Pentium 4 530 Vs Pentium 4 Prescott

[MikeWill]

Maybe someone can explain the differences between Pentium CPUs:

P4 Prescott 3.0E FSB 800 MHz w/Hyper-Threading Technology , L2 Cache 1MB

and

P4 530 3.0, LGA775, L2 Cache 1MB

Does they use different sockets only? Price wise they are rather similar.

[francois]

hi'

different socket, 478 fpr prescott and newone for 530, different architecture too, the prescott is built in 0.13mic and the 530 is in 0.09 or something similar ...

francois

[waldwolf]

If memory serves me, "Prescott" was Intel's original developmental code name for their new family of P4 processors which included, among other things, Hyper-Threading Technology, additional instruction set(s), higher clock rates, buss speeds and a larger L2 cache.

Their numbering system, IMHO is quite confusing, but for info, here are some links you may want to checkout:

The P4 Processor

Intel's Processor Numbering System

[Firefoxx]

Actually, the series before the prescott already had hyper-threading (I can say that since I'm using it). The major change in the prescott was the L2 cache/SSE3. Previous p4s had a "northwood" core.

The newer 5xx models, as francois says, are the P4s for the LGA socket 775 boards. The ones without the 5xx model name are for the socket 478 boards.

[MikeWill]

Yes indeed, the numbering and names of P4 CPUs is rather confusing. To choose the right CPU and the motherboard is even more...

The Northwood, Prescott, etc.

If I recall correctly, the "old" 130 nm based on socket 478 boards is preferred option for speeds up to 3.0-3.2 GHz, and it is called Northwood.

The new 90 nm technology w/additional instructions is recommended for higher clock speeds is called Prescott.

Both these models have 1 MB L2 Cache and 800 MHz Bus.

Since I'm thinking of P4 3.0 GHz with the 865G Chipset board, what model it should be?

The other confusing thing is the socket, 2 models are there:

LGA775 or mPGA478

Does it mean that it could be installed on either one (have adapters)?

Initially, I was thinking of Intel main board (Intel D865GBF). Unfortunately, they are in short supply. Any recommendations for boards?

Edited February 8, 2005 by Condo_bk

[Firefoxx]

If you want cheap, go for the socket 478. If you want to be able to upgrade the CPU and vga card later on, go for the newer mainboards with LGA775 with PCI express. You have to choose a processor to match the mainboard (478 or 775), there are no adapters (AFAIK).

The mainboard you're talking about is pretty old, and so is the chipset. The newest chipsets are the 915 and 925, which use LGA775 and have PCI-express. They're still a bit more expensive than older mainboards, but that's just the way things are.

Intel boards are good, but they're pretty plain, with little in the way of "bells and whistles". I recommend Asus boards, since they're pretty solid and come with a lot of extras.

Check prices here: http://www.busitek.com/forms/pricelist.html

An older set:

P4 Prescott 3.0

Asus P4P-800E Deluxe Mainboard

An AGP VGA card

DDR Memory

A newer set:

P4 530 3.0 Ghz

Asus P5 GD2 Mainboard

A PCI-E VGA card

DDR2 Memory

To be honest, both these sets perform very well. If you don't plan to change the CPU/VGA later on, you can go for the older and cheaper set.

Edited February 8, 2005 by Firefoxx

[francois]

hi'

Since I'm thinking of P4 3.0 GHz with the 865G Chipset board, what model it should be?

go for a P4 3.0 or 3.2 E socket 478 and 1mb cache L2, works like a charm and still affordable

try to put this on a chip 865P or PE, go for gigabite motherboard or Asus, called PA Titan, look carefully for usb 2.0 ports, firewire and SATA, LAN etc ...

and put DDR in dual channel .. better 2x256 than 1x512 !

good brand "kingston" doesn't make a big difference between the two config

dual-channel memory is now a basic thing

my 2satang here ..

francois

francois

[MikeWill]

Thanks guys,

Yes, I'm planning to go for more affordable (older Chipset) 865. I think that such system could serve me for 5 years at least, without the need to upgrade.

Am I wrong?

The boards w/865G Chipset have (quality) graphics on board, and the 865PE needs additional display card, which are rather expensive especially for the high end ones. In average, they are more expensive than Main boards.

Am I missing here something?

I quote: "Specially for value systems Intel released the 865G chipset that offers integrated Intel Extreme Graphics 2 video core (2 channel access to memory and support for the 800 MHz bus)."

Edited February 8, 2005 by Condo_bk

[Firefoxx]

5 years is a bit optimistic. I say 3 years is more like it... Expect any more and it would be like using a PII now.

The 865G has graphics on-board, but it's not great. It's probably even worse than the MX400, which is the cheapest 3d graphics card. Also, the 865G is slower than than the 865PE, which is probably the king of the 478 category in terms of price/performance. On-board graphics traditionally have minimal specs and performance.

Graphics cards are really up to the user. An on-board solution or the cheapest MX400 will probably be able to play modern games like Half-life2, Sims2 and Doom3 at low resolution and low detail. A middling (about 6,000 baht) card will do a lot better, medium resolution and medium detail. The 10,000-20,000 baht cards allow high res and full detail. But if you're not going to play games, you don't need the extra power.

[MikeWill]

The other board I have found is Gigabyte GA-8IG1000 Pro (Intel 865G Chipset)

Supports 400/533/800MHz FSB Pentium 4 Processor w/HT Technology and Celeron procssor with 478 pin

Supports Dual Channel DDR400 architecture

AGP 8X interface for excellent graphics performance

Integrated Serial-ATA interface

Integrated T.I. IEEE1394 interface (Firewire Interface)

Integrated Intel® PRO/100 VE Network Connection

GA-8IG1000 Pro specs:

Intel 865G chipset

Processor Socket 478 for Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU

Chipset:

North Bridge : Intel® 865G GMCH

South Bridge : Intel® ICH5

Integrated Peripherals :

Intel 10/100Mbps Ethernet Controller

Texas Instrument IEEE 1394 chip

Realtek ALC655 CODEC

Front Side Bus

800 / 533 / 400 MHz FSB

Memory:

Type: Dual Channel DDR 400 / 333 / 266 support

Max capacity: 4 GB (Please read FAQ for further information)

DIMM slots: 4

Internal I/O Connectors:

2 x Serial ATA ports

2 x IEEE 1394 pin header

2 x USB 2.0 connectors(supports 4 ports by cable)

2 x UltraDMA 100/66 Bus Master IDE

1 x FDD connector

1 x S/P-DIF input/output pin header

CD/AUX in

1 x COM port

1 x Game port pin header

Expansion Slots:

1 x AGP 8x slot

5 x PCI slots (PCI 2.3 compliant)

Rear Panel I/O:

4 x USB 2.0 ports

1 x RJ45 LAN port

1 x LPT port

1 x VGA port

1 x COM port

3 x Audio ports (Line-in / Line-out / MIC)

2 x PS/2 ports (Keyboard/Mouse)

Form Factor:

ATX

30.5cm x 24.4cm

H/W Monitoring

ITE 8712F

System health status auto-detect and report by BIOS

Hardware detecting and reporting for case open, power-in voltage, CPU voltage, and fan speed.

BIOS:

2 x 4M bit flash ROM, Award BIOS

Other Features:

Xpress Install

Xpress Recovery

EasyTune™ 4

@BIOS

Q-Flash™

Bundle Software

Norton Internet Security 2003

GIGABYTE Windows Utility Manager

Adobe Acrobat Reader

Driver

Intel chipset software installation utility

Intel Graphics driver

Intel PRO/100 VE LAN driver

Realtek audio driver

USB2.0 driver

--------------------

Any comments?

[pautai]

you might like to take a look at the Pentium M 1.6 , its as fast as a P4 3.4 and cheaper in price. Its used in laptops but you can get mobos for it .

[chingy_]

you might like to take a look at the Pentium M 1.6 , its as fast as a P4 3.4 and cheaper in price. Its used in laptops but you can get mobos for it .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

are you kidding me you think m1.6 is as fast as p4 3.4

[Firefoxx]

1.6 vs 3.4 is pushing it a bit, but a Pentium M 2.0 is as fast as a P4 3.2... However, they're not exactly cheap. You pay about as much or more for the same performance, not to mention that the motherboard chipset is still a bit lacking (no dual channel, no 5.1 audio, etc.). I haven't seen any Pentium M's sold here, but then again I haven't gone shopping lately.

Another alternative discussed in the "upgrade or new" thread is the Anthlon 64.

[MikeWill]

It is correct Firefoxx, I'm not looking for a gaming system (otherwise will probably opt for the Athlon), but rather a reliable office desktop PC. That's why BTW, my estimation of the lifetime was 5 years. I just can't imagine that the hardware mentioned above could become absolute or would not support the newly developed software.

I'm currently using P3 450MHz, 256MB RAM, Intel motherboard that I built more that 5 years ago (don't remember exactly). And it is still running hmmm... tho' I'm unable to upgrade my Win98SE. I have many USB devices and need lots of plugs.

Re: Pentium M 1.6

I have no idea what is that.

On the other hand, maybe it is better to wait for a while till the new Chipset boards (i.e. 915 and 925) will go down in price.

I'm budgeting the hardware (CPU, mainboard, 1MB RAM, Hard disk, case w/power supply) at around THB 25-30K. Monitor, modem, KB, Mouse, CD & DVD, scanner, etc. - my old stuff.

Looking forward for your comments!

Edited February 8, 2005 by Condo_bk

[bkk_mike]

Generally, it's a matter of what you're going to be using the PC for.

The P4 is faster on video encoding, MP3 conversion etc, but the Athlon 64 (and Pentium M to some extent because of it's monster cache) are faster in games. Although the Pentium M isn't really fast enough to compete in currently released versions, and Pentium M motherboards are quite a bit more expensive than Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 ones.

http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=635&pid=2408

(Ignore the Pentium M 2130 - that's actually an overclock so shouldn't really be compared with the others, but it does suggest that the Pentium M is maybe going to be more interesting in the next 6-12 months as the newer mobile chipsets start to become available on desktop motherboards, and the M gets a little faster...)

The Intel Extreme graphics are OK if you're not playing games, and just running Windows. But if you're into anything involving 3D graphics, like most modern games, you should be buying a graphics card.

If you're buying a graphics card now, it probably doesn't matter if you go AGP or PCI Express. But if you're going to go with onboard graphics now, with the option of upgrading later, you should probably go for a PCI Express motherboard.

(and presumably you mean 1Gb of RAM).

Edited February 8, 2005 by bkk_mike

[Firefoxx]

Well, 30k baht can get you pretty much. Let's look at the details (prices from busitek):

P4 530 7,800

An aluminum case (not lian li) 2,200

Enermax 365W PSU 2,100

Asus P5GD1 mainboard 5,700

160GB SATA HDD 4,300

2x512MB DDR 6,200

X300 PCI-express VGA 3,200

Comes out to just a tad over 30k. Under 30k if you leave out the nice PSU, but I don't recommend it. Pretty upgradeable and future-proof.

[MikeWill]

Some info I found on Pentium M:

Intel's new Pentium M processor core in .09 micron process technology, now known as the "Dothan" Pentium M core. Pentium M processors are actually faster than Pentium 4 chips, in many applications due to a significantly shorter pipeline along with a larger 2MB of fast, full speed L2 cache. The new DFI 855GME-MGF motherboard based on Intel's i855 Northbridge and i6300 Southbridge mobile chipset uses a 2GHz Pentium M (highly overclocked at 2.5GHz).

I don't think I'll take this direction since...

Some facts: it's almost always cheaper to stay slightly behind the curve when purchasing hardware, especially when the performance improvements are minimal at best.

When Intel released the first batch of Pentium 4 processors based on their Prescott core, which were built using a .09 mn manufacturing process, analysts found that the CPUs generated more heat and consumed more power than similarly clocked Pentium 4 processors based on the .13 mn Northwood core.

So, I'd rather stick with the fastest .13 mn Northwood, which as I recall is about 3.0-3.2GHz.

Any idea of their prices?

[MikeWill]

You're right bkk_mike, it was a typo, I want at least 1 GB RAM. I also think that the Intel Extreme graphics are OK for an office PC. And the option of adding a graphic card is available (maybe I could find some second-hand ones).

Re: PCI Express enabled motherboard

Looking at specs of the Gigabyte GA-8IG1000 Pro (on the previous page), I can't determine which one is that. But in any case, I afraid that PCI Express will be over my budget.

[MikeWill]

Well, 30k baht can get you pretty much.  Let's look at the details (prices from busitek):

P4 530 7,800

An aluminum case (not lian li) 2,200

Enermax 365W PSU 2,100

Asus P5GD1 mainboard 5,700

160GB SATA HDD 4,300

2x512MB DDR 6,200

X300 PCI-express VGA 3,200

Comes out to just a tad over 30k.  Under 30k if you leave out the nice PSU, but I don't recommend it.  Pretty upgradeable and future-proof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks a lot fot the info Firefoxx.

Can you please tell me the brands for the:

- 160GB SATA HDD 4,300 (I was thinking of ~200GB)

- 2x512MB DDR 6,200

Do you know if the Enermax 365W PSU (at THB 2,100) is at 12 volts ?

Have you seen the price for Gigabyte GA-8IG1000 Pro ?

And please explain what is P4 530 (at THB 7,800) ?

Thanks again.

Edited February 8, 2005 by Condo_bk

[bkk_mike]

I'm currently using P3 450MHz, 256MB RAM, Intel motherboard that I built more that 5 years ago (don't remember exactly). And it is still running hmmm... tho' I'm unable to upgrade my Win98SE. I have many USB devices and need lots of plugs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why are you unable to upgrade this beyond Win 98? XP will run OK (so long as you're not expecting great multi-tasking) on a machine with 256Mb, and if it's an Intel motherboard, you should have no compatibility issues...

I actually have an old Hitachi Flora 310 PC1DL6.

(It's a PC with a built-in LCD monitor from around 1998), and it's even slower (Celeron 333), but it's fine for web-browsing and email. I don't use it for games (except Civ 3), or work, but it was ultra-cheap (6,500 baht), and I liked the form factor. I run XP on it with no issues...

I will admit to having added a PCI card to give it some USB 2 ports since it only came with 2 USB 1.1 ports, and it is just a bit too slow for things like watching DVDs, but it works. (and is virtually silent - unlike any machine with a P4 that isn't water-cooled).

[johnrh]

Returning to the original topic, Prescott processors, a uk newspaper recently ran a series of articles in its weekly techie column on "Xp SP2 issues."

Among the various issues was this -

"So far most of the issues that we've looked at are little more than minor annoyances but for owners of PCs that use some Intel Pentium 4 and Celeron processors installing SP2 can result in a large and very expensive doorstop... This is due to a conflict between the CPU and the BIOS program on the motherboard. All attempts to start the PC, in normal or Safe Mode, or to use System Restore fail and it is so serious that some users have given up, reformatted their hard drives and lost all of the data on their computers.

"For the record the processors at risk are members of the 'Prescott' family of CPUs first released after June 2004, specifically they are Pentium 4s with 1Mb of Level 2 cache and Celeron models with 256 Level 2 cache memory. If you think you have one of these devices in your PC then do not install SP2 before you have visited the Intel website at: http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df...p?ProductID=441. There you will find a free tool that will identify your CPU and check to see if your BIOS program has been properly updated."

I don't know if this is relevant to the discussion, but just thought I'd pop it in.

[The Coder]

The Pentium you should buy is the 600 series coming out this month. This is a true 64-bit processor capable of running the XP 64-bit edition that will come out within a few months (RC2 is already out).

Pentium 600 Series Announcement

People don't yet understand what 64-bit computing means. Some are calling it "extensions" and "more addressing". These CPU's however are true 64-bit processors that when booted up on 64-bit Windows are going to give you a tremendous speed boost. The biggest kept secret is these chips double the number of hardware registers resulting in massive performance gains in addition to processing twice as much data at a time and having more memory capacity. Think about it--you install a new Windows and your machine suddenly runs 5 times faster as if you've bought a brand new processor! It will take time for 64-bit applications to appear (though existing 32-bit apps also work just fine). Then after some time companies won't make 32-bit software anymore and anyone with an old cpu will be stuck. If you want your machine to run fast and last, the processor choice is easy. AMD is already there with plenty of 64-bit chips on tap.

Edited February 9, 2005 by The Coder

[Firefoxx]

Remember that the prices at busitek are only the prices for their shop. You can shop around and get better prices, since busitek sells many specialty items and tends to overprice things a bit.

Prices for harddisks and generic ram (cheap ones) tend to be very similar from brand to brand. So it doesn't really matter which brand you get.

12 volts? Enermax PSUs are "premium" products... they're much better than the 400 baht PSUs that come with cases. All PSUs output 12V lines (along with 5V, and 3.3V, etc. etc).

The P4 530, as explained before, is the "Pentium 4 Prescott model 530 3.0Ghz for the LGA 775 socket".

Prescotts are indeed hotter than Northwoods, but.... Northwoods cannot be found for the LGA 775. Many stores don't sell Northwoods any more, since they've been replaced by the Prescotts. If you buy a socket 478 board now, you're stuck with nearly end-of-life PCI, AGP, and socket 478 products.

[MikeWill]

Lots of useful info, thanks guys.

bkk_mike,

I don't know the exact reason (except to say hardware limitations), but I tried to install both windows XP and 2000, and was unable (setup turned me down). In fact, I'm quite happy with Win98SE - it's quite stable, just slow a bit and have some software limitations.

On the other hand, WinXP soon will require to have a real license to upgrade it.

johnrh,

I installed and run the chip frequency utility you referred to, here are the results:

--

Intel® Processor Frequency ID Utility

Version: 7.2.20041115

Time Stamp: 2005/02/09 15:00:04

Number of processors in system: 1

Current processor: #1

Processor Name: Intel® Pentium® III Processor

Type: 0

Family: 6

Model: 7

Stepping: 3

Revision: E

L1 Instruction Cache: 16 KB

L1 Data Cache: 16 KB

L2 Cache: 512 KB

Packaging: S.E.C.C./S.E.C.C.2

MMX: Yes

SIMD: Yes

Expected Processor Frequency: 450 MHz

Reported Processor Frequency: 450 MHz

Expected System Bus Frequency: 100 MHz

Reported System Bus Frequency: 100 MHz

*************************************************************

Unfortunately, it didn't mention any data related to the BIOS. Maybe since it's P3 and Win98SE.

Anyhow...

Initially, my plan was to go for the .13 mn Northwood core P4 3.0GHz and socket 478 motherboard (Intel or Gigabyte) w/865G Chipset. Actually, I started selecting my new system by choosing the Chipset first, and then researching the other components. It was clear to me that I don't want Prescott, since this CPU have no real advantages over the Northwood, and even have some (heat and other) problems, as mentioned by johnrh.

But... in the light of info provided by The Coder, i.e. Pentium 600, I should probably reconsider my initial plan. I quote from the article referred by The Coder:

"A 64-bit computer microprocessor is not necessarily faster than a 32-bit part, but it allows a computer to accommodate more memory and churn through larger files like video clips faster."

This 64-bit CPU is a real step forward, and I assume that next Windows OS will also be based on 64 bit. This is not a case "to stay behind the curve".

Even so, this will delay my new system probably for half a year or so, but my guts tell me to wait...

Probably that's why Firefoxx was pessimistic about my estimation of 5 years system's lifetime. I also think that shortly after the introduction of 64-bit OS, many other software packages will turn to 64 bit as well.

64-bit Athlons are already here over a year. It is interesting to hear from the owners of this chip. What are their experiences with it, even tho' there are no 64-bit software yet?

[waldwolf]

To throw a little more fuel on the fire, so to speak, let me add to the confusion by noting, just down the road are the "dual-core" and "multi-core" processors.

Dual Core:

A dual-core chip is basically two separate processors on a single chip. Those two processors can outperform single-core processors on most multithreaded applications while running at lower clock speeds and consuming less power and giving off less heat.

An application with multiple software threads will run faster on a dual-core processor because the operating system can assign an individual thread to its own processor core. Multithreaded applications running on a single-core processor must wait for one thread to finish before another thread can be processed.

Intel has said it would shift all of its future server, desktop, and notebook processor development projects to dual-core designs. Intel expects to have a dual-core chip available for each of those three segments during 2005.

AMD has also announced plans for dual-core PC processors. The architecture used to build the Opteron processor makes it easy for AMD's designers to place two processor cores on the same silicon die. The Opteron features an integrated memory controller and Hyper-Transport interconnects which permits the processor to connect to I/O port or directly to another processor.

Multi-Core:

Sony, Toshiba and IBM's have started mass production of 64 bit multi-core "Cell"* processor, running at 4.6Ghz. A "Cell" can integrate between four and 16 processor cores into a single chip, making it capable of more than a trillion floating point calculations per second, or about 100 times more than a Pentium 4 running at 2.4Ghz. Can Intel and AMD be far behind?

* "Cell" is believed to be the processor in Sony's new PlayStation3, scheduled for Christmas 2005 release.

Ain't technology wonderful!

[MikeWill]

You are right waldwolf, the developments in the CPU field are indeed looking promissing. Altho', I afraid that the price of new chips will be in the sky. On the other hand, it will probably prompt the discounts of the older ones, which is good for most of us.

Personally, I will not opt for the dual- or multy-core (as it have no major effect on PC performance - I don't think that the speed is a big issue in today's small home/office systems), but rather stick with the 64-bit ones - "stay behind the curve".

[Firefoxx]

Although AMD already has a 64bit CPU out, and Intel has one on its way, it'll be quite some time before you actually *need* a 64bit cpu to run your favorite software. Since no hardware sites have even a picture of the new CPU, I sincerely doubt that you'll be able to buy it any time soon.

In the end, it all boils down to whether you want/need to buy now or later. Something newer and better is always "just around the corner". If you want to play the waiting game, it'll never end.

If you want to buy now, and just *have* to have a 64-bit CPU, get an AMD system, with a 939 socket that will support multi-core cpus in the future. If not, get the system I mentioned... chances are it will accomodate the newer 64-bit cpus later on.

Remember that your budget also determines whether you can afford to get the bleeding edge tech.

[The Coder]

A few random comments:

Although AMD already has a 64bit CPU out, and Intel has one on its way, it'll be quite some time before you actually *need* a 64bit cpu to run your favorite software.

Especially true as this guy is happy running an ancient operating system (Win98)

Something newer and better is always "just around the corner". If you want to play the waiting game, it'll never end

I would beg to differ in the 64-bit case. In the 1980's, the 386 was ground breaking as it was the first 32-bit processor for the PC, upping the ante to 16-bit chips like the 286 and allowed break through operating systems like Windows 95, OS2, and Unix instead of being stuck with Dos / Windows 3. For the next 20 years, each new processor has basically been nothing more than a faster 386. The 486, Pentiums, and even the upcoming multi-core / cell processors just give more speed, but that's about it.

64-bits is a whole different ballgame. This is going to be the new defacto standard for software, just like the 386 standard for the last 20 years. You can't run 64-bit programs on a 32-bit machine and while today one may not see the advantage and think "big deal", 6 months or a year from now one might see things differently. You also can expand memory past 4GB. Today I run 1GB and it's less than ideal. I figure in 3 years I'll need 8GB of RAM. It would be impossible to upgrade to that much on with a 32-bit processor as it hits a wall at 4GB. Anyone here remember Dos hitting the wall at 640K??? Just another reason why the 64-bit processor is so significant.

Remember that your budget also determines whether you can afford to get the bleeding edge tech.

The amazing thing is AMD's 64-bit chips are cheaper than Intel's 32-bit stuff. You get more and save money at the same time. I can't imagine Intel being able to charge too much of a premium for their 64-bit chips because the PC OEMs would drop them.

64-bit Athlons are already here over a year. It is interesting to hear from the owners of this chip. What are their experiences with it, even tho' there are no 64-bit software yet?

I have one and it works just fine and has seamless compatibility. You would never know the difference between it and a Pentium.

I also dual boot into 64-bit Windows for kicks. It boots up much more quickly, but it's not too exciting as it is still beta and doesn't have all the drivers. I compiled a C++ program with a lot of 32-bit fixed point math as a 32-bit program and a 64-bit program. I ran both versions under 64-bit Windows. To my amazement, the 64-bit version executes 5 times faster!!! I didn't expect much improvement, but apparently the extra hardware registers (went from 8 to 16) are paying off huge in this case since I wasn't even using 64-bit math / memory copies which is where I expected gains would come from. In light of this, I'm pretty optimistic to see how much faster 64-bit applications are than their 32-bit counter parts.

[MikeWill]

In regards to the hardware, I'm not amongst those people who upgrade/renew their systems often. When I'm going to build a new one, my most important considerations are that the system will be reliable and long-lasting.

In light of 64-bit environment, I do agree with you, Firefoxx, the current 32-bit systems will need to be upgraded in about 3 years. And as The Coder justifiedly mentioned, it isn't a question of just speed anymore.

Something newer and better is always "just around the corner".  If you want to play the waiting game, it'll never end

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would beg to differ in the 64-bit case... In the 1980's, the 386 was ground breaking as it was the first 32-bit processor for the PC... For the next 20 years, each new processor has basically been nothing more than a faster 386. The 486, Pentiums, and even the upcoming multi-core / cell processors just give more speed, but that's about it.

64-bits is a whole different ballgame. This is going to be the new defacto standard for software, just like the 386 standard for the last 20 years. You can't run 64-bit programs on a 32-bit machine and while today one may not see the advantage and think "big deal", 6 months or a year from now one might see things differently. You also can expand memory past 4GB... Just another reason why the 64-bit processor is so significant.

Remember that your budget also determines whether you can afford to get the bleeding edge tech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The amazing thing is AMD's 64-bit chips are cheaper than Intel's 32-bit stuff. You get more and save money at the same time. I can't imagine Intel being able to charge too much of a premium for their 64-bit chips because the PC OEMs would drop them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For me it is not a never ending game of waiting (just a couple of months ago I start thinking of a new system), but now, I do want to jump to the 64-bit wagon.

It's probably better to wait for awhile and compare the 64-bit Athlons with upcoming Intel.

Don't you agree?

64-bit Athlons are already here over a year. It is interesting to hear from the owners of this chip. What are their experiences with it, even tho' there are no 64-bit software yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have one and it works just fine and has seamless compatibility. You would never know the difference between it and a Pentium.

I also dual boot into 64-bit Windows for kicks. It boots up much more quickly, but it's not too exciting as it is still beta and doesn't have all the drivers. I compiled a C++ program with a lot of 32-bit fixed point math as a 32-bit program and a 64-bit program. I ran both versions under 64-bit Windows. To my amazement, the 64-bit version executes 5 times faster!!! I didn't expect much improvement, but apparently the extra hardware registers (went from 8 to 16) are paying off huge in this case since I wasn't even using 64-bit math / memory copies which is where I expected gains would come from. In light of this, I'm pretty optimistic to see how much faster 64-bit applications are than their 32-bit counter parts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you think that the same (You would never know the difference between it and a Pentium) will apply when comparing both in 64-bit?

Would you go for the 64-bit Athlon, without waiting for Pentium?

[waldwolf]

For info, earlier today, Microsoft announced their final beta release (RC2) of the 32/64 dual-bit WindowsXP Professional x64 Edition has been shipped to beta testers. Final release of the OS is expected to ship before the end of the 2nd quarter.

Intel also just announced they have completed initial production runs of their new dual-core processors and desktop versions of these dual-core's will be shipped next week.

At the same time, Dell announced it expects to offer dual-core processors in "high-end" systems very shortly.

In the 32/64 bit argument, one should keep in mind that software for these platforms lags way behind hardware. Always has and probably will, for the foreseeable future.

As the old saying goes; "you's pays you's money and takes you's choice".