64 Bit Pentium 4... any future for gaming?

[Mini D]

Yes, you've just spewed every bit of rhetoric out on the internet. Way to back him up, overlag.

The truth is that 32/64bit implimentation is worthless despite MS's offering of a 64e XP. The drivers are not out there to adequately support it and the program compatability will be abysmall for some time. But continue to sell that Opteron as if the 64bit competition meant anything.

As far as who's implimentation of 64bit extensions is better... I'm really curious as to just where you got your "facts" on that.

Now, let's get to "dual core". I find the discussion ironic given that most AMD users have been trying to explain how hyperthreading was pretty worthless since most programs don't support multithreading anyways. Now, we get to AMDs response to Hyperthreading and pretend that it's an original idea.  Ok... we move to Intel's response to observing that people are actually stupid enough to pay $3000 for a processor and introduce a dual core hyperthreading chip. Yessir... that's 4 for the price of 2. I'm curious to see just how rabbid amd fans start to claim that multithreading doesn't matter unless it's on an AMD chip.

Yes... hold on to that "true" dual-core montra. It doesn't reak of zealot at all.

The power debate is also one that I find quite amuzing. This is a case of "find a chink in the armor and poke at it" if I've ever saw one. If you don't believe me, read back and see what was being said when the tables were turned there.

Personally, I tell of my own experience with processors and, in this case, processes. I don't give advice on which processors to buy, though I do keep an eye out for obvious liars. I've seen at least one in this thread.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Overlag -
I actually have 4 other PC's, all Intel.
I use them for servers as Intel makes excellent chipsets.
OH MY GOD did I just praise Intel!!!!!

aye, i had been using two PII350s on BX boards for almost 10 years as file servers/game servers and seti crunchers.

and my overclocking adventures with my P3e500 killed something...i think the MB so i got that "super chip" sitting staring at me doing nothing

Ive liked intel for ages. as Skuzzy says there chipsets are great...untill you hit the 775 socket (i forgot that in that list earlier!), Prescott and DDRII, then it just goes downhill.....

id have to say MD is more of a "fanboy" because hes singing praises on something that ISNT good.....and im sorry if you see that as a insult

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Mini D
Yes, you've just spewed every bit of rhetoric out on the internet. Way to back him up, overlag.

The truth is that 32/64bit implimentation is worthless despite MS's offering of a 64e XP. The drivers are not out there to adequately support it and the program compatability will be abysmall for some time. But continue to sell that Opteron as if the 64bit competition meant anything.

As far as who's implimentation of 64bit extensions is better... I'm really curious as to just where you got your "facts" on that.

Now, let's get to "dual core". I find the discussion ironic given that most AMD users have been trying to explain how hyperthreading was pretty worthless since most programs don't support multithreading anyways. Now, we get to AMDs response to Hyperthreading and pretend that it's an original idea.  Ok... we move to Intel's response to observing that people are actually stupid enough to pay $3000 for a processor and introduce a dual core hyperthreading chip. Yessir... that's 4 for the price of 2. I'm curious to see just how rabbid amd fans start to claim that multithreading doesn't matter unless it's on an AMD chip.

Yes... hold on to that "true" dual-core montra. It doesn't reak of zealot at all.

The power debate is also one that I find quite amuzing. This is a case of "find a chink in the armor and poke at it" if I've ever saw one. If you don't believe me, read back and see what was being said when the tables were turned there.

Personally, I tell of my own experience with processors and, in this case, processes. I don't give advice on which processors to buy, though I do keep an eye out for obvious liars. I've seen at least one in this thread.

oh well see my post above

A64 isnt JUST about 64bit, its about much higher IPC, onboard memory, and built in ability for dual core from the first design.

I think you've been living under a rock for the past 2 years if you think A64 is just about 64bit.

edit again.... can i suggest you read some reviews on the pros and cons of BOTH multicore designs??? that you may understand what we mean by "true dualcore"

[Kev367th]

Liar - You want to get personal, fine.

That's rich coming from someone who's
1) Works for a company that has hoodwinked average "Joe Public" for years now with the faster the processor the faster the machine bullcrap. Original poster of this thread is an example, he thought higher clockspeed = faster system (no offence gnubee)

2) Works for a company that has questionable business practice regarding threatening retaliation against PC makers who used AMD chips. Currently the subject of a lawsuit in Europe and Japan.

Obviously you been well indoctrinated/brainwashed into the Intel rah,rah, rah club. I applaud your company loyalty, but get your head out of the sand and look around.

Yes the P4 dual core is a kludge, its a piss poor attempt to catch up on something that was always designed to part of AMD64's from day one. Hence the use of the FSB to communicate between the two cores.

$3000 for a CPU, maybe if you bought an Intel dual core toaster oven. Desktop AMD dual cores are supposed to start at around $500, big difference.

Hyperthreading - Well it makes sense for AMD dual cores to have BACKWARDS compatibility with Intels hyperthreading implementation. Will be interested to see how true native HTT stacks up against it.

Chink - Heat produced isn't a chink it's a gaping bleeding festering wound in Intels side.

You can spout on all you want about whats in development, for Mr average user it's whats on the street that matters.
FACT - AMD dual core are on the street
FACT - Intels aren't.
FACT - AMD runs cool
FACT - Once your P4 has died it's still useful for warming plates, makng popcorn etc.

[Overlag]

and to be fair MD has turned it into this sort of thread....and turns all of us into the same group... IE he said about "we" not thinking HT was worthwhile.

well wrong, HT is what nearly swung me. HT for instance on my sisters laptop makes it "smoother" in windows. However with SINGLE THREADED (games) tasks its next to useless and the same can be said for the Dual cores coming out. Although HT has helped the trend for software makers to start making multithreaded software, even GAMES (soon)

however HT wont work on a AMD cpu due to the fact AMD cpus is highy effecient and has a high IPC.

HT helps Intels long pipeline design greatly. but HT on a A64 or a P-M just isnt worth the effort as the cpu's wont really benfit.

[Kev367th]

True, but I get sneaky feeling that we will start to see more and more multithreaded apps/games, and also more 64 bit versions of them now.

I am sure MiniD will correct me if I'm wrong here -

Next major release/redesign will be the "Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest"series in LATE 2006.
They will be missing Intels failed netburst.
All apart from Whitefield will be dual core initially.
At lower clockspeeds than current P4 offerings.
At first they will STILL use the FSB until the 1st 4 way "Whitefield" core.

Wonder where AMD will be by then considering they have already demoed 4 way cores

Of course if Intels offering proves to be superior to AMD's and at a comparable price I will got for an Intel, no brand loyalty for me.

You see I don't hate Intel I just go for the best available at a given cost, and at the moment it's AMD64.

Unfortuneately the majority of people dont work for Intel (I assume you get 'deals' on CPUs) and cannot afford the high price stuff.
For you to say because I bought a Cyrix processor years ago makes me ignorant, just shows how ignorant you are. Ever consider it was bought because it was cheap and thats all I could afford at the time?

Now go away and cook your dinner over your P4, like a good little Intel robot.

[Mini D]

Overlag, show me where I've sung the praises of intel processors in this thread. I dare you. And... if you don't want to get lumped in with kev, stop blindly defending him. He's way out of line on virtually every post in this thread, and just keeps going with lies... erm "facts".  Yes... that AMD is a really cool chip alright. I'm suprised it even needs a heatsink at all.

The HT comment was simply brought up to highlight how things are going to swing as far as "oppinions" and "facts" go. Multithreading was downplayed yesterday, yet it's the big thing today. Typical for the likes of kev. If he had a bit of a memory, he'd remember when FPUs were downplayed prior to the K6-2 (when AMD finally bought a decent design team with an excellent FPU design).

The thread is about 64 bit pentiums. These chips, much like the Opteron (no matter what it's "optimized" for) are pretty much worthless right now and will not do anything to enhance gaming performance in regards to 64bit processing. Neither will multi-core processors. Not for a couple of years, at least.

Kev, you really need to pay attention to releases and exactly what they mean for each company. You're talking like you really don't understand the whole process. You also need to take a bit of a look at pricing.

To both of you: don't read "stop slamming on Intel and always praising AMD" to mean anything other than that. If you can't see the pros and cons of both you are being a fanboy. I have not slammed AMD processors in this thread. I have not done that for 6 years now... since they actually became competitors. It just seems some people go out of there way to create disparities that don't really exist.

[Kev367th]

Already said that if Intel bring out a better chip at a comparable price I'd buy it. Just nothing on offer from Intel yet.
The majority are not in the priviledged position of getting their stuff (probably at a reduced price) the way you do.

Just tell me where I have lied.

Yup for the moment 64-bit is not what it could be, but if you notice I also said now that Intel have released theirs we should see more and more 64 bit apps/games.
Same goes for dual cores.

Releases - Thats why I said you would point out any mistakes in my previous post.

Expected pricing of X2 desktop dual core
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 2.4 GHz 1 MB $1001
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 2.4 GHz 512 KB $803
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2 GHz 1 MB $581
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ 2.2 GHz 512KB $537
Personally I'll wait for the prices to drop a little before buying in, if I buy in. I would also expect the cost to be slightly higher 1st release because of the obvious hike the resellers will add to max profits.

Not quite the $3000+ you mentioned.
Only CPU that comes close is the top of range max 8 CPU one
$2655  -  Opteron 875 Dual-Core 2.2GHz (hardly a gaming processor)

In fact I think AMD are making a mistake going to socket M2 for DDR2. They should skip it and just wait for mainstream DDR3.

I resent being called ignorant just because of the fact I had no choice but to buy a Cyrix processor because it was cheap.
In fact that comment did nothing but show how ignorant/arrogant/blinkered you are.

[Mini D]

Kev,

You're doing it again. You can stop lieing any time in some weak attempt to make yourself look unbiased. If you're doing nothing but slamming the hell out of Intel processors right now (hell... every time I've seen you post) and pushing AMD processors, you are biased. There is no other way to say it. Actions speak louder than words.

Also, you do realize the 800 series (most expensive processors) are the only dual core processors that've "been released"... right? One place seems to be "carrying" them. The rest are due out later next month. And the AMD stuff is going to be at least twice as expensive as the Intel stuff. The Pentium D is going to be around $250.

I'm sure you'll spend the next month trying to convince everyone that the AMD processors are well worth spending twice as much on. If only Intel made a better processor...

[Overlag]

well i need a shrug icon...

the guy is asking about p4 64bit, and we, are telling the truth. an A64 would be much more value. its faster AND cheaper..... period.

A64's 32bit performance is far ahead of a P4 Prescott, and alittle ahead of the Northwood. The P-M and A64 are just about level, about 200mhz extra needed on the intel chip to = the A64.

im not sure what your arguement is, or what we are lying about either. im just about done with your 100% intel attitude. at least me and kev are thruthful... as soon as intel passes amd, id buy it. we buy the best at the time, and we recommend the best to others too, sorry about that.

funny how you compair the top end server amd chips price to the bottom end intel chips price......unbiased???

[Mini D]

Actually, he's asking about 64bit performance for gaming. The proper answer is not Intel, nor AMD. It is "no".

64bit does not have a place in the home right now. It will not for some time. I'm sitting here with two 64e processors running a 32bit OS because I need compatibility with hardware and software. That's what most people will be doing with a 64bit processor too.

In some people's ferver to insist the AMD processor is the king, they've missed the point of the thread. Money can be spent better considering things other than 64bit capability. It is worthless for gaming.

[Overlag]

sorry but 64bit chips run 32bit just fine. these chips are built for the change...from 32 to 64....and perform well under both.

if the guy has a p4 highspeed northwood, and is ONLY upgrading because of hes wondering about 64bits its not worth it.

however if he is upgrading no matter what he'd be better off buying 64bit for the "future". this is where you'd say intel even though they are slower and more expensive. but thats just the way you do things. Me, kev and even skuzzy tell it like it is.

[Mini D]

Sigh...

What OS do they run in 64 bit mode on overlag? Is that a good OS for gaming? In truth, 99% of all people with 64e capabable chips will be running a 32bit OS. 64bit is irrelevant in the world of gaming.

"in the future" is irrelevant in the world of processors. By the time 64bit is mature, any processor built this year will be obsolete.

The real question is what chip gives the best performance. The high-end opterons are definately the choice here, but they're very expensive. The P-4 extremes are also very expensive and don't really add that much in performance gain, but they do use the word "extreme" and that seems to help.

The real options occur in the <$300 chips. An Opteron 3500+ and an Intel P4 550 (3.4ghz) are both very good options. The opteron gives about a 15% performance bennifit which will be better for the games, and the P4 offers hyperthreading which is better for day to day use. Both offer the opportunity to buy the CPU and high-end video card for the price of a high-end CPU without a significant performance drop.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Mini D
Sigh...

What OS do they run in 64 bit mode on overlag? Is that a good OS for gaming? In truth, 99% of all people with 64e capabable chips will be running a 32bit OS. 64bit is irrelevant in the world of gaming.

"in the future" is irrelevant in the world of processors. By the time 64bit is mature, any processor built this year will be obsolete.

The real question is what chip gives the best performance. The high-end opterons are definately the choice here, but they're very expensive. The P-4 extremes are also very expensive and don't really add that much in performance gain, but they do use the word "extreme" and that seems to help.

The real options occur in the <$300 chips. An Opteron 3500+ and an Intel P4 550 (3.4ghz) are both very good options. The opteron gives about a 15% performance bennifit which will be better for the games, and the P4 offers hyperthreading which is better for day to day use. Both offer the opportunity to buy the CPU and high-end video card for the price of a high-end CPU without a significant performance drop.

i really dont understand your problem.

so you are saying you WONT buy an A64 because it can run 64bit? even though its the fastest 32bit CPU?

What is a Opteron 3500+?

[Mini D]

No... I'm saying 64bit is irrelevant to the discussion of gaming. No matter what. It's irrelevant to desktop CPUs on the whole right now. There is not consumer market level support for it. Saying otherwise, at all, is an outright lie.

The 3500+ is the 2.2ghz opteron. Very comparable to price and performance with the P4-550. Both Intel and AMD go up about $200 per 10% gain after that... so you can go from 110 fps with HL 2 to 126fps. Yippy.