Nother thread...how much am I wasting my AMD64 by not running a 64OS?

C

CrashGawker

Gawd
Joined
May 30, 2002
Messages
630
I built a new computer recently (actually I'm finishing it soon) and because of the shocking lack of available socket A options out there anymore (why is that?!) I opted to upgrade to an AMD64 thinking the 64 bit operating system wasn't far out. Well now that I HAVE the system and am hoping to get it booted and running soon I'm starting to read reviews of WindowsXP64 and they are anything but good. I understand that 32 bit software would be unable to benefit fully from XP64, but apparently it's a battle to even get them to work most of the time. I understand drivers are hard to do...but now it seems like nobody is bothering to WRITE 64bit drivers for anything but their newest hardware releases meaning yet another huge batch of gear is going to be instantly outmoded because Microsoft made a decision. :eek:

At this point I'm thinking I might as well just buy a 32bit copy of XP and run it safely and happily until they fix the issues in the 64 bit world and pray my new rig won't need to be completely replaced by the time they finally DO get a 64 bit OS working. So the big question is how is running a 32bit OS going to effect the performance of the 64bit chip? Am I looking at a negligable upgrade between my old AMD XP3000+ running at 2.16gHz by going with my new XP64 3700+ running at 2.4gHz? :rolleyes:

The more I consider it the numbers tell me this won't make any difference at all...which pisses me off because instead of being able to simply replace my dead Socket A motherboard I had to upgrade to an almost completely useless 64 bit rig and spend all KINDS of money on parts for it. This makes me mad... :mad:
 
CrashGawker said:
So the big question is how is running a 32bit OS going to effect the performance of the 64bit chip? Am I looking at a negligable upgrade between my old AMD XP3000+ running at 2.16gHz by going with my new XP64 3700+ running at 2.4gHz? :rolleyes:

The more I consider it the numbers tell me this won't make any difference at all...which pisses me off because instead of being able to simply replace my dead Socket A motherboard I had to upgrade to an almost completely useless 64 bit rig and spend all KINDS of money on parts for it. This makes me mad... :mad:
Click to expand...

Just running the OS? Not a whole lot of difference. I barely notice a difference with a 1.2 classic T-bird and my 2.4ghz newcastle when doing mundane tasks like checking email or surfing the web.

However, running programs which are CPU dependant, the difference is friggin night and day. Encoding video, audio, and gaming are night and day difference. Do not let the performance ratings discourage you, the two processors are night and day different. Actually, for you, coming from a XP3000, it will be more like, early dawn and day, but you should appreciate it, even in a 32-bit environment. The windows 64 bit is a kind of letdown, but I am all shades of impressed with 64-bit linux.

Your attitude confuses me. If it means that much to you, sell your a64 rig and repair the socket a rig. Why not? Availability and resulting prices of parts for an old rig really closes the gap with a new one. Sometimes its cheaper to buy new than to replace old busted stuff, but there is a big performance leap. Just check out game benchmarks using A-XP's and a64's (same video, same ram) and you will see the difference.
 
It's not so much that means all that much to me, as it was more I wanted a cheap fix but the limited options forced me into this. MY original intention was to save up the money to build a complete new system from the ground up all at once. Instead I ran out of money before I finished leaving me still without a computer. My motherboard died last September, so I'm a little irked. I had the new system ready to boot with only a few very minor hardware changes to be made...only to have the power supply (that I didn't have money to replace) fry my hard drive, new burner, and itself after I had already tapped out my computer funds. Yeah it was an off brand cheapo from back before I knew what I was doing but it was good enough for the time I had it. That just meant I had to come up with the dough for a new hard drive PSU and burner...and if you're going to buy something you might as well upgrade right? Plus there's plenty of other problems in my computers around the house that needed fixing so I've been waiting for the money to get put back and do it all at once.

I suppose my main problem is it's been so long I don't know any of these new brands so I don't know what sucks or not. I know I like ASUS and they come highly recommended but seems nobody carries asus socket a's anymore. That's why I switched to 64. I do still have a couple of socket A rigs that I'd like to buy motherboards for though so suggestions are welcome. Newegg's socket a stock is terrifyingly thin.

Also I'm probably going to put a dualboot XP and Slackware install on the new rig to start learning Linux...my main goal there is to find replacements for all my windows based softwares I use all the time and then rid myself of the microsoft operating system yoke for good. I'm not holding my breath but it's a nice goal to work for.

Be really cool if I could make an install disc that would do a linux and windows dualboot install unattended :D
 
Try shopping the For Sale forums? Plenty of good deals and sellers there especially if your looking for more dated parts.
 
To be honest with you I don't understand why someone would upgrade to XP x64 now when 64 bit Vista is probably 6 months off. Unless there was a very specific reason you needed to be running a 64 bit OS or the bragging rights alone are worth it to you it seems like it would just be a lot of hassle with few benefits for most applications. If it was me I would probably just stick with Home or Pro then upgrade to Vista when it comes out.
 
i tried the free 6 month x64. i didnt like it that much. i had to install a 64 bit AV, couldnt find any drivers for my old scanner. and i really didnt notice a difference, besides when i boot the PC.
the performance gains suck unless ur encoding video or rendering. gameing wont be a difference at all.
 
You are wasting it more from simply running Windows as opposed to the 32 vs 64 part.
 
Dude i own two x64 bit licences from MS and i dont use them. Why? There is little performance difference and the hassle alone is not worth it for me to run them. So im sticking to my xp pro and will upgrade when vista comes out.
 
almost everyone i know owns an AMD64 CPU and none of them run 64 bit windows, you didn't lose any money

the point of AMD making their chips with 64 bit support wasn't because they were aimed directly at 64 bit users, but because they wanted to "future proof" with the whole "compatable with today's software and tomorrows'" or whatever they say

just ignore the fact that it is 64 compatable and use 32 bit OS, you won't be losing performance or stability or value or anything - infact by choosing AMD (which all AMDs currently are 64 bit ready) you actually SAVED money and got a BETTER value than the intels (normal pentium or the 64 bitters)
 
I'm in a similar situation as you, with my new (well, a month old) 3700+ system. I thought about getting WinXP-64, but after talking with those with experience with it, there is little reason to do so. Is there a performance increase? Yes, but not much. Most programs today are designed for a 32-bit OS, and many (not all) 64-bit programs today are just re-compiled 32-bit apps - there are only a few true 64-bit apps on the market designed to take full advantage of the 64bit extensions/addressing/throughput.

Its kinda like the 3D market. Sure, DX9 cards were out even before DX9 itself was - but it took time before a good number of games actually took advantage of the new abilities. I'm sure it'll be similar enough when DX10 (WGF 1.0) comes out.

In the end, here's what I've concluded: you just build a nice system (again, similar to mine). XP-64 (with its Server03-64 SP1 kernel) has its advantages, but it hasn't been out long enough for many software apps/drivers to be properly coded for it. You could buy it and expect apps and drivers to be developed for it, but that'll take time.

Now, Vista is literally around the corner (Sometime between 4Q 06 and 1Q 07). Drivers will have to be re-written for Vista, as there is a new driver model, new security issues, better windows driver support (read: crash prevention), etc. I would assume that most app and driver writers are worried more about a soon to be released version of windows, that will be run on almost every new computer when it comes out (Thank Dell and the other large OEMs). So why code for an old, niche OS? Plus, when they re-code everything for Vista, I think that its safe to assume that they will include 64-bit abilities in their code (its right in front of them, why not?).

Yes, Vista will have .NET 2.0 native support (which I feel that not all, but many apps will be built on - I personally am writing with it) So yes, those apps that run on .NET 2.0 will run on your XP-64 system, but why not wait a little bit and get all the benefits of Vista?

I am personally running 32-bit Windows (and testing 64-bit Vista - fun stuff) and will wait for 64-bit Vista to go live before buying an OS.

[sorry for the long post - I just had my coffee]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top