they're using it for. Well, I am bashing my parents for being extremely restrictive with PCs during my childhood. I won't go any farther with that :-) But you have to admit that 64bit is the future in processing, but it's not in the near future. And by what you have told me, it seems like it beginning with a very slow and economically corrupt start. I'll say this, if I haven't before: I only suggest AMDs because once I switched over, there was an extreme improvement in my games and just basic operations. You'll probably say that's bad a philosophy. Well, you're probably right. My lastest Intels were a Pentium200(without MMX and no coprocessor) and a PowerSpec with a Celeron 733. I got the PowerSpec for free after an old lady got infuriated over it. She just wanted to check email. I had never heard of PowerSpec, have you? Ok, enough storytelling. Uh, Psycho...no offense but, could you try not to mention cars? Unless you ABSOLUTELY have to? It's a really sore spot for me. I LOATHE cars. I hate, detest, and abhor them. They are worthless beasts of burden. I have a personal vendetta against them; ALL of them. They're money-sucking sumbitches. When I have to drive them, I almost cry. And I cuss out whoever makes me drive. I don't care what model or type of car. I can't believe people even PAY for driving school. And I HATE car insurance agents. Worthless bloodsuckers. Agents of the devil they are- all of them. I think I'll get a gun liscense. Yes, yes, that's what I'll do! *evil laugh* Then they'll be sorry! You'll see! You'll ALL see!!! HA HA HA!!! But yes, foreign cars are better. I have first hand experience. More than experince with Intels, so please don't say I'm-whatever.

0

Psycho, I do get your point, and its completely valid, but you mentioned two key words "Intel" and "Windows", windows is not the only OS around you know, and most of the people that can see past that are stuck with windows because of games, I have linux 64 and I do play in linux, I use Cedega to do that, and I am happy I do. 64 bits is not the future, it has been here quite a while, even before the xeons, if not ask Alpha. My point here is, there are people who use linux to play, and that can see past windows, just as there are ones who can see past intel. It is not that Linux isn't friendly, it's just that linux knows to choose its friends.

0

"Already, Intel has taken a few mea culpas for not acting quickly enough on 64-bit chips after AMD grabbed bragging rights for doing just the opposite: bringing Opteron and 64-bit computing to the x86 industry." http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3481846 It is not that Linux isn't friendly, it's just that linux knows to choose its friends.

0

I do understand in the case of linux 64-bit is desireable. However, it still must be pointed out the overwhelming vast majority of consumers run Windows. And keep in mind Intel does have a 64-bit offering for the Linux people out there. Not that many hobbiests at home can afford it. ;-) "...but in my defense, it was dark, I was drunk, and it was delicious!"

0

Ok, so, in conclusion, a person can get whatever processor he/she wants, its their money, but should aim at the best bang for the buck. In fact I am happy that we have different brands to choose from, thats the beauty of the open market, 'cos we (as consumers) get better stuff, better prices, etc. I admire both Intel and AMD, the first for being inventive and the latter for being innovative. If there was no Intel, probably AMD would have us stuck with mediocre processors and viceversa. It is not that Linux isn't friendly, it's just that linux knows to choose its friends.

0