64-bit or 32-bit PC ?

Jukkis · Post by **Jukkis** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:31 pm

ok. I've basically 2 different options for updating my old pc.

64-bit version

- AMD processor 64-bit
- SATA harddrive
- +128 MB videocard
- new motherboard (support for "future" techniques (?))
- +512 MB DDR (?) DRAM
- new box and power supply (300-400 W?)

32-bit version

- AMD processor Athlon something...
- ide harddrive
- +128 MB videocard
- new motherboard (support current techniques (?))
- +512 MB DDR (?) DRAM
- new box and power supply (300-400 W?)

as you can see, there isn't really exact details of processor, videocard etc.

which one of AMD's 64-bit sockets I should choose if I select to buy 64-bit computer ?

I'm using computer for post-production (after effects etc.), 3d (3d max etc.), video editing (premiere pro etc.), possibly video mixing (Arkhaos, max-msp/jitter etc.) and music (max-msp,puredata,sound forge others ?).

I think it makes sense to invest some money for videocard, since I'm making video and 3d.

any recommendations for which one to choose (maybe something under 200 euros) ?

operating system is most likely Windows XP.

I've decent monitor, so I don't need to buy new one right now.

all other parts from old machine goes to exchange.

audiocard I'm purchasing separately (it will be something mac/pc compatible via usb .... (?))

what kind of setup would be best for me ?

I think 64-bit computer will cost nearly double to what I pay for similar 32-bit setup. (?)

it is really worth it ?

my budget is 600-800 euros.

I would be really pleased, if someone can suggest whole setup (excluding box) for me.

since I'm quite confused with all new processors and motherboard, socket models.

for my girlfriend it is important that PC would be as silent as possible.

BillyGoat · Post by **BillyGoat** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:57 pm

really if your building it yourself the a 64 setup should not be double the cost, maybe about 30% more.
The applications that you are doing could really benefit from the htt technology on the a64, the onboard memory conrtoller is wicked fast. That being said, I would recommend more ram for a video/photo editing machiene.

Jukkis · Post by **Jukkis** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:59 pm

ok. thanks for info.

yes... ram was +512 MB, not 512 MB.

I guess just using Premiere Pro and XP needs more than 512 MB ram.

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:42 pm

Here's a good link for AMDs 64 bit cpus:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/di ... -90nm.html

Is you google search it, you'll find ALOT more info too. Then go to http://www.pricewatch.com and check prices. You can search for separate items or combos too.

The 64 bit systems are costlier but you'll get more bang for your buck IMO.

BTW, memory isn't that costly now and if you look in the Hot Deals forum here, you'll see some good links for 1 gb of memory cheap. I'm even thinking of adding more myself.

.............OK, FIXED error and NOT a big deal

impuresoul2k3 · Post by **impuresoul2k3** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:09 am

Alright evil, you struck a nerve. It's 1GB not GHZ

Jukkis · Post by **Jukkis** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:58 am

Originally posted by BillyGoat
really if your building it yourself the a 64 setup should not be double the cost, maybe about 30% more.
The applications that you are doing could really benefit from the htt technology on the a64, the onboard memory conrtoller is wicked fast. That being said, I would recommend more ram for a video/photo editing machiene.

hmm... I still haven't bought new computer.

I decided to get one with SATA drive anyway, which puts some demans for the motherboard.

and I would also like to have firewire connection on motherboard due video editing.

I would also appreciate of digital input for sound, if it doesn't increase price for motherboard too much.

what about these options :

ASRock K8 Combo-Z/AS

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1699

it would support both 754 and 939 processors, but it doesn't have firewire.

actually I've one extra firewire card (3 connectors) but I couldn't get it working
due missing drivers...

then there's quite a lot ASUS 64-bit 754 motherboards with firewire connection.

and then these 2 32-bit socket a motherboards which have firewire connection and abit
has even digital input.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mainbo ... uxe_2.html

http://www.digital-daily.com/motherboard/abit-an7/

what's confusing me is that these old 'top' model socket a motherboards are nearly as
expensive as new 64-bit motherboards.

on the other hand... if choice is 64-bit motherboard, I can't afford buying 939 boxed processor... not even chepest model. it's increasing my budget too much....

what's difference between 754 and 939 processors ?

-------------------------------------------------
this is currently my list for what kind of setup to buy :

ASUS ATV600 72e (32-bit,SATA,RAID)
Sempron 2400+ boxed 60e
Asus GeForce FX 5200
128 Mt AGP 60e
512 Mt, 400 MHz DDRx2 126e
Maxtor DiamondMax
Plus 9 (120 Gt, 7200 RPM) 84e
NEC ND-3520A
DVD+-RW DL 16X 67e

overall price 469e

with 64-bit motherboard (socket 754) and 64-bit processor (athlon 2800+ boxed) whole package would cost +70e more.

while looking tom's hardware processor tests, it seems that 64-bit processor would be appx. 60-70% faster than sempron 2400+.... ???

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004122 ... #directx_9

in the end I'm making multimedia stuff where processing power + RAM are most critical aspects for getting best advantage for bucks used.

I understood that graphics card is more critical for 3d and games (?).

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:12 am

Suggestion: get a Socket 939 motherboard, Socket 754 is being phased out, you would be wasting your money there

check out Newegg.com there are plenty of Socket 939 motherboards with firewire, you just have to look at them... if you can't afford it now then wait, you would just be wasting your money if you go with a Socket 754 system...

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:33 pm

get the a64 system FOR SURE! dont even think about the 64bit part. it is jsut a FAR faster cpu!

Greg

Jim Z · Post by **Jim Z** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:31 pm

Socket 754 is being phased out, you would be wasting your money there

I don't know if it's being "phased out," IIRC it's being relegated to the "budget" (Sempr0n) platforms.

nexus_7 · Post by **nexus_7** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:41 pm

it jsut isnt getting any faster. 3700+ will be the fastest proc released for it.

Greg

ZYFER · Post by **ZYFER** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:59 am

Originally posted by nexus_7
it jsut isnt getting any faster. 3700+ will be the fastest proc released for it.

Greg

this exactly what I mean by "phased out" when its platform comes to a halt with little or no future

Jukkis · Post by **Jukkis** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:05 am

Originally posted by ZYFER
Suggestion: get a Socket 939 motherboard, Socket 754 is being phased out, you would be wasting your money there

check out Newegg.com there are plenty of Socket 939 motherboards with firewire, you just have to look at them... if you can't afford it now then wait, you would just be wasting your money if you go with a Socket 754 system...

ok.

but problem is that I really can't wait. I'm making my diploma for school and
having faster computer at home (too) is must for being able to get all graphics/video done in time.

ok. then I make selection between 939 64-bit system and some clearly cheaper 32-bit system with socket a board etc.

but are even cheapest 64-bit processors really 60-70% faster than example sempron 2400+ with 32-bit applications ?

I guess 754 is phased out. I don't know exactly how software is updated to support 64-bit architecture, but I assume software developers looks for matching software with 939 processor rather than 754 processors... or is there really a difference ?

64-bit application is 64-bit application ?

I assume you can optimize software better if you know exactly processor architecture or.... ?

EvilHorace · Post by **EvilHorace** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:31 am

but are even cheapest 64-bit processors really 60-70% faster than example sempron 2400+ with 32-bit applications ?

Apparently you didn't read through the link on that very subject that I posted above. YES, 64 bit cpus ARE faster....read the test results in that link. You can also do a simple google search for even more real test results rather than ask for personal opinions here.

Most people who build PCs don't run a gamit of performance tests on two different PCs, one with this cpu, one with another cpu (everything else being equal).

The cost difference isn't THAT much either unless you're comparing the newest, best 64 bit cpu (like an FX 55, BIG $$$) to an older 32 bit cpu that's been out for years now.

wvjohn · Post by **wvjohn** » Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:13 am

remember the semprons have a much smaller onboard cache than the a64 athlons - they would not be a good choice for video editing -

Jukkis · Post by **Jukkis** » Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:22 am

on test you linked it was only Pentium 4 vs 64-bit Athlons...

but Pentium 4s overall are faster than sempron processors (=yes) ?

hmm... so even with 32-bit applications speed advantage is like 60-70% ?

I looked article related to cache, on AMD processors reducing cache size
doesn't have so dramatic effect as it has on Pentium processors due different
method taking advantage of cache memory.

I think it was article something like sempron vs. athlon (or something...)