Paris on 754, it just hit me...

0ldman

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
3,565
Paris is the 32bit version of the Athlon 64, rumored to replace the XP line and take its name.

Windows XP 64 is in Beta now, that made me think...
What happens if you install XP64 on a 754 system with an Athlon 64 3000+ then... upgrade?... to an Athlon XP 4000+ 32bit CPU?

Will the OS even boot?
 
Uh, I'm going to guess that by time we see an XP 4000+, you'll have to be mentally insane to NOT buy a 64-bit chip.
 
umm it wouldn't be exactly like an athlon xp since it'd need a memroy controller.
 
Originally posted by DryFire
umm it wouldn't be exactly like an athlon xp since it'd need a memroy controller.
This is known, it isn't an XP, it is a cut down Athlon 64. It is suppose to take the XP's name and place in the value line.
I guess the Duron is going away for good this time.

No, it wouldnt boot, and that suck for you
My thoughts exactly. I don't imagine that would be a problem for many people here, we know the differences. Does kinda open a can of worms for Joe Schmoe down the street who replaces his 3000+ with a 4000+ tho...

I guess I shouldn't complain, that's part of the reason I make money in this business, but it puts me in somewhat of an awkward position explaining it to the customer how chip A is slower but can run newer software than chip B that is newer and faster.
 
Knowing Microsoft it would initially boot, freak out, make the hard drive crunch for several minutes while "installing new devices", blue screen and then reboot-for-no-reason and then you'd get a invalid system disk error on reboot. But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong :D
 
I personally don't see why AMD would remove the 64-bit components of a 64-bit chip that does 32-bit perfectly fine, a year from its introduction of a well-received 64-bit lineup.
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
I personally don't see why AMD would remove the 64-bit components of a 64-bit chip that does 32-bit perfectly fine, a year from its introduction of a well-received 64-bit lineup.



if people start buying low end 64-bit chips, and in our case, o/c them, who would buy the higher-end ones. The 32 bit only is sort of a deterrent(sp?), if you may. Kind of like the Duron, the o/c well, then again they only have 64K of L2 cache, likewise for the Celerons
 
MS themselves state that you cannot run XP-64bit or Win2k3-64bit on 32-bit systems. It would not get past the splash screen, most likely. Once the bootloader switched the CPU into 'long mode', it should fail.
 
Originally posted by rayman2k2
if people start buying low end 64-bit chips, and in our case, o/c them, who would buy the higher-end ones. The 32 bit only is sort of a deterrent(sp?), if you may. Kind of like the Duron, the o/c well, then again they only have 64K of L2 cache, likewise for the Celerons

I think the real ditterent is the halved cache of the 64 over the FX. While it doesn't make a ton of difference ulocking it will take some modifications to the chip while oc ing it will not and even if you do it won't really preform like the one with 1 mb of cache even though it's only like 1% difference most likly.

Pushing 64 bit and introducing a new 32 bit platform doesn't seem like a good idea.
 
It sounds like a bad idea, I agree, but rumors being what they are...

I see where there would be more problems than benefits, the subject of this thread being one of them.
 
Back
Top