Anyone buy an Athlon 64 yet?

[DennyA]

So any of you early adopter types drop the big bucks on your very own Athlon 64 rig yet?

I won't even be tempted until the 64-bit Windows XP release is available. But I am curious as to how well the architecture performs in everyday use (vs. web site benchmark sprees) and if there are any compatibility glitches.

[Bull]

I won't even be tempted until the 64-bit Windows XP release is available.

Not being an early adopter type, I probably fit best under the wait till it comes down in price and the various pundits have told me all I need to know about it.

I thought 64-bit XP shipped already. At least, I'm pretty sure I have a disk sitting around here somewhere. Can you even install it on a non 64-bit hardware platform?

[Machfive]

I spent all my money upgrading my other PC parts, and lagged along on a PIII 750 until just this past March. I'd been using that or a PIII 500 since mid '99.

I doubt I'll be able to afford to jump on the A64 bandwagon until prices drop a very good deal.

[Rywill]

I'm with Denny: waiting for Longhorn. I was planning an upgrade around Christmas, which was originally supposed to be to a 64-bit Athlon. I guess I'll go with a fast regular one for now...by the time the 64-bit stuff is ready for primetime, it'll probably be upgrade time again anyway.

[Qenan]

I was planning to upgrade this fall but nothing is really motivating me to do it -- I'll wait for after Christmas some time. I will probably buy an Athlon 64 but would rather wait until they get the new versions and hopefully the price comes down.

[Alan Dunkin]

I see that 1.6 Ghz are going for about $400 at Newegg, and a Asus MB is about $140 I think. Might be worth it for a spare box (and money)... er, not my money though, I'm poor :)

--- Alan

[awdougherty]

I wouldn't mind plopping down the cash for one this Christmas, what do people think the prices will be at around then? What's up with XP 64 bit edition? Is there a 64bit server 2003 trial download like there is for the regular 32 bit (get to use it for 6 months)?

[John Reynolds]

I'm with Denny: waiting for Longhorn. I was planning an upgrade around Christmas, which was originally supposed to be to a 64-bit Athlon. I guess I'll go with a fast regular one for now...by the time the 64-bit stuff is ready for primetime, it'll probably be upgrade time again anyway.

Denny was referring to a 64-bit version of XP due early next year, not Longhorn -- which is now due 2006.

[Bull]

Denny was referring to a 64-bit version of XP due early next year

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/faq.asp


Q. When will it be available?

A. Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2002 originally shipped on August 25th, 2001. Service Pack 1 for Version 2002 shipped on August 30th, 2002.

Is this what you guys are talking about?

[DennyA]

Nope, Bull, that's a 64-bit version for the Intel Itanium (or "Itanic," as TheReg calls it :-) ).

There's a new version in the works for Athlon XP.

One interesting about the FAQ on the Itanium 64-bit Windows -- it says it doesn't support 16-bit applications. Hope that's not true of the Athlon 64 version; that would eliminate compatibility many Win 95 games. This limitation may be Itanium-based, though. The Athlon 64 itself certainly supports 16-bit code.

[Bull]

Ah, thanks for setting me straight, Denny!

I try not to look too closely at the new hardware gear as it comes out, becasue I just can't bear to window shop. I just upgraded not too long ago to a 2400+ on an Nforce2 board, so I am probably not going to be able to rationalize an upgrade (a big one) for another year or so.

[DennyA]

Got curious and found an article about the Athlon 64 version of XP. (www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64xp&page=1)

It says 32-bit drivers won't be supported. That's gonna be a headache for anyone using peripherals that are more than a year or two old.

[Chris Nahr]

It says 32-bit drivers won't be supported.

I'm not surprised. That would be a major stability and performance issue, just like DOS and Win 3.x drivers were for Windows 9x. Microsoft probably wants to avoid the support requests and bad publicity this time around...

[Ben Sones]

So any of you early adopter types...

Coming from the King of Early Adopters, that's sorta funny.

;)

[JD]

I thought 64-bit XP shipped already.
The version we're talking about is currently in the alpha or beta stage. It's already been used by some mags and sites for Athlon64 benchmarks, but there's still a notable lack of driver support when it comes to 3rd parties. When the c't benchmarked the A64, only nVidia and Via could provide (alpha) drivers. Nothing from ATI. Also, the 32-Bit device drivers don't work at all. All Win32 apps run fine in the compatility layer UNLESS they're trying to take advantage of aforementioned drivers/devices. The final version of 'Windows XP 64-Bit Edition for 64-Bit Extended Systems' is said to ship mid of 2004.

[nutsak]

I don't want the Athlon64 I want the AthlonFX :-P

As far as I can tell the A64 is a server CPU.. the FX for the home user... though essentially they are pretty similar... go look up the benchmarks on your fav hardware sites for a look...

<--- AMD fanboi (but only because his best mate is a yuppie with a P4 3Ghz.. and the FX whoops the P4s)

[Desslock]

I really don't understand why anyone would by this now, and I'm a pretty big early adopter myself.

[Jason Cross]

I really don't understand why anyone would by this now, and I'm a pretty big early adopter myself.

The reason to buy it now, if someone were interested, would be to run 32-bit Windows on it. The Athlon 64 is a very fast 32-bit CPU, after all. And when it comes to game performance, the Athlon 64 FX-51 pretty much tops every other thing on the market.

So the idea behind buying one now would be: badass performance in regular 'ol existing WindowsXP with regular apps, and then later you can upgrade to 64-bit Windows XP.

Of course, there are price considerations and questions about the 64-bit Windows XP (driver availability for stuff like printers and scanners and such, how many 64-bit optimized programs there will be to take advantage of it, etc).

You'd have a pretty rockin' system even if you never did a single 64-bit thing on it, ever.

[Desslock]

I really don't understand why anyone would by this now, and I'm a pretty big early adopter myself.

You'd have a pretty rockin' system even if you never did a single 64-bit thing on it, ever.

Sure, but it's not more rocking than Intel systems, and not cheaper, yet it's new technology (so programmers are bound to initially have occasional compatibility problems).

[Jason Becker]

I really don't understand why anyone would by this now, and I'm a pretty big early adopter myself.

You'd have a pretty rockin' system even if you never did a single 64-bit thing on it, ever.

Sure, but it's not more rocking than Intel systems, and not cheaper, yet it's new technology (so programmers are bound to initially have occasional compatibility problems).


It beats the fastest P4 across the board in games. No its not cheaper but its only for the bleeding edge "I don't care about price people" right now.

[nutsak]

Try these reviews for size... you could probably find more (seeing as both these sites are flamed for being bias) .. but oh well... keep in mind teh Ghz factor as well when looking at the scores... I haven't found one of the new CPUs in oz yet... but I'm betting when they do get here I'll have to put my place of for mortgage ( even though I only rent it :) )


http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1884&p=10

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

swoit mate swoit

[Desslock]

It beats the fastest P4 across the board in games. No its not cheaper but its only for the bleeding edge "I don't care about price people" right now.

The performance differences are pretty nominal (as those Anand/Tom's links show), and yet according to Anand's price watch, it's basically twice the price of a P4 3.2 800 FSB system.

I don't mind paying more for performance, but I don't think there's any real-world benefit to Athlon64s right now, and it's twice the price, and it'll probably have a few new technology compatibility problems. I think it's a bad choice, unless you're upgrading anyway and are looking forward to the 64bit o/s.

[Jason Becker]

I never said it was a value to get one. :D You can always step down a little in speed from whatever's the current top of the line and save a fair or sometimes allot of money.


" and it'll probably have a few new technology compatibility problems. I think it's a bad choice, unless you're upgrading anyway and are looking forward to the 64bit o/s."


That just sounds like Intel fanboy talk. I don't want to stray from the supposedly more safe confines of the Intel world. That kind of talk is no diffrent than the poeple who don't want to buy a ATI card because of what happened years ago. I believe that hasn't stopped you from owning a ATI card has it?

[Desslock]

That just sounds like Intel fanboy talk. I don't want to stray from the supposedly more safe confines of the Intel world. That kind of talk is no diffrent than the poeple who don't want to buy a ATI card because of what happened years ago. I believe that hasn't stopped you from owning a ATI card has it?

Nope, but it stopped me from owning an ATI card for the first several months after the 9700 Pro was initially released, with is the same sort of cautionary period I'd advocate gamers take before purchasing a AMD64.

I couldn't be less of a fanboy for any hardware company - I'm completely objective and, if anything, a bandwagon guy, instead, when it comes to hardware:

--loved creative sound cards, dumped them when driver problems started with the Live cards, and went back to 'em when the Audigy 2 seemed more viable than Turtle beach or other competitors;

-- loved 3dfx until the Voodoo 3 (and still bought one, just to play Ultima 9), recommended Nvidia from the TNT 1/2 up until the GF 4600, recommended ATI since the 9700/9800 proved itself. If Nvidia produces a better featured card, with better image quality and resolves its driver issues, I'll go back too.

-- choose Intel by default, really until the Thunderbird (never saw any reason to get an AMD 486)... then for a long run AMD was a better choice, especially in terms of cost...been back to Intel since the P4s HT, and taking a wait and see approach on the Athlon 64s.

I really couldn't be less of a fanboy -- I'm very happy to dump a company when I think something better has come along. I just don't think that's yet the case with the Athlon 64s.

[DennyA]

Somebody answered that they actually had one. C'mon, lurker-boy, fess up!

[Desslock]

It was me.

[Bull]

It was me, but I was just pulling your leg.

Heh, this is like an episode of Truth or Consequences!

[Qenan]

Intel slashed prices on their pentiums today --
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-5097581.html?tag=nefd_top

It's now cheaper to buy a 3.2 GHz P4 than an Athlon64... that will put pressure on AMD. (AMD also reduced prices, but not on the 64-bit chips.)

[steve]

Somebody answered that they actually had one. C'mon, lurker-boy, fess up!
It was me, though I didn't actually BUY the thing. You kidding?

[Desslock]

I'm Spartacus.


It's now cheaper to buy a 3.2 GHz P4 than an Athlon64... that will put pressure on AMD. (AMD also reduced prices, but not on the 64-bit chips.)

The P4 3.2 were always cheaper than the Athlon64s, which is one of the reasons I didn't think they were worthwhile, at least until they prove themselves on 64 bit systems. Now the Athlon 64 is almost twice as expensive for no real-world performance gains, and the "joy" of dealing with potential new technology incompatibilities. It's a crazy purchase, in my opinion.

[Jason Becker]

I'm sure he means the Athlon 64 3200+ not the FX-51 model version.

[Qenan]

I'm sure he means the Athlon 64 3200+ not the FX-51 model version.

Yes, I did. Since the Athlon 64 3200+ was also faster than the top end Intel chip for most games tested, it had a competitive advantage. Now it doesn't.