• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Does No One Care?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LeadMetal1402

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
156
Here I am surfing the forums, and not one person is talking about the upcomming nocona chips due to be released in about and hour! They are intel's new xeon 64 bit, 2.8ghz priced at $209. Come on people, get your priorities straight. Anyone gonna get some?
 
LeadMetal1402 said:
Here I am surfing the forums, and not one person is talking about the upcomming nocona chips due to be released in about and hour! They are intel's new xeon 64 bit, 2.8ghz priced at $209. Come on people, get your priorities straight. Anyone gonna get some?
Click to expand...

You're in the video card forum :p
 
Dude this is the video card section lol. Try Genenal Hardware and the Intel Forum.

I'm not upgradeing my CPU again till most likely in 05 when Intel releases their dual core, 64-bit chips that hopefully have Hyper Threading on each core :).
 
they are server chips, xeons = expensive. That puts them out of range for a lot of enthusiasts:(
 
I bet athlon 64's not only run 32 bit better but also 64-bit, lol, intel = wasting its time, they should give up now.
 
Unoid said:
I bet athlon 64's not only run 32 bit better but also 64-bit, lol, intel = wasting its time, they should give up now.
Click to expand...

Thats the most ignorant thing i've ever heard. The majority of AMD's architecture is all Intel made bud. The entire x86 architecture was made by Intel. The only thing AMD did was add a 64-bit extension onto the exisiting framework just the same as Intel did with 16-bit -> 32-bit. Intel still designed all of it and if anyone would end up doing it better it would be Intel.

And the A64's dont run 32-bit better ither. Its entirely dependent upon the application your running as to which is better.
 
burningrave101 said:
Thats the most ignorant thing i've ever heard. The majority of AMD's architecture is all Intel made bud. The entire x86 architecture was made by Intel. The only thing AMD did was add a 64-bit extension onto the exisiting framework just the same as Intel did with 16-bit -> 32-bit. Intel still designed all of it and if anyone would end up doing it better it would be Intel.

And the A64's dont run 32-bit better ither. Its entirely dependent upon the application your running as to which is better.
Click to expand...

And actually the Pentium M is more effecient than a Pentium 4 per clock cycle. And may even be more effecient than an Athlon per clock cycle. And eventually they will bring the Pentium-M to the desktop market.

Not to mention the Itanium has been around for a few years now. If anything Intel has ALOT more experience in 64bit computing. Because unlike the AMD 64bit technology the Intel IA64 technology has ACTUALLY been used for something.

I am going to be building a new rig in the next month or two and I've been considering the Athlon 64 and the Xeon (Nocona Core) or an LGA775 Prescott 3.6. Depending on Nacona's performance and what the motherboard options are I will definatley consider it if they are going to be $200 for a 2.8 W/64bit technology.

AMD will even tell you that Intel sets the standard. Why do you think that the model numbers or AMD's are based on how they perform against Intel chips?

Theres no doubt that the Athlon is a good chip. But to say that the Athlon will perform better in 64 bit apps before the IA64 chips have been seen is clearly a fanboy slanted statement twords AMD. This kind of blind loyalty confuses me.
 
burningrave101 said:
Thats the most ignorant thing i've ever heard. The majority of AMD's architecture is all Intel made bud. The entire x86 architecture was made by Intel. The only thing AMD did was add a 64-bit extension onto the exisiting framework just the same as Intel did with 16-bit -> 32-bit. Intel still designed all of it and if anyone would end up doing it better it would be Intel.

And the A64's dont run 32-bit better ither. Its entirely dependent upon the application your running as to which is better.
Click to expand...
Uh, i dont know about you, but my A64 certainly runs 32bit programs better than my old AXP did.....

And BTW- AMD designed the x86-64 in this chip, not Intel. Intel is adopting THIER standard, because AMD beat them to the punch...
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
Why do you think that the model numbers or AMD's are based on how they perform against Intel chips?
Click to expand...

They dont. AMD has said before that the model numbers on the AXPs were meant to compare to thunderbirds. Then again, this whole thread is a steaming pile of intel fanboyism.
 
Divine_Madcat said:
Uh, i dont know about you, but my A64 certainly runs 32bit programs better than my old AXP did.....

And BTW- AMD designed the x86-64 in this chip, not Intel. Intel is adopting THIER standard, because AMD beat them to the punch...
Click to expand...

I know AMD designed it. I never said that Intel did. I said it was a small leap from the already existing x86 architecture that AMD has been borrowing from Intel for so long now. And dont forget all the instruction sets AMD uses from Intel. MMX, SSE, SSE2, and soon to be SSE3.

And your A64 isn't running 32-bit better then the AXP really, its just a higher performance chip. Its not running 32-bit any better then a 3.0c does compared to a 2.4C. Heh hopefully you'll understand what i'm trying to say here. :)

sKiTz0 said:
They dont. AMD has said before that the model numbers on the AXPs were meant to compare to thunderbirds. Then again, this whole thread is a steaming pile of intel fanboyism.
Click to expand...

And mixed with a little AMD FUD lol.
 
It has already been proven that AMD is better for gaming and Intel is better for multimedia, cant we just leave it at that? Intel and AMD both have good products out.
 
advanced101101 said:
It has already been proven that AMD is better for gaming and Intel is better for multimedia, cant we just leave it at that? Intel and AMD both have good products out.
Click to expand...

I dont think we were disputing which was better in performance :p.

But since you mentioned it lol, the Intel is better at more then just multimedia. Its better at multitasking, anything multithreaded, a majority of applications, encodeing, rendering, and other things.

The A64 has its strong suits though too. Especially in gaming because of its low latency on-die memory controller. Games are all about latency. I wish my Northwood had an on-die controller :(. It would get the crap out of anything clocked at 3.7Ghz lol.
 
The LGA775 chips are awesome deals compared to socket939, but the gamer might want to consider shelling out the extra $$ to grab a 939
 
Mmmm for the whole AMD is working off Intel argument: x86 instruction set was made by intel true enough, but that doesn't mean how you process the information has to be the same, you just have to get the same results. Also it is true that the IBM pc compatable market is not accepting to change, just look at the fact that you can build a computer today and it'll still run dos.

As for the Title of the thread:

Doesn't the prescot core cpus have 64bit ability loced away just weathing to be released? Anyway the thing is that not only are these server chips but there are already desktop 64bit chips and we are yet to see gains just because of the 64bit computing, we don't even have 64bit OS and WHQL drivers. Until software catched up to hardware then there is nothing to get too excited about.
 
advanced101101 said:
The prescotts have 64-bit extensions, but IIRC they cannot be used
Click to expand...

Because supposedly they are currently disabled. One reason why they've been disabled is that socket 478 could not supply the juice needed to enable them and another reason is just the fact there is no 64-bit OS available from Microsoft.

But why are we still talking about this lol. This is the video card section! Someone move this to the Intel forum!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top