Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Processor?


  • Please log in to reply

#1
domyue

domyue

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
Hi guys,
What processor do you recommend?? An Athlon or Intel - I know its one of those longstanding dilemmas, but at this moment in time and also thinking about future expansion...which is better?

I also mean 64bit (Athlon 64 X2 series or wait for the Intel??)
Is it worth going for dual processor (that is what the Athlon 64 X2 is right?)

Basically, I need a simplistic answer if possible :tazz: Cos i know its a complicated issue.
I'm thinking of buying it at around February 2006 btw. So is it worth the BTX format wait too???

Considering all these, I'm really not sure where to stand. Please give me your opinion.

Thanks!!
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
Xorgroth

Xorgroth

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
Yeah, very long debate of course AMD is that everyone who loves gaming thing. But that is starting to drift away now, starting to evolve out of that GAMERS main interest in AMD. Like I usually say, depends on what you want out of it...Intel has that edge on basic everyday internet, emails and task sort of thing. Dual-processing yeah, that X2 is nice, buy one for me? :tazz: 64-bit is the highest you can go, Unix and Linux have had 64-bit OSes for long time now....just now the mainstream has caught up on it. Anyway, I see it as wait or get get what you want now..ehh...to waiting on PC parts...
  • 0

#3
Xorgroth

Xorgroth

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
Ok, well I hadn't heard until today that the Intel 64-bit CPUs aren't backwards compatable. So, you can't run 32-bit software and there is no 64-bit program that I know of that even exists for Win/Mac...So, unless you want to get a 64-bit CPU that will run pretty nothing...go for it. Otherwise, get that nice X2 and run everything. :tazz:

Xorgroth
  • 0

#4
domyue

domyue

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
Hi, Thanks for your input!!
That's really stupid of intel to make it not backward compatible! Well What about FX-57??
I mean i'm thinking of AMD because of price and the more advanced technology they have right now. I'm using it for everyday use - movies, downloading (pretty intensively).

So i'm not sure of the diferences on FX-57, Athlon XP and X2

Can you please gimme your opinion on them??

Thanks dude!!
  • 0

#5
Xorgroth

Xorgroth

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
Well, of course the FX isn't dual-core and the XP isn't even 64-bit. Got a XP recently because I didn't feel like going 64 just yet...want a new monitor for that...The XP is alright does fine, if it hads the Barton core. Doubled up cache on one side.
You wanted a 64-bit though right? So X2 and FX are the ones you want...X2 would preform better than FX just because of the dual-processing...cache wise its doubled up and Well, I
d just take the advantage of the X2 and get it....seems better to me.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP