Hello every Body I just Joined. I havent built a system since 2000 so I feel left out and I cant seem to find the answers im looking for. I thought you guys mite shed some light on the subject. 1.) is this CPU 64 bit or a 32 - 64 bit 2.) if it is a 64 bit only and I get XP 64 bit, can it still run apps/games built for 32bit? 3.) is there any pros - cons to this cpu 4.) What motherboard would you suggest for this CPU?, or would you just go for some thing else?
A 64-bit cpu can run 32 bit apps just as well id say as any 32 bit cpu. Unless the software is written to take advantage of the 64 bit instruction set within the cpu, then you really wont notice any difference, that goes for games as well. Just think of the 64-bit as the the length of the cpu "working" area, the bigger the area, the better. An exception to 32-bit software running better with a 64-bit cpu is in the case of digital video, scientific computing, and large data bases where the data being processed actually fits in the 64-bit chunks, because the 64-bit architecture can process the data directly rather than take multiple steps. A pro to the 64-bit cpu and memory is for example and fact: Windows XP takes a stash of the available memory and reserves it primarily for its use with user applications. That is why sometimes you would see the memory u see in windows xp declaring you have less ram than what you actually have installed, and not significantly less, depending on the availability. You will not however, see this in 64-bit windows. A con to 64-bit is that the same data the 32-bit would use, the 64-bit would require more memory for the same data chunk, thus increasing memory requirement for an individual process. (remember, 64-bit can allocate way much more memory anyways) I highly recommend you get a socket 939 board, which provides future expandability among amd 64 processors. oh and the fx-53 has a nice chunk for cache, 1MB (common in the prescott core, uncommon to p4EE, 2MB, but hey, fx-53 gets more shit done
A 64 bit cpu will not necessarily run 32 bit apps, but in our case, the athlon64s and the FX cpus do run 32 bit apps. For a cpu to be backwards compatible with older technology, it has to be made for it to be, it's not done magically. The advantage is that this is the fastest gaming cpu around, behind the new FX-55 of course. The cons, as stated before, is it costs a lot. I suggest you go with the MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum. It has all the features you'll ever need, it performs good, it's easy to setup and is the board that seems to have the edge right now.
I also have a fallow up question regarding memory would you go with Corsair, Kingston, or Crucial Technology?. they will be 1GB; 2GB if i can get it past my wife oh and also would a Athlon 64 55-FX (939) be worth the xtra cash, or is the proformance gain not worth the cost?
Any of those brands are excellent, although I'd lean toward Corsair's XMS or Kingston's HyperX series if you're looking for tweaking. I've also been hearing some very good things about GeiL if you're looking to save some money. As for the FX-55, unless you really have to spend the money, no, I wouldn't go there. Sure, if you want to brag, go for it, but for the money, it's not the best in terms of the performance you get with the premium paid.
quick question ninja, i alwasy draw myself to conclusions too quick, does that mobo we were talkin about earlier, the asus p4p800-E deluxe support a p4 3.0C GHz?
Ok I know Im probably chewing your guy's ear off but, on a personal and pro view. For stability and performance in gaming, would a Intel, or AMD be better?. I own a Athlon XP and Im happy with AMD, but I would like to know if the grass is really greener on the other side. I've herd Intels better for business apps and things like that, and AMD is better for Gaming. this fact? or crap? thanks alot for spending the time to answer my questions :good:
NO! AMD IS UBER 1337 GAMER! Like the AMD's. GHZ is how many cycles the CPU actually does. A p4 3.0ghz isn't nearly as fast as an AMD 3400+ at 2.2ghz. It may have lass GHZ or cycles, but the AMD's do more work per cycle, making them teh victor. As far as gaming goes, AMD is just better. Hands down. Hyperthreaded p4's are better for multitasking though. But who plays games while doing anything else?!
In all honesty, it really depends on what you plan to do with it. Or more specifically, what games/apps you plan to use. If you are heavy into gaming, for example, FPS's...I would recommend an Intel 775, 3.2Ghz or better. If your playing MMPOG's, I would recommend an AMD 64...and probably the 64 3800. It performs very near the FX's without the price. If we are comparing apples to apples...AMD FX-55 to Intel P4 3.4EE, the benchmarks are somewhat variable...always depending on the video card and the type of game. So games are memory hungry, in which the AMD really shines with it's faster memory channels and onbaord memory controller, however, in processor heavy games, the Intel's monster 2MB cache comes through very strong. Memory wise, I recommend Corsair XMS2 and XMS respectively. Try to get the most agressive CAS timings you can, you will need to tweak the voltages a little for stability. Hope this helps.
I wouldnt buy the mobo or the cpu. I personally would go with an Intel setup and get a feature-packed, stable, well-overclockable mobo with a 3.0 or 3.2GHz S478 CPU. Or you could go with the S775 LGA cpu. You can easily hit speeds in excess of 3.6GHz which will run games and apps much, much more smoother than any AMD clocked at 2.6GHz even
