I'm narrowing down my choice for a new laptop and am finding a hard time justifying the Athlon 64 over the XP. After looking side by side on Tom's Hardware their performance looks identical. I have absolutely zero interest in gaming and don't know of any 64 bit applications I would use so what gives? Why all the 64 talk? What am I missing?
Athlon XP vs Athlon 64 for Recording
- Thread starter 219777
- Start date
NYMorningstar
Recording Modus Operandi
Until microsoft gets the 64 bit OS out of beta most developers are holding back with the releases. Right now there's not much out there but when it hits we'll know it. Nothing like it from what I understand.
JazzMang
He's Junktastic!
64 and XP performance are not identical. The A64 is a much more efficient, low-latency architecture than anything before it. It is catching on b/c it is good!
The fact that its 64 bits does not mean that it will not work with 32 apps... quite the contrary actually, it does better than other 32 bit CPUs. You have room to grow to a 64 bit OS in the future tho, which is nice.
The fact that its 64 bits does not mean that it will not work with 32 apps... quite the contrary actually, it does better than other 32 bit CPUs. You have room to grow to a 64 bit OS in the future tho, which is nice.
bennychico11
...
the 64's version on the "FSB" is crazy fast too compared to the XPs
christiaan
Active member
XP's are plenty fast for recording.
JazzMang
He's Junktastic!
Bam!
And the FSB speed does not matter nearly as much as you would think... AMD chose to go with a non-bandwidth starved architecture (short pipeline) that does not place a lot of emphasis on memory bandwidth, when compared to a P4 (read: room heater).
And its not so much that the Athlon XP cannot record, but the Athlon 64s are available in faster speeds at relatively low prices. Also, I would highly advise against spending any money on an antiquated Athlon XP CPU or Chipset that is already obsolete in today's market.
LOL!elevate said:
And the FSB speed does not matter nearly as much as you would think... AMD chose to go with a non-bandwidth starved architecture (short pipeline) that does not place a lot of emphasis on memory bandwidth, when compared to a P4 (read: room heater).
And its not so much that the Athlon XP cannot record, but the Athlon 64s are available in faster speeds at relatively low prices. Also, I would highly advise against spending any money on an antiquated Athlon XP CPU or Chipset that is already obsolete in today's market.
I totally agree.JazzMang said:LOL!
And its not so much that the Athlon XP cannot record, but the Athlon 64s are available in faster speeds at relatively low prices. Also, I would highly advise against spending any money on an antiquated Athlon XP CPU or Chipset that is already obsolete in today's market.
My 2.2 GHz Athlon XP is fine for recording, but my next machine will have an Athlon 64.