WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Is Your Computer 64 Bit Ready?

Freakless

One Horn3y Mofo
98
0
0
#1
Sorry but what I posted was wrong.... mah bad.... Here is some accurate shiznat ;)


UberSkippy said:
Yeah, Freakless.... I'm gonna have to throw some Bullshit flags here.

I'm sorry but you appear to be just a wee bit misguided here in what you're saying. For starters, I've actually PLAYED with the new x64 bit processors as well as the Itanium2 processors. I've even used the x64 versions of XP and 2003 on the x64 processors. (I work as a test development engineer and had to do evaluations on them.)

So let's start more or less at the top. 64 bit processors are not twice as fast as 32 bit procs. They can handle instructions that are twice as long but they still process at... well... the same speeds.

This new x64 technology isn't all it's cracked up to be either. Not all 32 bit applications will run on them. Color Savy's Photo Spectrometer software won't even begin to run. On the flip side, the 32 bit version of Office XP WILL run on the ia64 architecture. (It's not supposed to but hey, it does)

But the real thing that just irritates me here is the insane bullshit of "Spend the extra money". See, what's just plain moronic about that is that these chips DO cost more, yet the support for what they theoretically can do isn't actually available and won't be for some time. By the time it IS available it'll be far cheaper. On top of that, since Microsoft hasn't actually locked down what they're doing for these new chips (trust me, they're just not there) who knows if it'll be a viable technology.

The current version of x64 XP is slower than the 32 bit by quite a little bit. All of the x64 chipset drivers are in beta which means they're not stable and aren't suitable for anything but a development system.

So no, what you posted... it's just not accurate. Adopting early technology has a LOT of risks. Unstable architecture, higher cost, reduced support just to name a few. Remember the beta max? Or more recently the Itaniums that everyone was so excited about... yeah, those 64 bit processors that kinda turnned out to be flaming piles of crap?
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#2
The problem is, most applications still won't support 64bit technology.
 

Freakless

One Horn3y Mofo
98
0
0
#3
junglizm said:
The problem is, most applications still won't support 64bit technology.
Yeah, thats why it really isn't worth DLing the Windows XP x64 edition, once they start making games and shit for it, then it will kick arse. Oh, don't worry 32-bit applications are supported by the new 64-bit OSs, so you can still play Counter-Strike, Everquest, WoW, and all your other favorite games...
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#5
Freakless said:
Oh, don't worry 32-bit applications are supported by the new 64-bit OSs, so you can still play Counter-Strike, Everquest, WoW, and all your other favorite games...
Yeah, I'm aware of that. I know you do see at least some improved performance with 64bit processors, and the AMD's runs a lot cooler than the Athlon XPs. Still, I see nothing in the near future that will make 64bit computing wide spread. In fact, most motherboards won't even support the forthcoming socket 939 processors. I just don't think it's the right time to tell everyone to go out and buy 64bit systems... at least not just yet. Not to mention that Intel users are currently left in the dark as far as 64bit is concerned.
 

Freakless

One Horn3y Mofo
98
0
0
#6
Not totally in the dark, the newer Xeons support 64 bit technology, I found this out after I bought them... <3 dual 3.22 gighrz processors <3
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#7
Junglizm said:
Intel users
'Nuff said. No further comment needed.

"LOOK AT ME! I <3 EXPENSIVE, SLOW, SPACE HEATERS!

I LOVE HAVING TO BUY A MOBO WITH A NEW SOCKET EVERY TWO YEARS!

I'M CLOSED MINDED. AMD SUXXxxLOL."

Try comparing the FX-55 to the P4 3.8, Intelers. You'll laugh.

Intel chips are good (Besides LGA775, IMO), but their price tag causes me to make fun of their users.
 

Jung

???
Premium
13,993
1,401
487
#8
Freakless said:
Not totally in the dark, the newer Xeons support 64 bit technology, I found this out after I bought them... <3 dual 3.22 gighrz processors <3
Which core? I've yet to see any 64bit compatible Xeons.
Descent said:
LOL, Intel sucks, HURR.
Thank you for posting your fanboying bullshit in yet another thread.
 

Descent

Hella Constipated
7,686
109
157
#10
Xeons rule. I'm talking about the consumer P4's here.

JNG said:
Thank you for posting your fanboying bullshit in yet another thread.
Didn't you post the same bullshit earlier :rolleyes:?

If you read, I was insulting their price/performance ratio and heat disspation.

Besides that, they're good.

But fuck them for killing Baby AT :mad:! Nice job, pushing the mATX standard in OEM's faces!

Baby AT > mATX

More slots, less space, 'Nuff said. Worse design for heat, but it's slot ratio is killer.
 

BrIONwoshMunky

EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY!
Staff
9,651
1,302
387
#11
I own a socket 754 AMD Athlon64 3200+, and I do know that It idles at 47 degrees Celcius, and when I play FarCry, it heats up to ~60 Degrees Celcius. That's with the stock heatsink/fan/thermalpaste that came in the box. I think it gets a little above 60, which to me seems hot, so as soon as I get a tax check, I'm gonna find some huge ass chunk of copper to stick in there. :thumbsup:
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#13
Yeah, Freakless.... I'm gonna have to throw some Bullshit flags here.

I'm sorry but you appear to be just a wee bit misguided here in what you're saying. For starters, I've actually PLAYED with the new x64 bit processors as well as the Itanium2 processors. I've even used the x64 versions of XP and 2003 on the x64 processors. (I work as a test development engineer and had to do evaluations on them.)

So let's start more or less at the top. 64 bit processors are not twice as fast as 32 bit procs. They can handle instructions that are twice as long but they still process at... well... the same speeds.

This new x64 technology isn't all it's cracked up to be either. Not all 32 bit applications will run on them. Color Savy's Photo Spectrometer software won't even begin to run. On the flip side, the 32 bit version of Office XP WILL run on the ia64 architecture. (It's not supposed to but hey, it does)

But the real thing that just irritates me here is the insane bullshit of "Spend the extra money". See, what's just plain moronic about that is that these chips DO cost more, yet the support for what they theoretically can do isn't actually available and won't be for some time. By the time it IS available it'll be far cheaper. On top of that, since Microsoft hasn't actually locked down what they're doing for these new chips (trust me, they're just not there) who knows if it'll be a viable technology.

The current version of x64 XP is slower than the 32 bit by quite a little bit. All of the x64 chipset drivers are in beta which means they're not stable and aren't suitable for anything but a development system.

So no, what you posted... it's just not accurate. Adopting early technology has a LOT of risks. Unstable architecture, higher cost, reduced support just to name a few. Remember the beta max? Or more recently the Itaniums that everyone was so excited about... yeah, those 64 bit processors that kinda turnned out to be flaming piles of crap?
 

Freakless

One Horn3y Mofo
98
0
0
#14
OH, I got pwn3d... Sorry, this is what I've been gathering from news clippings, I guess I read them wrong or sumtin, I think I'm gonna go cry after this anal rapage of my post lol :axe: <== Me

Edit: I changed my original post so nobody else reads it lol