View Full Version : processers

01-08-2004, 05:01 AM
I am in the process of building a computer for my vt-3.Though i will most likely go with the pentium 4 800fsb,i see that athalon came out with a 64 bit processor 800fsb and was wondering if it would be even better than pentium 4?

01-08-2004, 08:37 AM
theres currently no 64 bit support so any gains would be negligable.
they are essentially crippled chips without OS and software integration.you could use linux 64bit OS, but lightwave is still a 32 bit app.

01-08-2004, 02:17 PM
Also, Lightwave is optimized for the P4 instruction set, so you're going to get better performance. Go to Tom's hardware page and you'll see when they test hardware, they actually use a render on Lightwave as a benchmark. It's pretty cool. :cool:

01-09-2004, 07:50 AM
When Microsoft releases its 64-bit version of Windows, it will not run on any Pentium based computer. When the 64-bit apps come out, they will also not run on any Pentium computer.

Go AMD. Your machine will last longer into the future, as it'll be able to switch to 64-bit mode when the apps come out. The Intel machine will then be a pile of junk.

Support AMD rather than the Intel monopoly, as healthy competition will ensure fast processor speeds into the future. Before AMD came along, Intel had the slowest processors on the market.

01-09-2004, 11:09 AM
what is the address for toms page, so i can benchmark my comp?

01-09-2004, 02:32 PM
I wouldn't take www.tomshardware.com as a reliable source. He has managed to a few issues with amd processors that could not be verified independently. It looks especially bad since he found them just as he put intel ads on his web page.

Aces hardware at www.aceshardware.com is a good bet.

The AMD Athlon 64 has SSE and SSE2 instruction set capabilities. However, Lightwave runs faster on Intel at this time. It is worth noting, though, that AMD is still ramping clockspeeds on the fairly new Athlon 64, while the Pentium 4 is approaching end of life.

Hopefully, Lightwave will be upgraded to take advantage of X86-64 instructions, as even Intel has caved in and is designing a processor to follow AMD's lead at this time.

I still like AMD better, but that's me.

01-09-2004, 07:49 PM
AMD's x86-64 is now the future roadmap for the Windows platform.

Over the next few years, all manufacturers will go 64-bit. Apple's done it using IBM processors. AMD has done it.

Intel stands out from the crowd as having no viable 64-bit roadmap. They tried with the Itanium processor, which has been such a dismal failure that I predict that it'll be withdrawn from sale.

Because of the Itanium failure, Intel will now have to "eat humble pie" and adopt AMD's architecture instead. Intel will be adopting AMD's x86-64. There is no doubt about it now.

When the 64-bit OS and apps arrive, you don't want to have to throw your new computer on the junk heap.

Go AMD for Windows.

01-09-2004, 08:29 PM
Obviously there are some biased opinions here.

I am biased towards Intel, although I have to hand it to AMD for putting out the 64 bit chip before Intel. And Apple for coming out with a "true" 64-bit processor, something that AMD does not have yet.

But here's the question: Will Lightwave 8 support 64 bit processing? If so, then AMD is the way to go for now. But you will pay extra for it. But if it doesn't, then I would go with Intel because it's already optimized for it. A p4 2.8GHz with a nice MoBo and lots of Ram will do the trick! Also, WD Raptors are great "true" SATA drives. They have excellent seek times and would be nice if you are using something like DFX+ for video editing or doing rendering some large files on your sytem. They are actually almost as good as SCSI and cheaper to boot. But SATA 2 is around the corner, so I'm on the fence about buying them right now.

And, by the way Beamtracer, Longhorn (Windows 64 bit OS) will not be out until at least 2005 from what I've read in mags and online. If you think Intel is not going to put something out by then to answer AMD, well then, you just don't know hardware. :)

Also www.tomshardware.com is just an observation, not to be taken as truth. You can never really take any benchmarks as the truth. Look at it and judge for yourself. It just looks very convincing. :)

01-12-2004, 12:56 AM
I read Longhorn is coming this year, and the people testing it saying it runs very well. The big hold-up seems to be hardware drivers for all the different devices (though the major players are covered).

Intel has verified they are planning on their X86-64 chip (Yamill sp?)

Apple's chip isn't true 64 bit either.

I bet LW8 will not support 64 bit processing when it ships, but it might later.

Intel is still faster for Lightwave no matter which I like.

Tomshardware.com: As I have pointed out before, during his video card roundup a while back, an Athlon XP 2700 beat the P4 3.04G in every almost every test (regardless of video card, but he wrote comparisons of video cards). Later, when he compared the Atlon XP 3000 to that same Pentium, the Intel offering beat the AMD in every single benchmark. The Athlon XP 3000 failed to score as well as the XP2700 in the Video card review using all the same hardware and settings.

Then there was the heatsink thing. Tom took the heatsink-fan off an AMD processor while it was running and reported how in fried almost instantly, while the Intel throttled back and saved itself. He said that this was a big deal because of heatsinks that come off in boxed systems before they get to our houses (this may happen, but I have never heard of it, nor have I seen it in all my LAN parties). Several other hardware sites including www.anandtech.com, www.hardocp.com, www.aceshardware.com, www.amdzone.com, and others could not duplicate this. There was even a video of an AMD running Quake III when they took the heatsink off, and the game kept running for almost a minute before the processor shut down (but was not damaged).

That is why I a skeptical of Tom's observations.

01-12-2004, 05:44 AM
Just to correct some of the previous statements...
Both Apple's "G5", and AMD's Opteron are fully fledged 64-bit processors that can also handle 32-bit code.

Both can run pure 64-bit operating systems and applications.


I think the confusion comes with the operating systems. Apple's OS X is part 64-bit, part 32-bit. OS X is based on the BSD UNIX "kernel", which is fully 64-bit. That's how a Mac G5 can be loaded up with 8 gigs of RAM.

There's also quite a lot of 32-bit code in Apple's OS, which they'll be phasing out over the next couple of years. This is why the G5 Mac has some 64-bit features already, but will gain more 64-bit features in the future, as Apple makes the transition to a 100% pure 64-bit OS, and eliminates the remaining 32-bit code.


Machines based on AMD's Opteron are 64-bit machines also. The current Windows OS is 32-bit, so it will only run in 32-bit mode on Opteron. The Linux operating system can run in pure 64-bit mode on the AMD Opteron.

However, Microsoft's next major revision of Windows will be 64-bit. At this stage, current Pentiums will be left behind, and it will not be possible to upgrade a Pentium machine to run the new OS. However, if you buy an Opteron/AMD-64 machine now, it will still be useful then. The 64-bit AMD processor will be able to run the OS when it comes out.

64-bit = more RAM

These 64-bit machines still have a RAM advantage, even when running 32-bit code. That is because each app and the OS can use separate RAM, in Apple's case up to a total of 8 gigs. Modeler, Layout, hub and OS can sit in their own RAM simultaneously. When the apps eventually go pure 64-bit, it will be even better.

I fully support the companies that dared to come out with 64-bit desktop processors... AMD and Apple. In Apple's case they had some backing from IBM to get them there.

One more thing... Intel's skunkworks processor, Yamhill, is real. Intel's future roadmap for Windows is based on AMD's x86-64 processor, even though Intel won't yet admit it. This is what I mean by Intel eating humble pie.

01-13-2004, 12:28 AM
You can always wait till the P4 prescott is out.Suppose to be out on Feb 02..http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-5121483.htmlhttp://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.html?i=21037

01-13-2004, 02:47 AM
Few and far between are processors from ANYONE making ship dates.

Intel has not made a ship date in 7 years (or more) for a new processor, with Itanium showing up nearly 5 years late.

AMD has had its share of misses, and Apple is at the mercy of Motorola and later IBM. Even Nvidia and ATI have experienced the fun of trying to release a modern processor on time.

The fact is that making one of these things is a technological marvel. So, you have to develop a technological marvel that will not only still be a marvel in three years when you can actually produce it, but it has to be better than everyone else's marvels that they are still making (and you aren't even sure about).

Further, this marvel is so impressive, it has to be made with techniques that haven't even been developed yet. You can only hope the people inventing them stay on shedule and invent them like they said they could.

Also, these techniques are so advanced, you can only use them with tools that aren't being made yet. Once again, you have to hope that the makers of said tools can deliver the miracles they promise.

Next, these new techniques and tools that haven't been invented yet, that you will need to manufacture your technological marvel when you finish developing it, come with problems that haven't been discovered yet. So now you need a team to anticipate undiscovered problems in tools that are not yet made for a not yet invented manufacturing techniques for a processor you are still designing.

Finally, you have to manage the cost of the problems that haven't been discovered for the tools that are not yet made for the manufacturing process that hasn't been invented for the processor you are still developing. With all this, its amazing computers get built at all.

And if this sounds like a headache, I apologize. I simplified it as much as I could.

01-13-2004, 11:03 AM
There's actually a great article in the current DV magazine about 64-bit processors and what it means today (not much beyond extending the RAM ceiling) and what it will mean in the future. It doesn't fall into the platform war trap, simply discussing the technology (by mentioning both the Athlon 64 and the PowerPC G5) involved in the 64 bit transition. Basically, if you are looking at a long-term investment in a computer, you should consider a 64-bit processor because when the OS and applications exist in 64-bit, the speed improvments will be significant. However, if you are looking for immediate kick-it-in-gear systems, go for something with no less than an 800MHz FSB. I know you mentioned the Athlon and the Intel options, in addition Apple's dual processor G5s are 900MHz (on the 1.8) and 1GHz (on the 2.0) per processor on the FSB.