eltinator wrote:I personally really don't think 64 bit processing is worth it. Right now I feel its more gimmick than performance since it's limited by the OS. Win XP has patches that will allow for 64 bit but Win XP was never designed to support it so in essence it will never come close to fully utilizing the 64 bit capabilities.
Exactly. :thumbsup:
Unless you're gonna run Unix. Or Linux (is it a 64-bit OS?).
@dochira: water cooling sounds cool but what if it leaks? :hehe: :hehe:
Yeah... not sure whether to go with Seagate's new 7200.8 series or a Western Digital 74 GB 10K RPM Raptor.
-PCM
I picked up a couple Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 300 gig drives. Dumped them into a computer running a Intel P4 3.4 Ghz. Running 1 gig of dual channel Ddr Sdram. Drives were $149 each after $40 mail in reabte.
I use TMPGEnc DVD Author. I record to hard drive on my Panasonic e-100 and then dump to dvd-ram. Then take dvd-ram disc over to computer and import files over to hard drive using TMPGEnc DVD Author. I can edit using the E-100 or edit, add chapters, and add menus with TMPGEnc DVD Author.
bmwracer wrote:
Thing is, could you run any of that Windows software on Unix/Linux?
If you use wine, you could run some Winapps.
bmwracer wrote:
AND: I think it's safe to say that (nearly) all existing Windows software is written for a 32-bit platform, so the 64-bit processing means nothing.
You'd probably be better off with dual 32-bit CPUs running in parallel. :D
They would have to be recompiled for 64-bits, and some of the code would need to rewritten to take advantage of it, but you would be ready for the future...whenever that day arrives.
bmwracer wrote:
Thing is, could you run any of that Windows software on Unix/Linux?
AND: I think it's safe to say that (nearly) all existing Windows software is written for a 32-bit platform, so the 64-bit processing means nothing.
You'd probably be better off with dual 32-bit CPUs running in parallel. :D
Im not really familar on how Linux works but I do recall someone telling me that there are some Linux OS that have been modeled after windows to give a more user friendly interface for the users. But as Window's is concerned it's pretty much all 32-bit. At least from what my assembly language books says, lol. Our book doesnt even cover 64-bit and it's pretty new too, lol.
2 CPUs that support HT! That'd be awesome :D :hehe: :hehe:
Im not really familar on how Linux works but I do recall someone telling me that there are some Linux OS that have been modeled after windows to give a more user friendly interface for the users. But as Window's is concerned it's pretty much all 32-bit. At least from what my assembly language books says, lol. Our book doesnt even cover 64-bit and it's pretty new too, lol.
2 CPUs that support HT! That'd be awesome :D :hehe: :hehe:
That must be Lindows (or that was the old name before they were forced to change it).
In terms of 32- vs 64-bit processors, it boils down to the instruction length. By having 64-bits, you can address a much larger space of physical memory. I remember reading that 64-bit CPU ran 32-bit codes slightly faster than their 32-bit counterparts. So you do get a slight performance boost.
dochira wrote:In terms of 32- vs 64-bit processors, it boils down to the instruction length. By having 64-bits, you can address a much larger space of physical memory. I remember reading that 64-bit CPU ran 32-bit codes slightly faster than their 32-bit counterparts. So you do get a slight performance boost.
But doesn't the OS have to know how to parse the 32-bit code for 64-bits, else there's no gain at all....?
bmwracer wrote:
Do you mean HyperThreading or Home Theater?
I know XP and W2K (even NT) support dual processors, so that would be the choice over a 64-bit processor if you want drop-dead horsepower.
Hyperthreading :hehe: :hehe:
Basically back in the day when dual processors were invented, it would operate 2x faster but since the CPUs were really inefficient, 2x as many CPUs mean 2x as many wasted clock cycles. So the developers tried to fix this with HT to make use of all the clock cycles so theoretically 2 HT CPUs would equal 4 CPUs w/o HT. Would be a fun experiment to play around with though :hehe: :hehe:
bmwracer wrote:
But doesn't the OS have to know how to parse the 32-bit code for 64-bits, else there's no gain at all.
Yikes, it's like I'm at work. :bonk:
I'm gonna hit the sack.
Haha. Me too. It just extends the 32-bit into 64-bits....Now that I think about it, there must be some special instruction set in 64-bit CPUs that accounts for the (supposed) performance boost.
ok maybe getting back on the recording/encoding topic... well not really but I guess this relates more...
My DVR107 broke down the other day! After 2000+ burns it was bound to. I still got a year warranty so Im gonna get it fixed or replaced but in the mean time I picked up the new DVR109 from Fry's. It's the Pioneer 16x DL burner. Burns like a freaking savage! And looks good too :D
dochira wrote:Haha. Me too. It just extends the 32-bit into 64-bits....Now that I think about it, there must be some special instruction set in 64-bit CPUs that accounts for the (supposed) performance boost.
Which means the OS has to somehow have that instruction set...
Or maybe an add-in driver/dll/ocx thingy (technical term :beaten: )...
Good morning,
You guys seem to have a misunderstanding.
It's not a question of whether I want 64 bit instruction capability on a CPU, it's a question of speed... if you want a CPU faster than roughly 3200+ from AMD, you have to go with with one of the 64 bit CPUs (no, I'm not interested in the Sempron). The 32 bit Athlon XP series topped out at 3200+ and is not upgradable beyond.
My existing CPU is an Athlon XP 2100+, about 3 years old. Can't upgrade, as my A7V333 motherboard will not recognize a faster CPU. :banghead:
-PCM
pcmodem wrote:Good morning,
You guys seem to have a misunderstanding.
It's not a question of whether I want 64 bit instruction capability on a CPU, it's a question of speed... if you want a CPU faster than roughly 3200+ from AMD, you have to go with with one of the 64 bit CPUs (no, I'm not interested in the Sempron). The 32 bit Athlon XP series topped out at 3200+ and is not upgradable beyond.
My existing CPU is an Athlon XP 2100+, about 3 years old. Can't upgrade, as my A7V333 motherboard will not recognize a faster CPU. :banghead:
PCM, save your money and just get more memory, a bigger, faster HD and burner. Wait 'til the 64-bit processing world matures. :)
bmwracer wrote:
PCM, save your money and just get more memory, a bigger, faster HD and burner. Wait 'til the 64-bit processing world matures. :)
Not a bad idea, but my motherboard is starting to go.
The onboard USB ports that connected to my flashcard reader fried, nice and smokey. Sometimes it doesn't detect the PS2 keyboard.
Already have a fast CDRW and a fast DVD burner, good enough HDD (120 GB Seagate 7200.7 series, 512 MB of Corsair LL PC2700 RAM) but runing out of HDD space.
-PCM
I usually save money by not getting the bleeding-edge technology, but one or two steps below that. I haven't priced processors lately, though, so I wouldn't know.
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.