AMD Athlon 64 (General Discussion)

AMD Athlon 64 // General Discussion

1  2  3  |  

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 25, 2003, 10:44pm
WHEEEEEE ITS HERE? What potential do you think it holds for games and stuff
like AW?

--
-.Duo. (342836)

joeman

Sep 25, 2003, 10:50pm
What? That's just 64bit? Uh... not... a lot? Many games aren't going to
sell 64bit games. Also, there's not going to be many improvements in
physics engines, because they've all been created and optimized for the
32bit architecture.

-Joe

[View Quote]

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 25, 2003, 10:54pm
Damn, if you really think what you just said you are a complete idiot. Don't
you understand anything about computers, programming, and game engines?

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

joeman

Sep 25, 2003, 11:54pm
I understand a lot. I also understand that libraries have to be optimized.
Currently, most of the game engines are optimized for the 32bit architecture
(all of the math, and that's really all a game is, math). You wont see
games specifically supporting, nor will you see any increase in performance
in games on the 64bit processor. Its not like any major physics or game
companies are going to leap on the 64bit train just for a handful of people
who own 64bit processors. The majority of people have 32bit processors, and
that statistic will remain for a while. So, go ahead a dump a lot of money
on one, but, its a total waste of money.

-Joe

[View Quote]

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 26, 2003, 12:02am
Right, but I was talking about the possibilities, not current performance
increases.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

sw comit

Sep 26, 2003, 5:43pm
Yea, it's pretty sweet. I read a bunch of reviews. As well as being future
proof for 64 bit stuff, it's top dog in 32 bit programs as of now, killling
current pentium products (but not so much the P4 3.2 ghz EE, which isn't out
yet though 'till a couple more months).


[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 26, 2003, 5:59pm
[View Quote] Yes, fear the AMD with it's maximum FSB of 400. Woo. That's 1/3 of the
highest I've seen on pentium chips. And really, that's what makes all
the difference in the world.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 26, 2003, 6:03pm
1/2 you mean. Mind you the performance benchmarks are close, and the FX wins
out in more areas than the P4 2.4c

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 26, 2003, 6:09pm
[View Quote] 1.2GHz overclock, that's 1/3.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 26, 2003, 6:15pm
Ok, then why don't you compare an overclocked FX to that?

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 26, 2003, 6:19pm
[View Quote] Because AMD's die even when they're not overclocked. You don't
overclock an AMD if you're smart. :P

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 26, 2003, 8:45pm
have you even tried overclocking the new processor? How do you know it isn't
completely different? P4 definately were better for overclocking than AXPs.
That last line is BS though.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

anduin

Sep 26, 2003, 10:14pm
On 26 Sep 2003 16:19:06 -0400, "bowen" <Bowen at andras.net> attempted to scribe the following words:

[View Quote] Not without a dozen water coolers.

--
Anduin (317281)
- 5mb FREE Webhosting at http://www.awnewbie.com/freehosting.html
- Free at awnewbie.com e-mail alias at http://www.awnewbie.com/email.html
- Professional hosting and POP3 emails also available. Check links above!

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 26, 2003, 10:22pm
....or how about a fan which doesn't suck. Water cooling isn't neccesary.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

bowen

Sep 27, 2003, 4:20am
[View Quote] Yeah AMD's r0x0r. How about the time when using the OGL pipes screen
saver caused it to overheat like icarus' wings? What fan would've
stopped that?

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

.duo.28daysleft

Sep 27, 2003, 12:57pm
A fan which doesn't suck? I do all kinds of things on my PC, and it has an
ancient Athlon 700MHz, which doesn't even have a good fan. I play games on
high quality. I use all this crazy crap which changes the appearance of XP.
My computer runs cool too.

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

r i c h a r d

Sep 27, 2003, 2:03pm
haha my Athlon XP 2400 (2ghz) over clocked up to 2327.5mhz in the end but u
can get it faster

and i remember when the CPU fan on my Athlon 650mhz died it ran for ages
with out a problem... dust was burnt but hey it was fine though i did get
some new fans when i found out.

Oh and Athlon XP's are jsut MP's with a connection cut so reconnect it and u
can get cheap multi cpu athlon's Dual Athlon XP 1500 very speedy.

My Athlon XP 2400 never get up to more than 55C i see intel's do the same.
but if u atke the heat sink off and stick a themometer in the core isn't
vrey hot at all the temperature is messured from under the socket where
there is no air flow u can stick ur finger on the heat sink and hardly feel
it being warm. Even when its on and been running for weeks.... ppl seem to
keep the idea's about the K6 and K62 and early athlon's the XP's Op's and
64's are much better than u think

sw comit

Sep 29, 2003, 3:10am
uhhh lol? First of all you can't compare mhz between the two CPUs. Intel,
like AMD, are both 200 mhz FSB. AMD is doing DDR (200x2 = 400), but intel
is doing quad pumped (800mhz). They're both very close the same
performance-wise. Not to mention AMD does much much more work per tick,
which helps keeps the two neck and neck.

Regarding your other post down the line, what in the world are you talking
about? AMD didn't "die" when it wasn't overclocked. What review did you
look at? intelworld.com? =P
I suggest you look at a few sources. Personally I never rely on only one
review. Do 3 or 4 if you really wanna see what it's like all around.

Lastly AMD is like made for overclocking...well not literally, but about any
overclocking forum you go to and it's just AMD this and AMD that. I own two
AMD systems. a 1.2 ghz OC'd to 1.5, and a 1.7 ghz to 2.3 ghz. And guess
what? It's quiet enough to sleep with it on (unlike those 40-50+ dBa deltas
or vantecs lol), and rock solid. 1 CPU fan, no case fans. *shrug*
The whole AMD being hot thing is just a big urban myth. Yes they are "hot",
but so is Intel, and in many cases hotter. Intel just has a thermal
dispersion system on the CPU level, I'll give em' that.


[View Quote]

sw comit

Sep 29, 2003, 3:12am
> Yeah AMD's r0x0r. How about the time when using the OGL pipes screen
> saver caused it to overheat like icarus' wings? What fan would've
> stopped that?

lol your thinking of a an early Geforce FX there buddy. That logically
couldn't cause the CPU to overheat. It'd be the GPU =P

bowen

Sep 29, 2003, 5:36am
[View Quote] They're all the same. I've heard from some sources that running it
burns up the AMD too. But hey, people who buy AMD's will probably buy
GeForces too... you know, because of the price differentials between ATI
and GeForce, just like with Intel and AMD. So yeah, if you light a fire
in a box and try to put it out with more wood what do you think is going
to happen?

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

bowen

Sep 29, 2003, 5:43am
[View Quote] Where the hell have you been? 200 MHz FSB is 1999 buddy. Even AMD is
beyond the 200 range, as you can see if you double something it's not
the same. If I put two two-lane highways next to each other it's not a
2 lane high way anymore, is it? Smoking the cheebas again, aren't you
canuck? Oot and aboot, agayn and agayn with the newfies, eh? ;)

Oh yeah, more work per tick does nothing when your 4 lane high way only
holds so much... as compared to the 8 lane or even 12 lane -- if you're
so inclined to invest your civil resources that way.

> Regarding your other post down the line, what in the world are you talking
> about? AMD didn't "die" when it wasn't overclocked. What review did you
> look at? intelworld.com? =P
> I suggest you look at a few sources. Personally I never rely on only one
> review. Do 3 or 4 if you really wanna see what it's like all around.

I didn't like intel until recently when AMD decided it didn't like me.
Hell, if you don't believe me, read some of my past posts.

> Lastly AMD is like made for overclocking...well not literally, but about any
> overclocking forum you go to and it's just AMD this and AMD that. I own two
> AMD systems. a 1.2 ghz OC'd to 1.5, and a 1.7 ghz to 2.3 ghz. And guess
> what? It's quiet enough to sleep with it on (unlike those 40-50+ dBa deltas
> or vantecs lol), and rock solid. 1 CPU fan, no case fans. *shrug*
> The whole AMD being hot thing is just a big urban myth. Yes they are "hot",
> but so is Intel, and in many cases hotter. Intel just has a thermal
> dispersion system on the CPU level, I'll give em' that.

I certainly hope you don't spend your time investing in overclocking an
AMD. AMD is made for cheap people, thus cheap components, thus not very
high quality. I own 2 AMD systems, what's your point? My AMD sounds
like a 747 with a Seagull stuck in it's exhaust. The single Intel
Celeron? Quiet as the Ionicbreeze.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com/sys/
Yeah, it's that good.
(Maybe an AW section in the near future?)

r i c h a r d

Sep 29, 2003, 4:21pm
My dad and bro both have athlon xp 1500's my bro has a 32mb geforce 2 and my
dad has a ati rage pro 2.... and the geforce runs circlse around the ATI

sw comit

Sep 29, 2003, 4:23pm
> Where the hell have you been? 200 MHz FSB is 1999 buddy. Even AMD is
> beyond the 200 range, as you can see if you double something it's not
> the same. If I put two two-lane highways next to each other it's not a
> 2 lane high way anymore, is it? Smoking the cheebas again, aren't you
> canuck? Oot and aboot, agayn and agayn with the newfies, eh? ;)

I could ask you the same question. As I state again, the true frequency is
200 mhz now. However it's called 400 because it's in DDR mode (200x2=400),
and intel is 200x4=800 cause they quad-pump it. Before, it was 166x2=333,
and 133x2=266, and 100x2=200 mhz. Don't believe me? Ask *any* computer
forum go'er, like www.rage3d.com, general hardware forums.


> I certainly hope you don't spend your time investing in overclocking an
> AMD. AMD is made for cheap people, thus cheap components, thus not very
> high quality. I own 2 AMD systems, what's your point? My AMD sounds
> like a 747 with a Seagull stuck in it's exhaust. The single Intel
> Celeron? Quiet as the Ionicbreeze.

Overclocking is a hobby I enjoy so yea I gladly spend time at it. And if
you don't know anything about marketing, FYI they're able to build those
things for a few dollars. They *have* to do extreme markup in order to not
look cheap. Cheap components, low quality? Come back when you got
something to back that up with bud, considering both companies get their
parts from IBM. And your AMD sounding loud is meaningless, more likely
poorly assembled. My XP 2600 (1700 not overclocked), is very quiet, and my
mom's 2500 down the hall is totally inaudible, and runs at very acceptable
temps.

sw comit

Sep 29, 2003, 4:32pm
> They're all the same. I've heard from some sources that running it
> burns up the AMD too. But hey, people who buy AMD's will probably buy
> GeForces too... you know, because of the price differentials between ATI
> and GeForce, just like with Intel and AMD. So yeah, if you light a fire
> in a box and try to put it out with more wood what do you think is going
> to happen?

lol care to share these "sources"? Believe me I look all around the net at
computer news three times a day, and I saw the opengl horror story all over.
It was the old faulty geforce FX's fan, because their fan was controlled by
the card's drivers (FlowFX), and the drivers didn't understand that the
screensaver was 3d, so it kept the fan running at 2d speeds, overheating the
card. It's impossible that a screensaver alone could overheat the processor
only because any 3d application, even AW, puts the processor at 100% useage,
and 100% = 100% no matter what program is doing it. The key difference is
that AMD's fan is simple always-on-always-going, whereas Geforce had that
funky software-controlled fan, able to be errored.

And just to nit-pik, AMD people usually go with ATI. At least thats what I
notice when I look around computer forums (as people there usually keep
their computer specs in their sig). And...ATI and nvidia are the same
prices, actaully ATI is a bit more. Poke around pricewatch.com, have a
look.

binarybud

Sep 29, 2003, 4:32pm
LOL Proccessors do not make ANY noise sheeesh....what your hearing is FAN noise.
You have a habit of talking like your an authority on every subject....lol


[View Quote]

sw comit

Sep 29, 2003, 4:41pm
Well I'd hope so, you can't really compare those two cards together, lol.
Back in the day nvidia was the king easily (like the cards you mentioned
being 2 generations old), but now ATI is winning =X


[View Quote]

sw comit

Sep 29, 2003, 4:42pm
>
> I could ask you the same question. As I state again, the true frequency
is
> 200 mhz now. However it's called 400 because it's in DDR mode
(200x2=400),
> and intel is 200x4=800 cause they quad-pump it. Before, it was 166x2=333,
> and 133x2=266, and 100x2=200 mhz. Don't believe me? Ask *any* computer
> forum go'er, like www.rage3d.com, general hardware forums.


Actaully even easier, just look in your BIOS for the DRAM or host clock.
It'll be 200 or less, unless those funky intel BIOS's don't state the true
frequency lol, but I doubt that'll happen.

captain mad mike

Sep 29, 2003, 5:23pm
Actually I'm an ATI fan myself. And I also have an Athlon XP. And I can also
say that your comment on the OpenGL pipes thing is wrong. A screensaver
alone can't fry a CPU, since the worst it can do to the CPU is bring it to
100% usage, and even then it takes either a really, really crappy heatsink
or a really, really hot room to bring an AXP above its critical point of
85C.
The highest I ever got my AXP to go (this is overclocked, mind you) was 60C
on air cooling. With water I'm overclocked higher and only hit 51C on
average. 48C before I put my new power supply in.

-CMM

[View Quote]

.duo.24daysleft

Sep 29, 2003, 5:24pm
I buy Intel processors and ATI chips, and I used to buy AMD processors and
Nvidia cards. I'm thinking of reverting back to AMD chips now, but the
3.2GHz P4 is slightly faster than the Athlon 64 FX in terms of 32 bit. AMD
chips are definately better in terms of price versus power.
--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

.duo.24daysleft

Sep 29, 2003, 5:26pm
Someone who know what they're talking about, YaY!

--
-.Duo. (342836)
[View Quote]

1  2  3  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn