Here is a snippet of an article you might find interesting...Don't throw away those 32 bit cpu's yet!

I was getting worried that I might not be able to upgrade soon because of the high price of 64 bit technology...seems INTEL doesn't think that I need to upgrade.

START of ARTCLE:

64-bit desktop computing unnecessary, says Intel CTO
Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003
at 7:28 AM by Dom - View Article Comments


AMD and Apple are touting 64-bit computing on the desktop far too quickly, Intel CTO Pat Gelsinger said today.

Moving beyond 32-bit addressing is "really not needed for several more years", he told reporters attending the Intel Developer Forum in San Jose.

AMD, of course, isn't going to wait that long. Next week, the company will unveil its long-awaited 64-bit desktop processor, the Athlon 64. And, just a few weeks ago, Apple began shipping its Power Mac G5 desktop based on the 64-bit IBM PowerPC 970 processor.

But if Gelsinger's comments are anything to go by, Intel believes its rivals are coming to market too early.

"How many [users] have seen the crippling 4GB limit on their desktop PCs?" he asked. Today, he claimed, there aren't apps that need more than the 4GB offered by virtual memory schemes, let alone however much physical memory is available.

So when will 64-bit computing on the desktop become a necessity? "As a rule of thumb, address space [requirements] consume a bit every two years," he said. "We're at 1GB now and starting to see 2GB. So we're probably about three of four years away from really needing that 4GB on general desktops. That puts you out in the 2006/07 timeframe."

That's not to say Intel won't come to market with a desktop 64-bit processing sooner than that, either through licensed AMD64 technology or a variant of its own. But if it does, it clearly won't because the market needs that level of addressing.

Intel has long been rumoured to be working on an alternative to AMD64, codenamed 'Yamhill'. If Intel ever releases a processor based on Yamhill technology, it's unlikely to arrive before 2005, at least one analyst has claimed. Some observers have speculated that the next generation of Pentium processor, 'Prescott', already incorporates Yamhill, but has it physically turned off. If that's the case, it will almost certainly be in future Xeons too, ready to be switched on if Apple or AMD begin eating too far into Intel's market share.

________________________
Source: TheRegister
http://www.theregister.co.uk/

one thing, IBM and apple and many other chip makers have been using 64bit tech for a long time now, not just recently, 64 bit tech has been around since the 1980's but never put into play. and also this just came to mind the matroz video card and 3d lab cards are 64 bit. also with 64 bit it is lower power nad lower clock for more speed, and lower power means less heat and more effichient processing. but i would still wait for at least v5 of a amd 64 bit or intel (if one comes out) before i buy it.

and yea just thought of this too, i know some apps that i jsut almost every day taht use at least 4gb page file or ram, VIDEO EDITING OR 3D RENDERING. they use everything the system can throw at them
and with 64 bit the rendering time should be cut almost in half with sata with it too

well I guess that's just a damn shame now isn't it....

*runs to local computer store and unloads 3 G's on a dual-Opteron rig*

To Hell with Intel

This is AMD kicking Intel's ass:

HAIL TO AMD BECAUSE INTEL MADE A STUPID REMARK AGAIN! And I thought I made the right choice by switching to Intel about a month ago, NOW WAS I PROVED WRONG OR WHAT! I don't support companies that make stupid comments like that.

"Isn't needed" he says. HA. We always need more power and faster processors. If they keep this type of attitude up they will soon become overshadowed by AMD. Damn I love competition! If it were for people like this we would still be paying hundreds of bucks for the newest P2 to come out so these companies can milk us for every possible cent they can get.

Intel-->

remember intel wanted to sell out and keep tabs on our computer sue with a little chip on thier CPUs. remember they have a superlong pipeline so thats why they had to go with clock speeds. they are just another corrupt corperation who wants money. it happens to every company when they get successful. they lose their morals to produce the best product to help technology develop and turn to money makeing. as in sony, microsoft, etc
lAnonymousl is right that if we didnt have two or more other companies (one now since cyrix never caught on) competeing against intel we would still be useing P2s

Intel hasn't got product so their CTO goes "Don't buy from someone else 'cause I think you don't need it". Is there a word beyond lamest? Extra-most lamest with a double-portion of lame-o sauce? Intel has - in the past and often - tried to control the marketplace with 'You dont need this This chip is for servers blah blah blah' rhetoric. And the marketplace generally ignores them. As it will this time.
-MF

I'm an AMD guy but after seeing the tom's hardware benchmarks I'm not sure 64 bit tech. and "relative performance" XXXX+ is better than Intel's pure clock speed strat.

the new intel P4 Extreme at 3.6 ghz with a 800 mhz FSB outperformed the AMD FX 51 64 bit CPU rated at 3200+, the AMD did beat out the old intel P4 3.2 ghz



also could someone just tell me what the 64's FSB it? I saw it labeled at 1600 mhz at newegg.com but in Tom's it just offers the 200 mhz base clock, not the X

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html

The AMD 64 does not have a FSB as we know it. It uses hypertransport link, with the memory controller on the cpu itself, the fsb is pretty much elimenated. The hypertransport runs at 800mhz last I read.

while yeah, 64-bit can add better performance for 64-bit applications- we dont have 64-bit applications. As for 32-bit applications the performance is actualy hindered. Sure UT 2004 is supposed to be 64-bit, and we're sure to see more 64-bit apps here and there, microsoft aint goin to 64-bit OS's till 2006, and if intel aint jumpin on board either, most will shy away until longhorn. So, yeah AMD has better performance now, ooohh, so does any company that realeases a whole new technology before the oponet can release a retaliation, did any of us expect a P4 to outperform a Athlon64? honestly, i never did, but the integrated ram bus (hehehe rambus) was something intel already expressed that they wanted to do for the P5 (before AMD) and as Arkangel says, the P4 X beats out the Athlon 64- so as soon as that comes out, (in a mo. or so) intel will regain control over the market with performance, so no, why the hell would you need a 64bit cpu, especcially when the 32-bit cpu is better- just thought i'd mention that

32 bit applications are not hindered in a 64 bit system. They run faster. The only case that your statment is true is in a Itium system and thats because its be run in emulation.

Let me just add a follow up with a few things;

the P4 Extreme is not being sold retail ATM, the 64 is.

the P4E is just a Xeon renamed and alter, like the FX is an Opetron remade

the P4E appears to be nothing more than a move by Intel to hinder 64 sales, I dont even know if the P4E is going to go public, for all we know its INtel's little marketing ploy, what we need to see is the P5

the 64 IS the best out there ATM, however its not what I, maybe we, expected. I was looking for AMD to stop f'ing around with "special tech" and just go pure speed, because when all is said and done, pure speed is always a winner. The 64's obvious proweress, the 64 bit tech, will be limited, again, because of Intel's little ****block. What was I looking for? 3.2 GHZ with 64 bit tech and the new memory controller, add in an nForce3 co-laumch with the nForce 3 being Audigy quailty sound and with video DX9 capable with 5200 level performance (ok, abit less performance but to have the tech).

What did we get? 64 bit tech and new memory controller technology. Also AMD appears to now use XXXX+ in relation to INtel as their new 3200+ type chip is waaay beyond the old 3200+ Barton, if they kept the same scale it would be around 4000+, smart AMD.


My 2cents again?
It looks like the next few months in the tech world are going to be alot of proof of concept (64 bit tech, Doom 3 engine, DX9 stuff). I'm going to guess that the P5 will be released round Xmas, once Intel knows what people want after reading up on hte 64, then Intel will give us a FSB over 1000mhz, and a core clock of 4ghz OR they will tout .09 micron tech with their own version of 64 bit tech (after finding out that their word ISNT law) and their own HT stuff. All in all this stuff will be all the rage for enthusist but for the rest of us (or those like me who dont have the $$$) the goods come next year with solidified performance, hopefully a bigger range of AMD 64's (come on AMD, only a 3200+ FX and a 3200+ 64??? we need a better range) new graphics cards, ATI 's will be badder than ever and nVidia will make a new card ACTUALLY ment for DX9.. To top it off new memory will be introduced and hard drives will rain from the skies.....


ok, that was abit of unnecisary stuff and the last bit was getting sarcastic but its stuff I felt like saying so either enjoy or you just scrolled past me...

Hello,

Just found a few benchmarks of a 64 bit chip. There are graphs and even a link to FUTUREMARK benchmarks.

Review link:
http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...JsX3BhZ2U9Mg==

FutureMark Benchmark link:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7028955


*3DMark Score 20537 3D marks*
System Configurations
Compared System
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
DirectX Version 9.0
Mobo Manufacturer ASUSTeK Computer INC.
Mobo Model 'SK8N'
AGP Rates
(Current/Available) N/A / N/A
CPU Unknown 2310 MHz
FSB 200 MHz
Memory 1024 MB
Graphics Chipset ATI RADEON 9800 PRO
Driver Name RADEON 9800 PRO
Driver Version 6.14.10.6378
Video Memory 128 MB
Program Version 3DMark2001 SE
Resolution 1024x768 32bit
Texture Format Compressed
FSAA Disabled
Z-Buffer Depth 24bit
Frame Buffer Double
Rendering Pipeline D3D Pure Hardware T&L
Detailed Test Results
Game 1 Car Chase - Low Detail 270.5 FPS
Game 1 Car Chase - High Detail 110.0 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - Low Detail 360.0 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - High Detail 189.2 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - Low Detail 299.8 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - High Detail 139.7 FPS
Game 4 Nature 122.8 FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) N/A
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) N/A
High Polygon Count (1 light) N/A
High Polygon Count (8 lights) N/A
Environment Bump Mapping N/A
DOT3 Bump Mapping N/A
Vertex Shader N/A
Pixel Shader N/A
Advanced Pixel Shader N/A
Point Sprite N/A

J.

bwahaha funny stuff.

In most cases, you dont need to spend 700 bucks upgradin your 32bit to a 64- just go with a 2.4c or the like the 2.4c can be overclocked to get the best performance out of any P4 (i dunno how it stacks against a A64) and until the A64 was one of the best cpus money could buy. that means if your gonna overclock its better than a 3.2, with a 3.2 you have around the same core speed peak as the 2.4, except with the 2.4 you can get higher FSB yeilds- and both OC'd around the same speed get simaler temps and stability, and better performance out of the 2.4, the reason you cant go higher with a 3.2 is because the core begins to reach its limits, (just as the barton hit a wall at 2.2ghz) so higher speeds on a P4 wont be available till prescott (wich will be a P4 not P5 BTW) that was kinda off topic, but given the tiny bit you can OC a athlon 64- screw AMD- you could squeeze just as much juice out of a P4

Seems great and all, but I'd say it's still too early to tell how much juice this thing'll put out. Either way, a 64-bit consumer proc that operates 32-bit applications even faster still only gives you a faster processor and you'll most likely never use a 64-bit program in the entire life of the computer itself.

At least AMD finally has a faster processor out...as opposed to the overclocked P4C dominated futuremark

It seems like this 64-bit for the time being is75% marketing and 25% functionality. As previously stated, what purpose IS a 64 bit version of what is essentially just an XP processor have to offer? It seems that AMD may have been better of developing this 64 processor a little further, waited at least another 6 months, and sold a bigger range, in the mean time, sticking with the Barton. Oh well, you can't get big support for something that isn't sold. Overall, I'd say this is a step in the right direction, a LARGE step, just a big premature.

AMD + 1

Tom10167 - What AMD wasn't premature, they're forcing Intel to use their 64bit extensions. It is part marketing, but good margin power play.