I feel like an idiot

dave343

dave343

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
1,875
I just bought the P4 530J when the 6 series is already out :( My friend had told me about them being 64 bit, but I didn't think they were coming out till summer. Though the same 6 series 3ghz is about $100 more then what I paid for mine. $230.CND
 
I wouldn't worry about it. The new features aren't all that impressive save for the increased L2 cache. However I don't think it's worth $100 more. Not on the lower end processors anyway.

The lack of 64bit capability will not hurt anything right now. There isn't a commercially available 64bit OS right now.XP 64 bit edition is still a ways off. You can of course use the beta right now, however it's slower than the 32 bit version right now. Especially with games from the benches I've seen.
 
Well, there is always the trade forums or ebay... :) And if it makes you feel any better, I went and bought an AGP video card this time around. Oops.
 
scrape the grease off the top of the proc and the bottom of the heat sink then wrap it up and give it back telling them you didn't use it....just kidding....relax! it's a good chip. all you need to do is OCin' the crap out of it...to prove it worthy and make you feel better.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
I wouldn't worry about it. The new features aren't all that impressive save for the increased L2 cache. However I don't think it's worth $100 more. Not on the lower end processors anyway.

The lack of 64bit capability will not hurt anything right now. There isn't a commercially available 64bit OS right now.XP 64 bit edition is still a ways off. You can of course use the beta right now, however it's slower than the 32 bit version right now. Especially with games from the benches I've seen.
Click to expand...

doesn't linux count as 64bit?

edit: ok nevermind i forgot you needed to get the right one for the cpu.
 
mewannafastpc said:
doesn't linux count as 64bit?

edit: ok nevermind i forgot you needed to get the right one for the cpu.
Click to expand...

64bit Linux does count. But no more so than the Beta Windows XP 64bit Edition.
 
really?
why is that? i read that linux OS can run multiple 64bit processors like in super-computers and such
 
mewannafastpc said:
really?
why is that? i read that linux OS can run multiple 64bit processors like in super-computers and such
Click to expand...

It's not a mainstream OS. It doesn't operate the vast majority of software. Which like it or not is Windows based.

So the percentage of people that could take advantage of that software is very small. Therefore it doesn't count for the masses.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
The lack of 64bit capability will not hurt anything right now. There isn't a commercially available 64bit OS right now.XP 64 bit edition is still a ways off.
Click to expand...
WinXP x64 is in RC2 (1433) status now. I installed it a couple of days ago. The expected gold date is this Spring.

The performance difference is actually a pretty minor concern. The real problem is lack of 64-bit drivers from virtually everyone. Even Intel doesn't have ICH6 RAID drivers yet (they do have ICH6R 64-bit RAID drivers, but those don't work with the regular ICH6... i tried :(). I need even basic 64-bit drivers for my:
UMAX scanner (not holding my breath from that cheap company... they don't even have free basic drivers for download)
ICH6 RAID (they are working on it)
Lexmark laser printer (they are working on it)
Hauppauge PVR-250 (no word if they will ever have 64-bit drivers

The WinXP x64 betas allowed non-kernel mode 32-bit drivers to be installed (that's how I got printer and scanner support before), but the release candidates removed those. I have a feeling that someone will figure out how to make a driver wrapper. MS is probably mostly waiting for more drivers to include. WinXP x64 isn't anything new... it's just an AMD64 port of Windows 2003 SP1.
 
Spike said:
only thing you should feel like an idiot about is not going amd bud. http://www.de.tomshardware.com/cpu/charts/index.html?model1=8&model2=62&chart=26 more bang for the buck... alot more
Click to expand...

You just compared a 530J to an 3500+. What CPU did you think was gonna perform better?
:rolleyes: But anyways I don't like AMD, Im in Intel fan boy lol. I've always loved Intel's chipsets. Those benchmarks mean crap to me though. Like I really care one CPU give's you 5 or 10 fps more in a game over the other. I hate all those benchmarks out there that show a .3 or .5 or 3fps difference but make it look sooooo much bigger on the graph :rolleyes:
All I care about is 1024/Most if not all settings maxed and 40fps.
 
dave343 said:
Like I really care one CPU give's you 5 or 10 fps more in a game over the other.
Click to expand...
If even that. The biggest differences in some reviews are the lower resolutions like 1024x768... with a high end card. Who cares? At 1600x1200, most of the "demanding" games are video card limited anyways. But that doesn't look exciting in the graphs. :D

I might see 1-2 fps increase in the games I play with a much faster Intel or AMD CPU. It doesn't matter to me. When I upgrade my video card again (x800 XL if CompUSA or ATI ships), i'll just crank up the quality again with FSAA making any CPU speed differences negligible.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
There isn't a commercially available 64bit OS right now.
Click to expand...

Solaris, and more specifically RHEL aren't commercial OS' for AMD64?
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
It's not a mainstream OS. It doesn't operate the vast majority of software. Which like it or not is Windows based.

So the percentage of people that could take advantage of that software is very small. Therefore it doesn't count for the masses.
Click to expand...

So because you don't use it or like it, it doesn't count?

It makes a big difference to me - my compile times for the applications I am developing in GTK+ are reduced because of AMD64. Additionally, have you seen how much faster 64-bit procs are at most forms of encryption? That might matter to some people, eh?
 
Wait... Why would you want to spend another $85 on a chip that offfers virtually no performance gain and 64 bit capabilities that may or may not be useful at some point in the future?

I just bought a 530j from newegg on Sunday even though I new the 6XX chips were available. These new chips just aren't worth the price premium.
 
dave343 said:
You just compared a 530J to an 3500+. What CPU did you think was gonna perform better?
:rolleyes: But anyways I don't like AMD, Im in Intel fan boy lol. I've always loved Intel's chipsets. Those benchmarks mean crap to me though. Like I really care one CPU give's you 5 or 10 fps more in a game over the other. I hate all those benchmarks out there that show a .3 or .5 or 3fps difference but make it look sooooo much bigger on the graph :rolleyes:
All I care about is 1024/Most if not all settings maxed and 40fps.
Click to expand...
that was kind of unintentional... try it with a 3000+ or a 2800+ those are amd's buget processors they still do better.

edit: in reguards to your love afair with intel i myself find it unfounded. They tryed to fool ppl with their megahertz mith (there advertisement implys that the higher clock speed the more performance) which is deceptive. and now they are doing the same thing with ddr2 anyone who doesnt look into it wil think its a significant improvement over ddr. and not only that but compart the 3500+ a good midrange processor you can get it for $275 without looking too hard to intels 3.46 "Extreme Edation"
rolleyes.gif
chip which is around $1000. Its not only a minimal performance increase for $600, but it shows blind loyalty; blind loyalty is a bad thing when you wanna build a nice system at a buget. I mean honestly when you can buy 3 amd processors that are nearly identical performance wise to 1 intel processor there is really no compotation. you probabily think im an AMD guy by my wranting, and youd be wrong. personally i have no loyalties when it comes to processor manufacturers. whoever delivers a superior product for a cheaper price is going to be the company i buy from. Second intel beats amd in perforrmance and price ill buy from them.
 
It all comes down to preference. My friend has a 3000+ OC to 2.6gig and I know it would walk all over my 3.0 but I dunno... I've just always liked Intel. I like their chipsets the best, just always have. I fall victim to Intels and nVidia's marketing sceme's lol.
I had an ATI Radeon 9600XT 128mb card when Farcry came out. I went out and bought the game and inside was a coupon thingy from nVidia. The card had Farcry all over it with nVidia's logo, "The way it's ment to be played" So I sold my 9600XT and bought a FX5600 256mb lol. There's that and at my work (Computer store) we have posters from Intel that say "Don't hold your game's back, give them the power of the Pentium 4." So I do lol :p Marketing at its best. I think thats why Im with Intel. I like the logo, and the Pentium name. I know.... it all soudns retarted.
Intel spends something like 500million on marketing per year I heard.
 
I'm in the unique situation of preferring AMD chips over Intel but preferring Intel chipsets over the third-party ones for AMD. This is especially true for the PCI Express implementation on the AMD side. nVidia's nForce4 and VIA's KT890 seems to really suck compared to the 915/P-925/x/e chipsets. My buddy just bought me a new PCI Express video card. My intention had been to go AGP/AMD, but now that I have this kick-ass PCI Express video card sitting here, I am loath to place it within an AMD system due to the general suckage of the PCI Express implementation on that platform.

Both my wife's and my previous computers were AMD systems. Our new systems are Intel based. Use the processor/motherboard combination that gets the job that *you* want done and don't worry about what anyone else thinks. Your blood pressure will be a lot better. :D
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
It's not a mainstream OS. It doesn't operate the vast majority of software. Which like it or not is Windows based.

So the percentage of people that could take advantage of that software is very small. Therefore it doesn't count for the masses.
Click to expand...


Frag. I tend to agree with you on a lot of things, however, calling linux "not mainstream" is a bit off center.

Just because windows has the market share, doesn't make linux some "obscure little os"

there are *MILLIONS* of people, and MILLIONS of servers running linux.. Does it have to hit the 1 billion mark before it's "Mainstream"?


Like michael stipe said. How many records do you have to sell before your no longer "alternative music"

My company owns, in total. 20 computers. 12 running linux (it's going to be 13)
 
mewannafastpc said:
oh ok i see
so when xp64 bit comes out it'll support all the same softwares that win xp does right now?
Click to expand...


Actually, for the most part, [some exceptions... mainly in non-written DRIVERS] the *beta* supports everything winxp-32 does.. so, I'm assuming the retail product will, as well.
 
MalfurionStormrage said:
I'm in the unique situation of preferring AMD chips over Intel but preferring Intel chipsets over the third-party ones for AMD. This is especially true for the PCI Express implementation on the AMD side. nVidia's nForce4 and VIA's KT890 seems to really suck compared to the 915/P-925/x/e chipsets. My buddy just bought me a new PCI Express video card. My intention had been to go AGP/AMD, but now that I have this kick-ass PCI Express video card sitting here, I am loath to place it within an AMD system due to the general suckage of the PCI Express implementation on that platform.

Both my wife's and my previous computers were AMD systems. Our new systems are Intel based. Use the processor/motherboard combination that gets the job that *you* want done and don't worry about what anyone else thinks. Your blood pressure will be a lot better. :D
Click to expand...
Fair enuff, amd was a little lacking in the pci express department. if you looked at the performance gain between agp 8x and pci express though you will find there is almost no performance gain what soever. the cards out just cant utalize the bandwidth. sure the mobo can but if you have a graphics card that cant utalize the bandwidth than it doesnt matter at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top