Processor Help Please

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BruceinFL

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Posts
3,205
Hi,
Specing out a new laptop and trying to pick the processor: Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD Athlon 64 X2. I'm pretty sure that the Intel is 32 bit vs AMD 64 bit, but why would it make a difference for me? Is one a better performer than the other? Please help dispel my confusion.

Thanks
 

Karl

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
5,154
Location
Elkhart Lake, WI for the summer. Work at Road Amer
Bruce,
For the average user, it won't make any difference. There are few 64-bit sftw packages out there, and they're mostly server applications. The Intel chip is nice, but so is the AMD, and the AMD is a better price/performance buy. Suggest you go out to Tom's Hardware (Google it), and he will have some side-by-side comparisons and benchmarks. Anandtech is another place to look for comparisons.
 

Shayne

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Posts
4,324
Got Pentium 4 on my Sony Viio Laptop and AMD on the Desktop.  AMD all the way for me.  Faster and smoother.  Don't know anything about specks  just know I like it better.
 

OldSoldier

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Posts
63
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona
All Intel Dual-Core processors are 64bit processors.  After the first of the year MS will offer VISTA, a "pure 64bit OS"  In some cases, depending on the make and model you can get a $10 upgrade to Vista if you buy now.  Not sure I'd do it, but it's availalble.  I intend to buy a new High End desk top computer some time AFTER MS releases SR1 to Vista.  That will likely be some time in spring 2007.

In reference to above, the INTEL Dual-Core processor is outperforming a similar AMD version in most tests, but the difference is marginal.

I am a high end, power user for my work and really would like to get a clean Vista installation up front.

Good Luck,
:)
 

BruceinFL

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Posts
3,205
OldSoldier said:
All Intel Dual-Core processors are 64bit processors.  After the first of the year MS will offer VISTA, a "pure 64bit OS"  In some cases, depending on the make and model you can get a $10 upgrade to Vista if you buy now.  Not sure I'd do it, but it's availalble.  I intend to buy a new High End desk top computer some time AFTER MS releases SR1 to Vista.  That will likely be some time in spring 2007.

In reference to above, the INTEL Dual-Core processor is outperforming a similar AMD version in most tests, but the difference is marginal.

I am a high end, power user for my work and really would like to get a clean Vista installation up front.

Good Luck,
:)

Getting conflicting info. Have been told that Core 2 Duo is 32 bit. Regarding the Vista upgrade, someone recommended getting the upgrade disk but not installing the system until SR1 is released. That way, the sVista system will only cost $10 and the MS SR will be free. Otherwise, waiting to get the Vista software until later will cost more.
 

Ned

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Posts
25,107
Location
USA
The Core Duo processors are all 64 bit, as previously stated.  I wouldn't get excited about 64 vs 32 bit at this point, as there is very little software that is 64 bit, at least not for the consumer market. I also wouldn't be in a hurry to get Vista, as it has a much more restrictive security model that will break a lot of existing software.  XP will be the Windows OS of choice for several years yet.

Don't get caught up in the processor marketing hype, just buy the computer that has the capabilities that YOU need, i.e. hard drive size, video resolution, peripherals, etc. and don't worry about the processor.
 

Karl

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Posts
5,154
Location
Elkhart Lake, WI for the summer. Work at Road Amer
After the first of the year MS will offer VISTA, a "pure 64bit OS"
Not to belabor the point, but as Ned (and I) said, there's very little 64-bit software that's available for all but enterprise users. Yes, Vista may by 64 bit, but that's like driving a Mini Cooper on a 4-lane expressway - you can only take up one lane at a time (assuming you're not an 18-wheeler sliding sideways ;D)
 

BernieD

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Posts
5,877
Location
Goodyear, AZ
Karl said:
Not to belabor the point, but as Ned (and I) said, there's very little 64-bit software that's available for all but enterprise users. Yes, Vista may by 64 bit, but that's like driving a Mini Cooper on a 4-lane expressway - you can only take up one lane at a time (assuming you're not an 18-wheeler sliding sideways ;D)

Karl

On a 2 lane country road, it's a lot harder for the Mini to pass ;D
 

BruceinFL

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Posts
3,205
Ned said:
I also wouldn't be in a hurry to get Vista, as it has a much more restrictive security model that will break a lot of existing software. 

What I was going to do, since almost all computer manufacturers are offering a deal on Vista with new Vista capable laptops, is go ahead and get the Vista disk but not install the Vista operating system until after the first service release...after most of the bugs are worked out.
 

Gary RV_Wizard

Site Team
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Posts
74,380
Location
At our Silver Springs FL home
go ahead and get the Vista disk but not install the Vista operating system until after the first service release...after most of the bugs are worked out.

I just got a new desktop system and it came with a Vista Beta disk plus a free upgrade when the official release comes out. I'm in no hurry to install either one...
 

rhmahoney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
1,405
Better yet get the MacBookPro and have the best of all worlds: Windows, Mac OSX, Unix, and Linux. You can run 2 or more OSes at the same time using virtual machine program. About the only stuff you can't run are OS 9 programs.
 

Ron

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Posts
18,082
Location
Home is where we park it
rhmahoney said:
Better yet get the MacBookPro and have the best of all worlds: Windows, Mac OSX, Unix, and Linux. You can run 2 or more OSes at the same time using virtual machine program. About the only stuff you can't run are OS 9 programs.

Then what exactly is the reason you bought a HP PC when you had the Direcway 4000 system? ??? ???
 

rhmahoney

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
1,405
"Then what exactly is the reason you bought a HP PC when you had the Direcway 4000 system?"
I was forced to by my lust for internet connection. I dumped it as soon as I could. Windows is just too disgusting.

That was also long before Macs had migrated to Intel.
 

slpdave

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Posts
15
Location
Lenoir City Tennessee
Hello, new member to the boards, worked in IT for 24 years, built many high-end game machines for family and friends. do networking in several businesses and build servers for businesses to boot.

before we argue over OS or Processor, here is my humble opinion (Make it your own! <---thats a joke.)

for years the OS war has been going on.  Apple vs. Windows. then linux came into the picture. Why don't we use DOS anymore?

here I go.

Are the apple OS's and Linux more stable than windows? No, and here is why.  Have you ever tried to repair an apple when the OS breaks? It's just as bad as windows from that respect. 

Apple controls the hardware their OS runs on for the most part. if you have an OS designed for specific hardware it works great.
windows has been adapted to be used by the masses.  it has to work with practically all hardware through device drivers.  All the extra hardware that the OS was not designed to work with out of the box causes the OS to become wonky. if you use good standard hardware (intel motherboards, ATI or NVidia video, Creative Labs sound, 3COM (older models) modems, intel network cards. then Winders (<---not a misprint I am southern) works fine and is stable.
Linux is good too, it can run forever on various hardware and be stable for months at a time.  So can windows if the machine is built correctly.
In a nutshell, get the OS you know and trust and put it on good hardware and it will be fine (I follow this rule for a multitude of other OS's, there is even an XP clone that is freeware, google "windows clone" and it will be listed somewhere).

as far as processors go, I look at life expectancy on the processors, I use machines until they are used up.  the one I am typing on now is 7 years old will run vista, and spanks prebuilt boxes being bought at chain stores right now. (I also spent $3000 on the motherboard, processor and ram 7 years ago.) it runs XP right now, it runs 24/7 365 days a year, stable with an intel processor.  I tried an AMD processor a few years ago, if the fan fails (this is true with some Intel processors also) the processor cooks itself. Doing repairs it's rare to see a dead intel processor, it's not so rare to see a dead AMD processor.  AMD processors are cheaper, won't argue that point.  AMD processors are not faster the chip makers run neck-in-neck in speed.  But is speed that important now?  with multiple processing cores on a single wafer, is 1.8Gig slow? And does it make a processor better because it is 64bit compared to 32bit, not if nothing uses the extra 32bit's.

so you guys know, I like in a stick built house, have 6 computer running at various time, 1 the machine I wrote this on with XP Pro, a very-high-end game machine running XP Pro, a server running Debian Linux, an embedded Via Mini-ITX low power running windows XP Media Center, and an Apple running OS 8.something for fun. Last but not least is an Alienware M5500 Laptop for work. I even have an old P2 with Dos 6.2 on it just for fun and it is more stable than any of the modern OS's.

these are all toys to me, the via processor in the embedded works great and will be placed in the the RV with an LCD screen when we get an RV. because it is about the size of a 6 pack of coke cans. and consume only about 40 watts when running wide open.  Why so many Windows machines, simple most software is written to work on windows (microsoft holds like 70 percent of the market on home pc OS).

if you are a standard user not a power user who likes to tinker, get someone to build you a machine out of good parts, you pay more but it is worth it.  If the person who builds the machine is knowledgeable about AMD processors and knows to install the drivers for the processor, use AMD (most people with RV don't Overclock so the AMD processor will work fine, if you don't mind a little extra wattage being used go full blown intel.  do a little research, toms hardware is a great site as has been mentioned before, talking to other users about their machines helps a lot also.  just take other peoples opinions (even mine) with a grain of salt, but after a while you will see the light of what you really want.

David
 
Top Bottom