[AMDCanuck]

I was thinking about upgrading to a 64 bit processor and mobo combination. Obviously windows hasn't released a 64 bit os yet, so what advantages does it really offer?

Do all/most games take advantage of the 64 bit processors?

Just curious whether or not its worth making the jump just yet, any help would be appreciated.

[unreal]

doesnt microsoft have a windows xp64? thought they did, depends on how much money you feel like spending on as new system

[dropadrop]

The biggest advantage from having an A64 processor now is the integrated memory controller. Once the 64bit version of windows does come out (you can use linux now and benefit) you will be able to benefit from the extra registers on the processor.

[XWRed1]

Microsoft has free betas of Winxp and Win2003 for amd64.

64-bit Linux runs fine on it.

Epic ships a 64-bit UT2004 on the cd/dvd along with the 32-bit version. For Linux.

Thats about it. There's no other *public* games that are 64-bit, barring taking an open source game like Q2 and recompiling it. 64-bit UT2004 is just a proof of concept thing, it doesn't do anything that specifically takes advantage of 64-bits -- its arguable whether games will need that at all anytime soon. It runs a little faster from the extra registers, but trades that away by not using sse or 3dnow or mmx and having a less mature compiler backing it.

[madman22]

if you download the beta of 64-bit Windows Xp, dont think your going to run your normal programs. I couldn't get any of my programs to work on it.

[AMDCanuck]

Well.... after hearing these comments i'm dissapointed.

I mean I know people use linux with them, but a lot of us here are gamers, so we stick with windows. So there really is no reason to upgrade. Its basically just to SAY you have a 64 bit machine... no?

[sandman001]

It is faster too, even in 32bit apps. Especially with games, the lower latencies associated with the on die memory controller help with games/3dmark/etc.

[kiyoshilionz]

Yeah, it's definetly faster than the old 32-bit computers, but it's not that significant. They really need optimized OS's and optimized programs for 64 bit processors, otherwise the performance benefits aren't all that great.

[XWRed1]

I tried 64bit XP on mine a while back, the worst part was drivers. You can't use 32-bit drivers, have to use 64-bit ones. Not many of them existed. Past that, I didn't have much trouble trying to run a few token apps.

Mine mostly just runs 64-bit Linux though. That drives all my hardware just fine AND is fast.

[aNTiChRisT]

Yea 64-bit is prooving nice but there just aint no support for it, at least on the gaming platform. I think i'd be wiser to wait afew years till 64-bit is more integral, then get a faster, more refined chip then.

~t0m

[XWRed1]

Thats kind of silly. The Athlon64s are fast chips period.

Even if you upgrade to one now and never run any 64-bit software on it, you're still upgrading to a much faster chip (assuming you weren't coming from something already top of the line)

[Captain Newbie]

The Athlon64 architecture performs beautifully in the 32-bit world. When we see software to take advantadge of iAMD64 we'll see a tremendous jump.

[hrhrhrFOOT]

Dude. Look at the 3dm01 orb. A64s are popping 30k left and right. No other processor can do that

[CandymanCan]

The A64's socket 754 are up to 20% faster then the Barton's, its well worth the upgrade.

[Captain Newbie]

Originally Posted by madman22

if you download the beta of 64-bit Windows Xp, dont think your going to run your normal programs. I couldn't get any of my programs to work on it.

The main version of XP64 that is available now is for IA-64 (Itanium).

Could you describe your problems in more detail?

[tom10167]

Originally Posted by XWRed1

Epic ships a 64-bit UT2004 on the cd/dvd along with the 32-bit version. For Linux.

You mean gaming is now possible on *nix? REAL gaming?

[Captain Turd]

If you're looking at 64-bit processors there are a few things you should know. Socket 940 requires registered RAM, which is slower and more expensive. Socket 754 doesn't allow dual channel RAM which also sucks. Socket 939 is the only good one which supports dual channel and unbuffered RAM, and is decent at overclocking(supposedly). Now I'm not saying that 64-bit processors aren't fast, but are you willing to pay $500 for a 3500+ Socket 939 and $150 for a compatible motherboard just so you get a couple more frames on a game that already runs well on your computer? I've got almost the same setup you have and I think it will last me at least 6 more months. In that time, AMD will release a number of new processors, new software will come out and prices will fall considerably. I wouldn't spend that much on a 64-bit system and find out in 6 months that I spent twice the amount I should have. So ask yourself, do you have the money to burn?

[Captain Newbie]

Originally Posted by tom10167

You mean gaming is now possible on *nix? REAL gaming?

The *nix version is unsupported but does work.

[orionnt]

Im getting an A64 soon enough in my new PC. A friend of mine has one, and it kicks the **** out of his Alienware with the P4 3ghz or whatever its got.

[XWRed1]

The main version of XP64 that is available now is for IA-64 (Itanium).

Microsoft has had freely downloadable betas of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition for amd64 for several months now.

You mean gaming is now possible on *nix? REAL gaming?

Ermm, there've been ports of big games for Linux for many years now.