P()rter-tWc-
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3
Had a ? which intel dual core. that is coming out is the one for the 64bit windows and which one is supposed to be the fastest for app. video gaming ext.
p.s. INTEL FOREVER!!
p.s. INTEL FOREVER!!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
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.
Intel 64bit processor
- Thread starter P()rter-tWc-
- Start date
P()rter-tWc-
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3
They have released the core preview but there has to be on designed for gameing a video in mind like the EE or the HT tech? ANy idea and do you know if the 955x chipset will be sli ready?
cell_491 said:
He obviously wants an Intel, not an AMD. We don't know why, but we can at least respect his choice, and answer his question, namely what the best dual-core would be for gaming.
For all we know, he wants dual-core anyway, for whatever other purpose, but wants to make sure he can do some decent gaming on the side. He didn't say.
I'm intel biased, but I'm going to stay out of the arguments, lol....Anyways why worry about 64 bit right now? Is it really that much of a performance boost....??? In the real world you won't notice a bit of difference in speed or anything for that matter unless it's double (ie: going from a 1 Ghz cpu to a 2 Ghz)....The only difference you will notice in the real world at this point would be if you had a 6 Ghz 64 Bit processor...To be honest I don't see what the big fuss is about actually having a 64 bit cpu at this point in time other than bragging rights....There is no need for 64 bit in the real world until Longhorn comes out....So get your panties out of a bunch and just wait for the prices to come down...(j/k about the whole panites in a bunch thing....)
Actually all the 600 series processors have EM64T support. 64 bit computing isn't much if any faster right now and in many cases theres a reduction of performance. 32 bit games running on a 64bit version of Windows XP take a 10-20% performance dive.
The main reason for the switch to x86/64 and EM64T is for greater memory addressability. Nothing else.
All of if not most of Intel's CPU's going forward will be 64bit capable. Eventually even the Celeron will get EM64T. So the upcomming dual core CPU's will have it and the newer single core CPU's will as well.
For gaming I would also expect the 3.74GHz EE processor to be Intel's fastest overall CPU for some time. The dual core processors will have reduced clock speeds compared to single core CPU's. Since Intel CPU's thrive off of pure clock speed, I would expect reduced performance from the dual core CPU's in some applications. Namely games.
The main reason for the switch to x86/64 and EM64T is for greater memory addressability. Nothing else.
All of if not most of Intel's CPU's going forward will be 64bit capable. Eventually even the Celeron will get EM64T. So the upcomming dual core CPU's will have it and the newer single core CPU's will as well.
For gaming I would also expect the 3.74GHz EE processor to be Intel's fastest overall CPU for some time. The dual core processors will have reduced clock speeds compared to single core CPU's. Since Intel CPU's thrive off of pure clock speed, I would expect reduced performance from the dual core CPU's in some applications. Namely games.
Rtstrider said:
I guess you must have missed the news that Windows XP x64 is already shipping?
While there's not a huge gain yet by just running x64 with 32 bit apps, it doesn't really hurt either... And it would sure be a damn shame if you just spent a lot of money on a 32 bit machine, and in a few months you start seeing the first 64 bit applications with all sorts of performance gains that you can't take advantage.
Sir-Fragalot said:
Also the fact that x87/MMX/3DNow! are no longer valid, and all programs are forced to be recompiled to SSE/SSE2 optimizations will make for a nice performance boost, especially on P4, where the x87 was one of its weakest points.
The 64 bit mode also offers twice as many registers as before, which means function calls will now pass most of their parameters via registers, rather than via stack, which will ofcourse improve performance because registers are faster than memory. And since there are more volatile registers available now, you won't have to resort to spilling registers to memory as often anymore...
All these things will improve performance, sometimes more than 20%, which would mean you effectively get the performance of a CPU that was in a higher pricerange.
...dual core IS NOT the way to go at least not yet.And let's not forget that there will be the 670, a 3.8ghz P4 which may exceed the 3.73EE in overall performance. I have the ES version of this chip and it performs very well.
One interesting thing to note, and I'm not sure if this is indicative of all P4's; I easily reach 4.4ghz using WinXp x32. However, this same chip with the same mobo setting will not go beyond 4.2ghz using WinXp X64.
If the 64bit extensions do lower the overclock then that should be considered and weighed against DC, SC, or even the A64.
One interesting thing to note, and I'm not sure if this is indicative of all P4's; I easily reach 4.4ghz using WinXp x32. However, this same chip with the same mobo setting will not go beyond 4.2ghz using WinXp X64.
If the 64bit extensions do lower the overclock then that should be considered and weighed against DC, SC, or even the A64.