Aqua-Soft ForumsSomething the only intelligent person at Dell Tech support told me was "Get a 64-bit cpu and your set for the next year" he also told me "If you get a 925x Motherboard and an LGA775 P4, your on top for the next few years! Not to mention a good GeForce 6800 Ultra for PCI-E Graphics." I've decided to wait until intel gets dual-core and EM64T Finished to get any thing.
Dual Cpu Vs 32 Bit Vs 64 Bit
So the best the thing to do is to wait? Cool.
Originally posted by gone2far@Jul 30 2004, 05:52 PMSo the best the thing to do is to wait? Cool.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There will always be faster/better hardware comming out in a few months.....
its a never ending cycle....
according to http://www.overclockers.com/tips00641/
ed made a very good point.
dual core dosen't mean twice as fast. only better for multitasking.
also, why not 100000 cpus and run away from the fact that they have to work hard to get past the heatwall that intel and amd faced? they are just trying to escape from reality and find a cool and intresting way that will trick people.
not that i can do it.
also, 64 bit is a good option if the other hardware can take advantage of it I agree.
but, why not 128 bit? or 256 bit? or 10000000000000000 bit? faster? these companies are actually just trying to find some easier way to improve performance. i feel sorry for intel because they are trying hard to solve problems while AMD is screwing themselves up all the time by renaming opertron 3 times and not work on it's weaknesses, while intel can't do anything about their heat problems. i don't blame both though. it's complicaded for me......... ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrGGGGGGGG!!!!!
Some golden rules of thumb.
P4's don't dual, Xeons are expensive so I bought myself a Dual 1.0 GHz PIII
back in 2000. It still outperforms many but not all machines I have seen. I'd
guess its dualness adds about the factor of 1.7 at most but the real advantage
of a dual is that your machine stays responsible while a task is using 100% CPU
only 50% of your machine is drained. This behaviour doesn't come with the
3.02 GHz HT, and that too shows you 2 CPUs in task manager.
Sometimes I note that an application has crashed into an endless loop only by
seeing that the taskbar notification icon of task manager is at constant 50%.
Duals have issues. Designed for servers, their ACPI implementation is
so neglected that it would crash Linuxes not featuring your Mobo on a blacklist.
Duals are noisy. Twice the energy consume requires a fat PSU, and don't
forget to add a second ventilator.
Duals have longer support. BIOS updates are coming 1 year longer than for stock
PCs, nevertheless, they are calculated on TCO rules so that they amortize
themselves every two-three years.
Duals with HT might require a more expensive Windows version.
XP Professional is for 1-2 CPUs. A Dual with HT would have 4-16 emulated CPUs
and you'd require XP or 2K3 Server versions to see and use them all. Needless
to say that MS charges you by CPU, emulated or not.
It never pays to wait. Never. Always buy so that your actual wishes are satisfied.
The future is another land, really.
It never pays to buy performance in advance. Don't jump up on new, 'future proof
technology' or that garbage Inuyasha is being told. Those premature PCs always
have severe issues, are probably the next year's cul-de-sac, and those prophets
celebrating this and that as a silver bullet have always been wrong.
Some past misleads you may heard of.
"Nobody on earth will ever need more than 640 KBytes of RAM" (Bill Gates)
"The new Microchannel architecture in our PS-2 systems will replace ISA within a year." (IBM)
"The Vesa Local Bus outperforms PCI Bus, so it'll surely dominate the market" (Unknown)
"RAMBus serial RAM will replace all SDRAM derivatives for our new PentiumIV." (Intel)
A possible mislead you hear today:
"64-Bit, 64-Bit, double it, woot" (Unknown)