Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64

[drummer_tom]

Hi guys,

When I built my system, I had the option to get XP Professional x64, or the ordinary 32bit x86 version. I went for the normal one. This was after advice for people due to lack of drivers for x64??

I thought that x64 systems could mirror x86 systems (from reading) so there would be no problem??

Would love some enlightenment on my ignorance please!!

Cheers


Tom

[Ivan]

XP64 support is shaky at best. If you want 64 bit go for Vista64 instead (which is way more mainstream)

I thought that x64 systems could mirror x86 systems (from reading) so there would be no problem??

AMDs are slightly better than Intels, but the gap has been almost closed since the 'Core' line of processors

[Slotback]

Erm.... Core 2 obliterates any AMD by a large gap.... larger gap than Athlon 64 - Pentium 4.

[Wii]

Erm.... Core 2 obliterates any AMD by a large gap.... larger gap than Athlon 64 - Pentium 4.

Really? My Athlon x2 4800+ at 2.5Ghz totally kills my dad's intel core 2 and the laptops core 2.

[Slotback]

Well, there are many types of Core 2s, so of course a x2 4800 would beat a very cheap, low end Core 2, but there's no way a x2 4800 would even come close to the faster Core 2s.... If your 4800x2 was in a laptop, it would suck the battery dry rather quickly.

You could try comparing an X2 6400 (3.2ghz) with an Core 2 duo E6750 (2.66ghz). They cost the same, yet the Core 2 is slightly faster (efficiancy clock to clock) yet has less than half the Thermal Design Power, then consider the fact you can get a E6750 from stock 2.66ghz to 3.4ghz on stock cooling and volts - it's matter of entering BIOS and changing 333 to 425 - boom, 40% faster computer leaving the 6400x2 in the dust. I think if Intel wanted to they could even ship them, STOCK, like that!

Point is, Intel is kicking AMDs arse, they're far more power efficiant, overclock better, if you get one clocked higher it can be faster than AMD by 40%+. I think Intels processors are capable of a WHOLE LOT MORE while still staying within the capabilities of the chip. Overclockers have got no problem of reaching dramatically higher clocks, even with stock cooling and voltage.

AMDs quad cores still don't perform as well as Intels 1 1/2 year old quads (a replacement called Nehalem comes out in the end of the year.... 6 cores, each core is capable of executing two threads in parralel, integrated memory controller, 32mb of cache.) You cannot overclock the current revision of AMD quads, while I could get my Q6600 to 3.6ghz with an aditional 50$ in cooling, or 4ghz if I up vcore. 45nm Core 2s have a high initial price, but I expect this to soon drop, then the gap would be even bigger.

As Nick (I think) said, AMD is caught with its pants down.

I do like AMD Puma though.

And thank god we're not stuck with Pentium 4.

[a1]

Well, there are many types of Core 2s, so of course a x2 4800 would beat a very cheap, low end Core 2, but there's no way a x2 4800 would even come close to the faster Core 2s.... If your 4800x2 was in a laptop, it would suck the battery dry rather quickly.

You could try comparing an X2 6400 (3.2ghz) with an Core 2 duo E6750 (2.66ghz). They cost the same, yet the Core 2 is slightly faster (efficiancy clock to clock) yet has less than half the Thermal Design Power, then consider the fact you can get a E6750 from stock 2.66ghz to 3.4ghz on stock cooling and volts - it's matter of entering BIOS and changing 333 to 425 - boom, 40% faster computer leaving the 6400x2 in the dust. I think if Intel wanted to they could even ship them, STOCK, like that!

Point is, Intel is kicking AMDs arse, they're far more power efficiant, overclock better, if you get one clocked higher it can be faster than AMD by 40%+. I think Intels processors are capable of a WHOLE LOT MORE while still staying within the capabilities of the chip. Overclockers have got no problem of reaching dramatically higher clocks, even with stock cooling and voltage.

AMDs quad cores still don't perform as well as Intels 1 1/2 year old quads (a replacement called Nehalem comes out in the end of the year.... 6 cores, each core is capable of executing two threads in parralel, integrated memory controller, 32mb of cache.) You cannot overclock the current revision of AMD quads, while I could get my Q6600 to 3.6ghz with an aditional 50$ in cooling, or 4ghz if I up vcore. 45nm Core 2s have a high initial price, but I expect this to soon drop, then the gap would be even bigger.

As Nick (I think) said, AMD is caught with its pants down.

I do like AMD Puma though.

And thank god we're not stuck with Pentium 4.

Pentium 4 was great for me. I like it very much. Intel has been kicking but.

[Slotback]

Pentium 4s, atleast later ones, were horrible compared to Athlon 64s. They used more power and had great difficulty keeping up in games. For example, an Athlon 64 3200+ (2ghz) with a 62 watt TDP would obliterate a Pentium 4 650 (3.4ghz) with a 88 watt TDP, while the Athlon costed far less.

[richardd43]

Getting back to the subject. I agree with the Go With Vista 64 advice. Why put a 5 year old operating system in a new computer.

I have been useing Vista 64 since it was in beta and have had no problems with it. When it first came out there were a shortage of drivers but that is mostly a thing of the past.

SP1 just came out and fixed a lot of the bugs that had not been taken care of through the update system.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

[Brett_Henderson]

Why put a 5 year old operating system in a new computer.

Five ?  ..   Wasn't XP released just after ME.. late 2000 ? I think it's going on eight years old..

[richardd43]

Wasn't XP released just after ME.. late 2000 ? I think it's going on eight years old..

Hey, it was 4 in the morning, what can I say

[drummer_tom]

Yeah but I think the Pro x64 edition was release later, and XP was 2001 so I'm lead to believe.

So why can't a 64bit os just use ordinary 32bit drivers if it can mimic a 32bit system?


Tom