Topic: Questions about new Atholon 64 processors (Read 3352 times)

Yabrodan · « **on:** January 13, 2004, 04:19:39 pm »

I was looking on upgrading my comp and wonder if anybody have any experience with these are they any good, what kind of advantages do they offer over a barton. Any known problems with them that I can expect. From what I can understand from the info on AMD's site they sound pretty sweet and don't cost that much more. Thanks

dangadget · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:02:18 pm »

first of all, you will need a new mobo of course, as the Athlon 64s use entirely different chipsets than the Athlon XPs.

second, depending on the model of chip you choose, you may or may not need to use registered RAM, which can be problematic if you want to reuse your current RAM.

third, while the performance of the new chips is definitely good, be aware that you will absolutely NOT be able to take advantage of the 64 bit features they have to offer.

this is because in order to do so, you must be running a 64-bit OS and be using specially written 64-bit drivers.

all that being said, performance in conventional 32-bit environments is, as i said earlier, very good.

i have been experimenting with them at work and have been very pleased by the results.

my next system will most likely use an Athlon64, unless deep price cuts are forthcoming in the high-end XP line.

Yabrodan · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:43:35 pm »

Thanks for the info I was going to get a new mobo and RAM even if I got a barton so thats no biggie but what is registered RAM?

dangadget · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:50:19 pm »

registered RAM is usually used in servers.

it is engineered for reliability, not neccesarily speed.

it is also more expensive than regular RAM.

this should only come into play if you choose to go with an Athlon FX.

a regular Athlon 64 using either the Via KT800 chipset or an nForce 3 mobo shouldn't require registered DIMMS.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884

E_Look · « **Reply #4 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:46:38 pm »

I'm writing to you guys from my *new* (just a few days, actually) homemade Athlon 64 3000+/MSI mobo w/VIA chipset/ATI Radeon 9700 Pro system. I just switched to it from an off the shelf HP Celeron 466 MHz system w/onboard old ATI graphics.

WOW! It's fast! It's like comparing warp 6 to the #6 train at rush hour. Connections and downloads zip right by. Pages and files and apps load... like, well... almost immediately. And I can run ALL 3 AND ONE HALF SFCs for the first time!

And, compared to the Intel Pentium 4 equivalent, ITS CHEAP !!!

From what I've read, the performances between both CPUs don't really differ by all that much, but the AMD is just so much more affordable; talk about bang for your buck!

I suppose you could surmise that I'm suggesting you get the AMD Athlon 64. Besides, if and when (cf. Linus about the Great Pumpkin) 64 Windows or other home and general office compatible OSs come out, and graphics begin to use 64 bits, then you're made in the shade. But if you go with the Barton... (besides, the cost between my slower Athlon 64 and the fastest Bartons is almost zero).

Yabrodan · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2004, 09:19:43 am »

Yeah I can't wait for mine to arrive I got the 3200 hopefully it will be here by saturday. Now i just want Doom 3 or Rome Total War to come out so I can see what this thing can do.

Yabrodan · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2004, 04:19:39 pm »

I was looking on upgrading my comp and wonder if anybody have any experience with these are they any good, what kind of advantages do they offer over a barton. Any known problems with them that I can expect. From what I can understand from the info on AMD's site they sound pretty sweet and don't cost that much more. Thanks

dangadget · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:02:18 pm »

first of all, you will need a new mobo of course, as the Athlon 64s use entirely different chipsets than the Athlon XPs.

second, depending on the model of chip you choose, you may or may not need to use registered RAM, which can be problematic if you want to reuse your current RAM.

third, while the performance of the new chips is definitely good, be aware that you will absolutely NOT be able to take advantage of the 64 bit features they have to offer.

this is because in order to do so, you must be running a 64-bit OS and be using specially written 64-bit drivers.

all that being said, performance in conventional 32-bit environments is, as i said earlier, very good.

i have been experimenting with them at work and have been very pleased by the results.

my next system will most likely use an Athlon64, unless deep price cuts are forthcoming in the high-end XP line.

Yabrodan · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:43:35 pm »

Thanks for the info I was going to get a new mobo and RAM even if I got a barton so thats no biggie but what is registered RAM?

dangadget · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:50:19 pm »

registered RAM is usually used in servers.

it is engineered for reliability, not neccesarily speed.

it is also more expensive than regular RAM.

this should only come into play if you choose to go with an Athlon FX.

a regular Athlon 64 using either the Via KT800 chipset or an nForce 3 mobo shouldn't require registered DIMMS.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884

E_Look · « **Reply #10 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:46:38 pm »

I'm writing to you guys from my *new* (just a few days, actually) homemade Athlon 64 3000+/MSI mobo w/VIA chipset/ATI Radeon 9700 Pro system. I just switched to it from an off the shelf HP Celeron 466 MHz system w/onboard old ATI graphics.

WOW! It's fast! It's like comparing warp 6 to the #6 train at rush hour. Connections and downloads zip right by. Pages and files and apps load... like, well... almost immediately. And I can run ALL 3 AND ONE HALF SFCs for the first time!

And, compared to the Intel Pentium 4 equivalent, ITS CHEAP !!!

From what I've read, the performances between both CPUs don't really differ by all that much, but the AMD is just so much more affordable; talk about bang for your buck!

I suppose you could surmise that I'm suggesting you get the AMD Athlon 64. Besides, if and when (cf. Linus about the Great Pumpkin) 64 Windows or other home and general office compatible OSs come out, and graphics begin to use 64 bits, then you're made in the shade. But if you go with the Barton... (besides, the cost between my slower Athlon 64 and the fastest Bartons is almost zero).

Yabrodan · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2004, 09:19:43 am »

Yeah I can't wait for mine to arrive I got the 3200 hopefully it will be here by saturday. Now i just want Doom 3 or Rome Total War to come out so I can see what this thing can do.

Yabrodan · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2004, 04:19:39 pm »

I was looking on upgrading my comp and wonder if anybody have any experience with these are they any good, what kind of advantages do they offer over a barton. Any known problems with them that I can expect. From what I can understand from the info on AMD's site they sound pretty sweet and don't cost that much more. Thanks

dangadget · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:02:18 pm »

first of all, you will need a new mobo of course, as the Athlon 64s use entirely different chipsets than the Athlon XPs.

second, depending on the model of chip you choose, you may or may not need to use registered RAM, which can be problematic if you want to reuse your current RAM.

third, while the performance of the new chips is definitely good, be aware that you will absolutely NOT be able to take advantage of the 64 bit features they have to offer.

this is because in order to do so, you must be running a 64-bit OS and be using specially written 64-bit drivers.

all that being said, performance in conventional 32-bit environments is, as i said earlier, very good.

i have been experimenting with them at work and have been very pleased by the results.

my next system will most likely use an Athlon64, unless deep price cuts are forthcoming in the high-end XP line.

Yabrodan · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:43:35 pm »

Thanks for the info I was going to get a new mobo and RAM even if I got a barton so thats no biggie but what is registered RAM?

dangadget · « **Reply #15 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:50:19 pm »

registered RAM is usually used in servers.

it is engineered for reliability, not neccesarily speed.

it is also more expensive than regular RAM.

this should only come into play if you choose to go with an Athlon FX.

a regular Athlon 64 using either the Via KT800 chipset or an nForce 3 mobo shouldn't require registered DIMMS.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884

E_Look · « **Reply #16 on:** January 19, 2004, 08:46:38 pm »

I'm writing to you guys from my *new* (just a few days, actually) homemade Athlon 64 3000+/MSI mobo w/VIA chipset/ATI Radeon 9700 Pro system. I just switched to it from an off the shelf HP Celeron 466 MHz system w/onboard old ATI graphics.

WOW! It's fast! It's like comparing warp 6 to the #6 train at rush hour. Connections and downloads zip right by. Pages and files and apps load... like, well... almost immediately. And I can run ALL 3 AND ONE HALF SFCs for the first time!

And, compared to the Intel Pentium 4 equivalent, ITS CHEAP !!!

From what I've read, the performances between both CPUs don't really differ by all that much, but the AMD is just so much more affordable; talk about bang for your buck!

I suppose you could surmise that I'm suggesting you get the AMD Athlon 64. Besides, if and when (cf. Linus about the Great Pumpkin) 64 Windows or other home and general office compatible OSs come out, and graphics begin to use 64 bits, then you're made in the shade. But if you go with the Barton... (besides, the cost between my slower Athlon 64 and the fastest Bartons is almost zero).

Yabrodan · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2004, 09:19:43 am »

Yeah I can't wait for mine to arrive I got the 3200 hopefully it will be here by saturday. Now i just want Doom 3 or Rome Total War to come out so I can see what this thing can do.

News: