time to upgrade

By Norehca ·
my pc stats

K8V SE Deluxe mobo
AMD Athlon 64 3700+ cpu
1gb pc3200 RAM
160GB hdd
vistiontek radeon x1950 pro video card
cd/dvd burner with lightscribe
400watt ultra modular psu

i hear about all these dual core CPU's and how Intel is all of a sudden surpassed AMD in terms of performance? yikes when did this happen? Guess i need ot get back in the game here. I dunno thats a discussion for later. And hen theres the ddr2 ram. Im wondering is it time for an upgrade? i hope not! i just spent good money on a new video card! if not my whole computer, then what part of it? Oh and another question. Ive got a copy of windows xp pro x64 which i got from a friend who wanst using it. Should i use that instead of xp 32bit?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

Why bother....

by JamesRL In reply to time to upgrade

You have a system that can run 95% of the apps out there without any issues. You may want to increase your RAM for some applications, but for the most part you have a good balanced computer.

You have more CPU and Video card than me, and I spend many hours a week playing a pretty demanding game.

I've looked at some benchmarks, and the only thing a newer faster processor might help you on is tasks like 3D rendering(think photoshop filters), DVD imaging and compressions, video editing etc.

I would NOT recommend the 64 bit OS unless and until you verify that your applications are compatible and you get a performance boost. For most people, its not a step up, its a step backwards, because if you don't have 64 bit drivers, you can actually decrease performance.


Collapse -

A dual

by Dumphrey In reply to Why bother....

core processor will only give better speed/performance if the program is designed to take advantage of the second core. Photoshop, Quark, QBase, Oracle, basicly audio/video rendering and transforming software and big database programs. Dual core chips tend to have 2 cores running slower then a single core of the same price. and with dual core chips, you still have the same memory bus as on a single core, but its split between 2 cores. Most people never see q performance hit here because most of what they do only uses one core on the die. So unless you NEED more performance, and you can find a dual core chip that has a as much processing power on ONE core as your current chip, it would be a waste on $$.

Collapse -

great again!

by Norehca In reply to A dual

thanks alot! wow i didnt know that. learning something new every day. thanks much!

theres something else ive always wondered. wonderin if you could answer for me. AMD processors are wierd. Like mine for instance is a 3700+. But its at 2.4ghz or something. Whats the speed? 3700 or 2400mhz? ANd if its 2400mhz why such a low speed? Intel has cpu's at like 4000+ mhz!

Collapse -

Ah young grasshopper....

by JamesRL In reply to great again!

AMD names their processors for the equivalent speed of an Intel, so they suggest an Athlon 3700+ is the equivalent to a 3.7 Ghz Pentium IV. The actual speed isn't relevant as the AMD chip is running on a faster bus, but at a slower speed.

Most benchmarks will show this to be fairly accurate. You can check out Tom's hardware for benchmarks of CPUs.

So AMD did lead the price/performance wars up until the Core2Duo. But I suspect that between new cores and price drops the war isn't over yet.


Collapse -

i knew it!

by Norehca In reply to Ah young grasshopper....

i always told myself that the number was the mathamatical equivelency of an intel processor. I wasnt quite sure though. Thanks for clarifying! Your the man!

Collapse -


by Norehca In reply to Why bother....

thats all i needed to know! Thanks very much! As for the x64 windows, ill give it a try. I looked up all my hardware and there are 64bit drivers for all of it! My soud card, video card, chipset, all of it!

Collapse -

Danger Will Roberson

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to great

Not only do you need 64 Bit drivers for your Hardware you also need 64 Bit Software.

So even if you can load XP 64 you then need the software to run on it. Not many people are happy with just a M$ OS as a computer. I currently have 2 64 Bit XP Pro OS's here given to me by M$ that I've yet to find any use for as while I can load them I can not use them with any software currently available.

You also need to make sure that things like Printers and scanners have 64 Bit Drivers or they will not work.

If M$ is giving away copies of it's 64 Bit OS by all means take one but don't ever buy one as you'll be wasting your money much faster than buying a Dual Core CPU and suitable M'Board and running Vista.


Collapse -

ive used it before

by Norehca In reply to Danger Will Roberson

ive used x64 once before but i really had no idea what i was doing haha. I also didnt know this forum existed. But i do now so im asking. All the software seemed to work fine on windows xp x64. THey were all 32bit software and i didnt notice any change in performance. I hear software is soon to come out made for 64bit computers, so i figure i should be ready. And Vista x64 is NOT an option. I tired the 64bit version of Vista RC1 and had many problems.

I also hear windows XP x64 edition has extra layers of security, is this correct?

Collapse -

We I fully agree with you about Vista 64

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to ive used it before

It's about as useful as teats on a bull, no actually come to think of it teats on a bull would be more useful than the 64 Bit Version of Vista.

As for the 64 Bit Version of XP it's supposed to run 32 Bit applications but causes some problems with the ones that I was using and irregular crashes where all unsaved work was lost. As I also have Video Capture Cards and several printers connected to this unit I found nothing available as 64 Bit Drivers for some major hardware.

The Major improvements in Security are in encrypting files but this is also a double edged sword as if you forget to save the encryption keys your backups become a useless jumble of nothing which you are unable to recover.

I've run XP 64 on some single use boxes to do specific jobs but over all I wasn't happy with it.

You might like to look at this TR Discussion and while not directly relating to the 64 Bit XP it does relate to the Encryption Methods employed by Windows and the people here are in real problems the 64 Bit version makes this much worse.


Back to Hardware Forum
10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums