Finally! Dell considering AMD.

I'm not sure they'll stick with it -- especially if their pencil pushers catch wind of the reasons why Apple switched to Intel instead of AMD.

I'm a hardcore AMD fan tho :) I have a dual AthlonMP system, altho I do have an Xeon as well.

Hopefully AMD will learn from Apple's research, and make some changes.
 
Actually diehardbiker65, there isnt very much difference between an A64 and an A32. You won't see that much of a performance margin. The 64 bit simply means the processor has 64 bit registers, rather than 32 bit registers.. meaning it's capable of doing more math than its counterpart. The only time you'd actually see an increase in performance (albiet small) is when you're doing something like encoding movies or audio. Most games don't take advantage of 64 bit registers yet -- To date, only one game does, and even then, theres only an increase of 5 frames per second in its performance. And this is already above existing 80fps averages.

diehardbiker65 said:
Talk is cheap! I won't buy their PC UNLESS they start throw in AMD! Athlon 64 RAWKS!!!
Click to expand...
 
For now, your correct, that is because the programming code has not yet widely used 64 bit coding. Yet I DO see the difference, especially with 128 bit security encyrpted website! It does hook up very fast!
eventually 64 bit WILL make HUGE difference. That is when full 64 bit OS becomes available. Now, you see, if I continue to buy 32 bits platform, it will become outdate sooner than these with 64 bits platform!
64 bits good for math only? No, that is NOT true! What is really difference between 32 and 64 bit is programming code! CPU read instruction line at a time So, if your talking about 2ghz CPU, that means CPU reads 2,000,000 lines per seconds. 64 bits programming have twice of instructions information per line than 32 bits offers for each lines. So, in effectively with 64 bits going on 2.0ghz equals speed of 32 bits going at 4GHZ! Thats HUGE difference, when doing programming using 64 bits platform!

fw001 said:
Actually diehardbiker65, there isnt very much difference between an A64 and an A32. You won't see that much of a performance margin. The 64 bit simply means the processor has 64 bit registers, rather than 32 bit registers.. meaning it's capable of doing more math than its counterpart. The only time you'd actually see an increase in performance (albiet small) is when you're doing something like encoding movies or audio. Most games don't take advantage of 64 bit registers yet -- To date, only one game does, and even then, theres only an increase of 5 frames per second in its performance. And this is already above existing 80fps averages.
Click to expand...
 
You got it wrong! Apple computer have nothing to do with AMD to begin with. For years, Apple used IBM to manufacture their CPU. YES! IBM DOES make CPU for Apple computers. The problem is that IBM tend to go very slow with manufacturing. When Apple needs hundred thousand of CPU for their MacINtrash, it takes IBM a whole year to make them, while Apple wants turn around in 3 months instead. IBM refused to improve, so Apple Inc. told IBM kiss my ass, we are going to Intel! IBM gulped!
IBM is famous for bad business practice! They don't care about low end customers, they wanted high end customers. Of couse, that is because of profit margin. That is why you don't see true IBM PC anymore!

fw001 said:
I'm not sure they'll stick with it -- especially if their pencil pushers catch wind of the reasons why Apple switched to Intel instead of AMD.

I'm a hardcore AMD fan tho :) I have a dual AthlonMP system, altho I do have an Xeon as well.

Hopefully AMD will learn from Apple's research, and make some changes.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker65 - Don't be an idiot. Windows already has a 64 bit XP platform, and has for a while now. And thats what the benchmarks were done on. Linux has 64 bit versions to download. Hell, SUN Sparc was 64 bit a LONG time ago.

I write software for a living - using assembler and C/C++. All the 64 bit programming in the world wont make applications go faster.. Nor will it make a 2ghz CPU seem like a 4ghz CPU.. actually its quite the opposite. 64 bit CPUs simply have increased integer and floating point register capacities. The integer registers are used to store pointers (to memory addresses).. the floating point registers are used for math. So basically the increased integer register stack means a system can hold more memory than a 32 bit CPU system can. HOWEVER -- since its 64 bits, it actually REQUIRES more memory in order to perform on the same level as a 32 bit system.

Lastly, 128 bit encryption (https) is very very small to encrypt/decrypt. You'd never even notice it was encrypting or decrypting anything. I've written encryption algorythms using 9068 bits that work almost instanteously on old 100mhz systems. The only time you would ever see a performance increase with encryption is if you're trying to crack existing encryption, or you're doing extensive encryption continiously (ie: encoding a DVD).

So as I said, there's no benefit in a 64 bit system at all unless you do alot of encoding or other items which require alot of CPU muscle. Since thats all you really get.. muscle, not speed. A musclebound person isn't necessarily faster than a skinny person.

And on this note, even a dual processor system (either dual processor or dual core) wont make a 2ghz perform like a 4ghz. It'll perform like a 2ghz with less load, and hanging apps wont effect you system-wide as they would on a single processor system.


diehardbiker65 said:
For now, your correct, that is because the programming code has not yet widely used 64 bit coding. Yet I DO see the difference, especially with 128 bit security encyrpted website! It does hook up very fast!
eventually 64 bit WILL make HUGE difference. That is when full 64 bit OS becomes available. Now, you see, if I continue to buy 32 bits platform, it will become outdate sooner than these with 64 bits platform!
64 bits good for math only? No, that is NOT true! What is really difference between 32 and 64 bit is programming code! CPU read instruction line at a time So, if your talking about 2ghz CPU, that means CPU reads 2,000,000 lines per seconds. 64 bits programming have twice of instructions information per line than 32 bits offers for each lines. So, in effectively with 64 bits going on 2.0ghz equals speed of 32 bits going at 4GHZ! Thats HUGE difference, when doing programming using 64 bits platform!
Click to expand...
 
Again, you're talking out of your ass.

Who said Apple had anything to do with AMD? IBM manufactured Motorola chips, which included the PowerPC line. Recently, IBM produced the Cell processor, which will be used in the PS3 gaming units. However, Apple decided to go with either AMD or Intel rather than the CELL processor, because even though the Cell was the most powerful processor manufactured to date, it was quite power hungry.. Apple wanted to explore other marketing ventures - The Cell imposed serious limitations on that goal. So Apple weighted in on whether to go with AMD or Intel. They decided to go with Intel, because Intel had a very large research budget compared to AMD's, and spent alot of research on lowering power requirements of their chips, making Apple's goals very realastic.


diehardbiker65 said:
You got it wrong! Apple computer have nothing to do with AMD to begin with. For years, Apple used IBM to manufacture their CPU. YES! IBM DOES make CPU for Apple computers. The problem is that IBM tend to go very slow with manufacturing. When Apple needs hundred thousand of CPU for their MacINtrash, it takes IBM a whole year to make them, while Apple wants turn around in 3 months instead. IBM refused to improve, so Apple Inc. told IBM kiss my ass, we are going to Intel! IBM gulped!
IBM is famous for bad business practice! They don't care about low end customers, they wanted high end customers. Of couse, that is because of profit margin. That is why you don't see true IBM PC anymore!
Click to expand...
 
Ahem! don't you realize what windows I have on my amd 64?

***YES I HAVE WINDOWS XP PRO x64!***

Now, you should have ask me what OS I have on my AMD64 before calling me an IDIOT!

Whats more! I have done tests and experiement! My AMD 64 is dual boot, that is how I can compare!


fw001 said:
diehardbiker65 - Don't be an idiot. Windows already has a 64 bit XP platform, and has for a while now. And thats what the benchmarks were done on. Linux has 64 bit versions to download. Hell, SUN Sparc was 64 bit a LONG time ago.

I write software for a living - using assembler and C/C++. All the 64 bit programming in the world wont make applications go faster.. Nor will it make a 2ghz CPU seem like a 4ghz CPU.. actually its quite the opposite. 64 bit CPUs simply have increased integer and floating point register capacities. The integer registers are used to store pointers (to memory addresses).. the floating point registers are used for math. So basically the increased integer register stack means a system can hold more memory than a 32 bit CPU system can. HOWEVER -- since its 64 bits, it actually REQUIRES more memory in order to perform on the same level as a 32 bit system.

Lastly, 128 bit encryption (https) is very very small to encrypt/decrypt. You'd never even notice it was encrypting or decrypting anything. I've written encryption algorythms using 9068 bits that work almost instanteously on old 100mhz systems. The only time you would ever see a performance increase with encryption is if you're trying to crack existing encryption, or you're doing extensive encryption continiously (ie: encoding a DVD).

So as I said, there's no benefit in a 64 bit system at all unless you do alot of encoding or other items which require alot of CPU muscle. Since thats all you really get.. muscle, not speed. A musclebound person isn't necessarily faster than a skinny person.

And on this note, even a dual processor system (either dual processor or dual core) wont make a 2ghz perform like a 4ghz. It'll perform like a 2ghz with less load, and hanging apps wont effect you system-wide as they would on a single processor system.
Click to expand...
 
Actually, what you said was that we "have to wait for full 64 bit operating systems" to come out. That is basically saying you are using a 32 bit OS. But fine, my mistake :)

Regardlessly, there are alot of *PROFESSIONAL* groups out there who test hardware and software for a living, who disagree with your decision. You can google around for "32 bit vs 64 bit" if you wish. Besides that, the simple fact of what 64 bit means in CPU architecture supports what I have said.

diehardbiker65 said:
Ahem! don't you realize what windows I have on my amd 64?

***YES I HAVE WINDOWS XP PRO x64!***

Now, you should have ask me what OS I have on my AMD64 before calling me an IDIOT!

Whats more! I have done tests and experiement! My AMD 64 is dual boot, that is how I can compare!
Click to expand...
 
Question... is Windows XP pro for everybody? The answer is obviously no! Im speaking for general audience where windows XP pro isn't for them. That is what Im talking about!

There is NO such thing as windows XP home edition for 64 bits! That is what majority of user is waiting for. The windows Vista isn't coming out anytime soon. So, get my point, eh?

fw001 said:
Actually, what you said was that we "have to wait for full 64 bit operating systems" to come out. That is basically saying you are using a 32 bit OS. But fine, my mistake :)

Regardlessly, there are alot of *PROFESSIONAL* groups out there who test hardware and software for a living, who disagree with your decision. You can google around for "32 bit vs 64 bit" if you wish. Besides that, the simple fact of what 64 bit means in CPU architecture supports what I have said.
Click to expand...
 
Hey Fw001, since you say that there is no difference between 32 and 64 bit, then why not you go back in 16 bit if there is no difference, eh?

Think about it!
 
What do the hardware gurus think about the AMD Sempron chip with x64 extensions enabled? (Yes, those chip varieties are out there now! Check out the AMD Sempron 64 link.) I'm thinking of getting a computer with the AMD Sempron 64 CPU instead of a full-blown Athlon 64-enabled computer.
 
Why going without L2 cache? The more cache the better it would come out.

Sempron 64 don't have L2 cache like Athlon 64 do.

Eyeth said:
What do the hardware gurus think about the AMD Sempron chip with x64 extensions enabled? (Yes, those chip varieties are out there now! Check out the AMD Sempron 64 link.) I'm thinking of getting a computer with the AMD Sempron 64 CPU instead of a full-blown Athlon 64-enabled computer.
Click to expand...
 
16 bit would work just fine if there were processors that went as fast as current systems do, in 16 bit. But then you'd be limited to about 512mb ram max. Hell, everyone knows windows 95 is faster than windows 2000 or XP.

32 bit can address 4Gb of memory
64 bit can address 16Tb of memory.



diehardbiker65 said:
Hey Fw001, since you say that there is no difference between 32 and 64 bit, then why not you go back in 16 bit if there is no difference, eh?

Think about it!
Click to expand...
 
Recent response from Dell's customer service reps.

I asked them wheather they are planning to add AMD to their line, their answer comes back and I copy n paste here.


Dell re-evaluates this question frequently, but probably will not manufacture an AMD-based desktop or portable computer until demand from our customers is much higher. There are questions of compatibility with Dell's Intel-type motherboards and of the availability of very large numbers of units from our suppliers. Consistency, agility, and economies of scale allow Dell to offer most of our customers a high quality product at a moderate price.

So this meaning Dell has NO such plan to add AMD to their product line as of right now. Therefore the talk about having AMD in Dell PC is CHEAP!
 
diehardbiker65 said:
Ahem! don't you realize what windows I have on my amd 64?

***YES I HAVE WINDOWS XP PRO x64!***

Now, you should have ask me what OS I have on my AMD64 before calling me an IDIOT!

Whats more! I have done tests and experiement! My AMD 64 is dual boot, that is how I can compare!
Click to expand...
WINDOWS XP PRO x64 is pointless.

http://www.tomshardware.com/howto/20050823/winxp_x64-01.html

BTW. I have Amd 3800+ 64bits.

Did you know that IBM make AMD 64bits?
 
The fact is that Apple has used Mac OS X running on a Intel processor for 5 years...the same time OS X was released to the public and Apple finally announced the real prototype to the public few months ago. The reason why Apple went on a Intel based because of the demand and supply, keeps up with the speed and delivery. IBM and Motorola is too busy worrying about their marketshare with other sectors of the business. They have been lagging the promises to raise the speed as Apple promised...IBM and Motorola didn't deliver as promised...

P.S. Diehardbiker...Mac is not trash....I have been using Mac since 1993. So, please respect the Mac users out there....I have sharp eyes and I can read the forums and be careful what you say out there.

fw001 said:
Again, you're talking out of your ass.

Who said Apple had anything to do with AMD? IBM manufactured Motorola chips, which included the PowerPC line. Recently, IBM produced the Cell processor, which will be used in the PS3 gaming units. However, Apple decided to go with either AMD or Intel rather than the CELL processor, because even though the Cell was the most powerful processor manufactured to date, it was quite power hungry.. Apple wanted to explore other marketing ventures - The Cell imposed serious limitations on that goal. So Apple weighted in on whether to go with AMD or Intel. They decided to go with Intel, because Intel had a very large research budget compared to AMD's, and spent alot of research on lowering power requirements of their chips, making Apple's goals very realastic.
Click to expand...
 
sequoias said:
The fact is that Apple has used Mac OS X running on a Intel processor for 5 years...the same time OS X was released to the public and Apple finally announced the real prototype to the public few months ago. The reason why Apple went on a Intel based because of the demand and supply, keeps up with the speed and delivery. IBM and Motorola is too busy worrying about their marketshare with other sectors of the business. They have been lagging the promises to raise the speed as Apple promised...IBM and Motorola didn't deliver as promised...

P.S. Diehardbiker...Mac is not trash....I have been using Mac since 1993. So, please respect the Mac users out there....I have sharp eyes and I can read the forums and be careful what you say out there.
Click to expand...


Hmm.... Why IBM already made 3.2 ghz for Xbox 360?
 
Back
Top