64-bit chip games?

K

kidrock540

Guest
hey all when do you guys think games will start running with 64 bit instead of 32 is there a list of games coming out with 64 bit? and also will a 64 bit chip have a big performance boost over a 3.2 gigz HT intel pentium 4 in HL2? will it be a big boost or small boost now and in the future
 
Yes, HL3 may or may not be 64 bit compatible, look for it in stores by November 16, 2008.
 
HL3, 2008...funny. :)
There are some 64bit games coming out including HL2 possibly.
They don't plan to use HT(2 threads) in games.
check the FAQ
You already have a "performance boost" over a 3.2ghz HT intel for any program. Its called a faster CPU, Athlon 64.
 
So your saying that the Athalon 64 is better than a 3.2 ghz intel right? Im just consfused as i dont even know how the whole bit thing works...anyone explain?
 
There is a patch that epic are talkin about for ut2003 which makes it take advantage of the 64 bit
 
Athlon 64 (still talking 32bit WinXP OS) is better than the 3.2ghz P4.
The only place some ppl doubt Athlon 64's performance is against the P4 EE 3.4ghz (not available for purchase) but many still think Athlon 64 is better than that.
 
Originally posted by Cyber$nake
So your saying that the Athalon 64 is better than a 3.2 ghz intel right? Im just consfused as i dont even know how the whole bit thing works...anyone explain?
Click to expand...

As everyone else has said, the Athlon 64 is better than the P4C 3.2 GHz (especially in gaming). This is true even while running 32-bit software.

To put it simply, the P4 processes data in 32-bit chunks. The Athlon 64 can process data in 64-bit chunks.

So shouldn't a 64-bit CPU be twice as fast as a 32-bit CPU?

Theoretically, yes. However, many aspects of modern 32-bit CPUs actually process data in 64-bit (or even 128-bit chunks). They use tricks like SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data streams). Also, the x87 FPU has been 64-bit for a while now.

So what does AMD64 give us over IA32?

AMD64 gives a variety of things. It allows the CPU to address much more than the 4 GB barrier of 32-bit CPU. This is simply because large memory addresses can not fit into 32-bit chuncks.

It doubles the amount of general purpose registers. GP registers can be thought of as L0 cache (sort of...).

It allows 64-bit Integer calculations. However, at this time, that is limited to a very few specialized programs that had to use two 32-bit chunks in order to reach the required precision. The good news is that in these cases Integer performance will double when ran on AMD64.

Are there any cases where 64-bit is slower than 32-bit?

Yes. There are times when the con outweighs the pros. The only con is simply that 64-bit code takes up twice as much space in memory. This is easily outweighed by the pros in most situations, but in some tasks it is not. The good news is that AMD64 allows you to run these programs in 32-bit mode.
 
Sounds like a waste of money to me........5% more performance for 3 times the price..........

yeah...ok


save your money boys and girls....
 
Hehe, people make me laugh! Comparing a P4 to a Amd 64. Its like comparing apples and bananas... the Amd 64 is a completely different generation, of COURSE its gonna be faster. Also if you've actually seen to benchmarks its not actually alot faster at all. So come on, research and think about things before posting pointless/unfounded information and comments.

Ethos
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
Sounds like a waste of money to me........5% more performance for 3 times the price..........

yeah...ok


save your money boys and girls....
Click to expand...

What are you comparing here? What only gets 5% more performance and cost 3X the price?

A64 3200+ Vs P4C 3.2 GHz

~5% Higher performance for A64 3200+

~45% More Expensive for P4C3.2 GHz

A64 FX-51 Vs. P4C 3.2 GHz

~20% Higher performance for A64 FX-51

~25% More Expensive for A64 FX-51

A64 FX-51 Vs. P4EE 3.2 GHz (Not yet available to public. I assumed price would be ~$750USD when it is avialable in November)

~10% Higher Performance for A64 FX-51

Pricing should be about the same when the P4EE 3.2 GHz is finally available.

Those performance numbers represent gaming performance and can be found here. The pricing for available CPUs was taken at www.newegg.com

Hehe, people make me laugh! Comparing a P4 to a Amd 64. Its like comparing apples and bananas... the Amd 64 is a completely different generation, of COURSE its gonna be faster. Also if you've actually seen to benchmarks its not actually alot faster at all. So come on, research and think about things before posting pointless/unfounded information and comments.
Click to expand...

If pricing is similar, it is logical to compare processors.
 
Well Gabe originally said, in May-ish, that there will be a 64-bit port of HL2. It's a long way off, long after the inital release.
 
lol "offical release"

that term has just become very funny to me over the past week.
 
so i would be better off getting the 3.2 gigz and waiting for the EE instead of spending all that cash on something thats not gonna be that much more of a perfomance increase
 
Originally posted by |CC|Hudson
lol "offical release"

that term has just become very funny to me over the past week.
Click to expand...

I said initail release :)

;)
 
Originally posted by kidrock540
so i would be better off getting the 3.2 gigz and waiting for the EE instead of spending all that cash on something thats not gonna be that much more of a perfomance increase
Click to expand...

Why would you get a 3.2 GHz P4C? The A64 3200+ is faster, cheaper, and more future proof.
 
cheaper? I thought they're more expensive? athalons ingeneral are cheap, but the 64s are expensive im pretty sure.
 
P4 3.2ghz- $617
A64 FX51- $815

Its up to what you want.

I am always going to say to buy a mid-range CPU. Anywhere from a 2.4-3.0 or a 2500-3200. Spend $815 on a CPU and having to upgrade in 2-3 years, while spending $200 and upgrading in the same amount of time.
 
you compare P4 C to a Fx51?
P4EE are 850$ quoted by Tom's hardware.
A Athlon 64 3200+ does better than a 3.2ghz P4 and its only just above 400$.
 
Originally posted by TheOtherDude
What are you comparing here? What only gets 5% more performance and cost 3X the price?

A64 3200+ Vs P4C 3.2 GHz

~5% Higher performance for A64 3200+

~45% More Expensive for P4C3.2 GHz

A64 FX-51 Vs. P4C 3.2 GHz

~20% Higher performance for A64 FX-51

~25% More Expensive for A64 FX-51

A64 FX-51 Vs. P4EE 3.2 GHz (Not yet available to public. I assumed price would be ~$750USD when it is avialable in November)

~10% Higher Performance for A64 FX-51

Pricing should be about the same when the P4EE 3.2 GHz is finally available.

Those performance numbers represent gaming performance and can be found here. The pricing for available CPUs was taken at www.newegg.com



If pricing is similar, it is logical to compare processors.
Click to expand...

Take another look at this post. I assure you all the info is correct. If not, you can look in the links I provided and correct me. The A64 3200+ is faster, cheaper, and more future proof than a P4C 3.2 GHz.
 
Originally posted by kidrock540
but wont the pentium4 EE be faster then the amd 64 fx
Click to expand...

No, the Athlon 64 FX-51 is about 10% faster than the P4EE 3.2 GHz in games. Please look at the what I have now posted twice.
 
Originally posted by TheOtherDude
Take another look at this post. I assure you all the info is correct. If not, you can look in the links I provided and correct me. The A64 3200+ is faster, cheaper, and more future proof than a P4C 3.2 GHz.
Click to expand...

yep I agree with this dude
 
isnt there going to be a 3.4 gig EE




and just a little question when will pentium 5s be out?
 
Originally posted by kidrock540
isnt there going to be a 3.4 gig EE




and just a little question when will pentium 5s be out?
Click to expand...

Eventually, there may be a 3.4 GHz P4EE released, but by then an Athlon 64 FX-53 (2.4 GHz) will be out. The Athlon 64 FX scales much, much better than the P4EE so a A64 FX-53 will see a larger increase in performance over the A64 FX-51 than the P4EE 3.4 GHz will see over the P4EE 3.2 GHz.
 
Originally posted by TheOtherDude
What are you comparing here? What only gets 5% more performance and cost 3X the price?

A64 3200+ Vs P4C 3.2 GHz

~5% Higher performance for A64 3200+

~45% More Expensive for P4C3.2 GHz

A64 FX-51 Vs. P4C 3.2 GHz

~20% Higher performance for A64 FX-51

~25% More Expensive for A64 FX-51

A64 FX-51 Vs. P4EE 3.2 GHz (Not yet available to public. I assumed price would be ~$750USD when it is avialable in November)

~10% Higher Performance for A64 FX-51

Pricing should be about the same when the P4EE 3.2 GHz is finally available.


If pricing is similar, it is logical to compare processors.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but taking performance numbers from one website and saying they are the facts just doesnt work for me.


2.4c overclocked to 3.2ghz.......... or a 2500+ overclocked to a 3200+


much better deal......the A64 aint that great folks.......I dont understand why people get that impression, i guess amd's marketing department is doing its job.

1. It costs ALOT more than above cpus........
2. mainstream 64bit software is a LONG way off.

Do youself a favor .....save your money. Dont let TheOtherDude's fanboyism get to you.
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
Im sorry but taking performance numbers from one website and saying they are the facts just doesnt work for me.


2.4c overclocked to 3.2ghz.......... or a 2500+ overclocked to a 3200+


much better deal......the A64 aint that great folks.......I dont understand why people get that impression, i guess amd's marketing department is doing its job.

1. It costs ALOT more than above cpus........
2. mainstream 64bit software is a LONG way off.

Do youself a favor .....save your money. Dont let TheOtherDude's fanboyism get to you.
Click to expand...

I still don't see how you can say "the A64 ain't that great folks." The A64 3200+ is faster, cheaper, and more future proof than anything Intel is offering right now. I was nice enough to post a link to the most comprehensive gaming review of the A64 and P4EE on the web. It isn't the only review showing the A64 beating the P4 in gaming, but it is the most comprehensive.

Also, crabcakes66, you seem to suggest the benchmarks I linked to are invalid in someway. I'd like to know why.

I didn't even think to recommend an overclocked system, though I overclock all my systems, because kidrock540 didn't seem interested in overclocking. Also, I'll take this chance to remind you that the A64 3200+ is quite an overclocker itself.

Btw, I'm certianly no fanboy. I am typing this on a 2.4C @ 3.3 GHz (Abit IC7 seems to be limiting me to ~275 FSB). I also own a 2500+@3200+ (I just need better cooling to push it higher, but it is in my "quiet" PC, though it still isn't quiet by most people's standards.)
 
Originally posted by TheOtherDude
I still don't see how you can say "the A64 ain't that great folks." The A64 3200+ is faster, cheaper, and more future proof than anything Intel is offering right now. I was nice enough to post a link to the most comprehensive gaming review of the A64 and P4EE on the web. It isn't the only review showing the A64 beating the P4 in gaming, but it is the most comprehensive.

Also, crabcakes66, you seem to suggest the benchmarks I linked to are invalid in someway. I'd like to know why.

I didn't even think to recommend an overclocked system, though I overclock all my systems, because kidrock540 didn't seem interested in overclocking. Also, I'll take this chance to remind you that the A64 3200+ is quite an overclocker itself.

Btw, I'm certianly no fanboy. I am typing this on a 2.4C @ 3.3 GHz (Abit IC7 seems to be limiting me to ~275 FSB). I also own a 2500+@3200+ (I just need better cooling to push it higher, but it is in my "quiet" PC, though it still isn't quiet by most people's standards.)
Click to expand...


I fail to see the benefits. .....its like intels 3.2EE ....sure its a good bit faster than lets say a 2.8c for example but you have to think of wether that little bit of extra speed is worth the money.

Ive read several reviews.....and your numbers seem a bit off judging by the overall average of differant sites.....

Especially in gaming.....the 3.2 EE looked like it was giving the a64 a run for its money.

the only top-of the-line component ive ever bought was a 9700pro. and it was and is worth every penny....i wouldnt buy an A64....i wouldnt buy a 3.2 EE or 3.2C.....they carry a premium ....

I wont even get started on the NF3 mobos.........
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
I fail to see the benefits. .....its like intels 3.2EE ....sure its a good bit faster than lets say a 2.8c for example but you have to think of wether that little bit of extra speed is worth the money.

Ive read several reviews.....and your numbers seem a bit off judging by the overall average of differant sites.....

Especially in gaming.....the 3.2 EE looked like it was giving the a64 a run for its money.

the only top-of the-line component ive ever bought was a 9700pro. and it was and is worth every penny....i wouldnt buy an A64....i wouldnt buy a 3.2 EE or 3.2C.....they carry a premium ....

I wont even get started on the NF3 mobos.........
Click to expand...

It's true that the A64 (Fx-51 or 3200+) doesn't give the best price/performance ratio. Among high-end CPUs it is the best price/performance (either FX-51 Vs P4EE 3.2 GHz or 3200+ Vs 3.2C). However, high-end products almost never have better price/performance than mid-range or low-end products. The one exception that I can think of was the 9700 Pro that you mentioned (I too, am a proud 9700 Pro owner.).

Please site the specific review(s) where the P4EE was near the performance of the A64 FX-51 in games. Most reviews I saw besides the one I linked to limited their testing to Quake III, UT2003, Jedi Knight II, X2 and Comanche 4. Some were even more limited than that. I found [H]ardOCP's gaming benchmark suite hilarious. They ran 4 gaming benchmarks. Of them, 2 were based on the same engine (Quake III and Jedi Knight II) and one of them (Quake III) was obsolete. Not to mention the fact that one of the other two benchmarks seems to heavily favor the P4 (Comanche 4) while the remaining benchmark heavily favors the Athlon (UT2003). That had to have been the largest waste of time I've ever seen in a review. If the review is not very extensive, it could give the wrong impression about performance(as the [H]ard review did). For example, I could have chosen to only use the 4 benchmarks in Ace's review were the P4EE beat the A64 FX-51. If I did, it would have shown a completely different (less accurate) picture.
 
There have been quite a few posts about ppl asking about 64bit or best performing CPU. Why tell them to get a 2.4c or 2500+ if they dont ask for it? They ask what is the best or what is out there for this price range.
If someone is looking for a CPU in the range of a Intel P4 3.0ghz C or above, im going to suggest an Athlon 64 3200+ because for 40$ more than that 3.0ghz P4... they gain a lot of performance. That's not even the 3.2ghz.
btw Athlon 64 FX 51 tied/beat Intel's 3.4ghz P4 EE 32bit performance as well, in my opinion. ;)

The current revision for Nforce3 is craptastic and another reason to check what the reviewer used ;)
The Asus K8V Deluxe Via K8T800 is great though and has 2 or 4 channels onboard SATA. :cheers:
But what I wanna know is why are reviewers using ECC registered memory when there is registered memory that is non-ECC? ECC takes an extra unneeded performance hit above that of just registered memory.
If I bought an AMD64 now, it wouldnt even be for it's 64bit or "future proofing" but its a plus to be ready when 64bit comes about.
 
Originally posted by Asus
There have been quite a few posts about ppl asking about 64bit or best performing CPU. Why tell them to get a 2.4c or 2500+ if they dont ask for it? They ask what is the best or what is out there for this price range.
Click to expand...

thats not what this person asked...... you give them your opinion and ill give them mine.


Its not that great guys........


http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/20030923/index.html

I think this article sums it up pretty well.

hence......i say its a waste of money.
 
Originally posted by crabcakes66
Im sorry but taking performance numbers from one website and saying they are the facts just doesnt work for me.
Click to expand...
Then don't just quote Tom's when everyother site disagrees with Tommy boy.
Originally posted by crabcakes66
Sounds like a waste of money to me........5% more performance for 3 times the price..........

yeah...ok
Click to expand...
Do you read reviews?

I would swear you are Tom himself, Intel paid and bias from day one.
If I give ya money for a P4 EE, can you go buy it for me crabcakes?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
It's just something for the AMD64 to play with in the benchmarks. A rag doll that isnt really alive or there. A placeholder! ya thats it...old P4 placeholder art just for those benchmark graphs.
Just keep trusting old Tom and you'll be on the right path. For he tells all...lies and such.
 
Originally posted by Asus
I would swear you are Tom himself, Intel paid and bias from day one.
If I give ya money for a P4 EE, can you go buy it for me crabcakes?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
It's just something for the AMD64 to play with in the benchmarks. A rag doll that isnt really alive or there. A placeholder! ya thats it...old P4 placeholder art just for those benchmark graphs.
Just keep trusting old Tom and you'll be on the right path. For he tells all...lies and such.
Click to expand...


err if you say so bro......i havent seen a review site yet that isnt biased in some way.......




btw....im on an AMD system....i have been for the past 3 years.....

you need to pull your fanboy head out of your ass and look at the facts....
 
cradcakes66, you need to look at the facts. Right now, AMD has the best high-end CPUs available, the A64 3200+ and A64 FX-51 (both in Price/Performance and just performance). They also have the best low-end CPUs available (AXP 1700+-2500+). Intel has the best mid-range CPUs available (2.4C-2.8C).

Generally speaking, if someone is considering a high-end or low-end system right now they should look to AMD. That is something, for some reason, you fail to acknowledge. If someone is looking for a mid-range system they should look to Intel. That is a fact. If people have specialized needs then it might change the picture a bit, but generally speaking, you would have to be an idiot to deviate from what I just said.
 
Funny, Tom apologizes for including P4EE 3.4/3.6ghz models in the review...
Update Sept 24,2003: Unfortunately we have made a mistake in the original article: In addition to the official P4 EE 3.2GHz we had included benchmark scores of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz. These values were planned for a future THG article and were not intended to be included here. We would like to apologize especially to those readers who misinterpreted our charts. The two bars of the P4 Extreme 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz have now been removed.
Click to expand...

Since they have removed those bars from the graphs...mm that makes a big difference now reading the review again (especially the gaming part). Ah sadly Tom still benchmarks mostly multimedia rendering and only a few game benchies ;(

(sorry for double post >15mins)
 
Originally posted by TheOtherDude

Generally speaking, if someone is considering a high-end or low-end system right now they should look to AMD. That is something, for some reason, you fail to acknowledge. If someone is looking for a mid-range system they should look to Intel. That is a fact. If people have specialized needs then it might change the picture a bit, but generally speaking, you would have to be an idiot to deviate from what I just said.
Click to expand...

please dont say your opinions are facts.....


or do you need a dictionary to differenciate between the two....?
 
Well he was just putting his views on price/performance cpus into a guide of sorts.

BattleField 1942 1024x768x32
A64 FX51 @ 760 $ - 99 FPS
P4 EE 3.2ghz @ ~800+ $ - 89.4 FPS
P4 C 3.2ghz @ 600 $ - 89.4 FPS
A64 3200+ @ 415 $ - 89.3 FPS

You pick...
415$ seems very reasonable (gasp...the lowest price!) for a CPU that ties (well within margin of error) Intel's 600-800 CPUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
-smash-
Valve at GDC 2016
Replies
7
Views
5K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
-smash-
Using Unity at Valve - Vision Summit 2016
Replies
5
Views
6K
Ennui
Ennui
Back
Top