Athlon64 vs Pentium 4EE
 

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTI0

Very interesting article comparing the various AMD 64-Bit processors with the Pentium 4EE.

Here's an interesting quote from one of the benchmarks "We could not get the nForce3 board to complete even one successful benchmark run of 3DMark2001. Manipulating drivers and DX9 versions did little to help and this issue has not yet been resolved."

Just out of sheer curiosity, why are they comparing benchmarks between Intel's 32-bit and Athlon's 64-bit? Of course 64-bit processors are going to do better when it comes to raw data processing oOo:

I think the funny thing is how close the Intel 32-bit chips run to the Athlon 64-bit.

athalon pwns

[quote:f25bf]athalon pwns
[/quote:f25bf]


They sure do. pentium is way over priced and only noobs buy them.
















sarcasm

and knowing Athlon's processors, you'll probably need liquid nitrogen to keep your CPU from melting down,

Also you still can't use RAMBUS with Athlons,
and there's no Windows version currently out for 64bit processors, so it's sort of an expensive, useless thing to have in your computer now.

server 2003

cough cough "fanboy" cough.

[quote:77d78]The real beauty here lies in the Athlon64's ability to run current 32-bit applications and operating systems right now, and with "no" penalty. When 64-bit applications and OSes come to market, the Athlon64 will be ready to take advantage of them and still be able to run native 32-bit apps right alongside the 64-bit ones. [/quote:77d78]

This is my main concern. HP told me that my burner would be able to read DVD-R's once the technoligy was available, but that never happened, and it cost me an additional 100 bucks to get something I already was sopposed to have.

Being one of the first people to jump on the "3Ghz Hyper-Threading: 2 processors in one" Technoligy wagon, I have no rush to go out and up my system with either chip. What I mean by this is the newest and best thing in technoligy is not always the biggest promise you expect. IMO, I would of stuck with the 2.8Ghz processor without hyper-threading.

[quote="Bazooka_Joe":95598][quote:95598]The real beauty here lies in the Athlon64's ability to run current 32-bit applications and operating systems right now, and with "no" penalty. When 64-bit applications and OSes come to market, the Athlon64 will be ready to take advantage of them and still be able to run native 32-bit apps right alongside the 64-bit ones. [/quote:95598]

This is my main concern. HP told me that my burner would be able to read DVD-R's once the technoligy was available, but that never happened, and it cost me an additional 100 bucks to get something I already was sopposed to have.

Being one of the first people to jump on the "3Ghz Hyper-Threading: 2 processors in one" Technoligy wagon, I have no rush to go out and up my system with either chip. What I mean by this is the newest and best thing in technoligy is not always the biggest promise you expect. IMO, I would of stuck with the 2.8Ghz processor without hyper-threading.[/quote:95598]

The A64 just needs some 64bit software to show it's true potential.

The A64 just needs some 64bit software to show it's true potential.[/quote]

True. Too bad Microsoft only gives 64-bit Operating Systems to OEMs at this point. I'll stick with my Athlon XP 2800(2.1Ghz)for now.