Is there an advantage in having an AMD 64 processor with xp pro

[Guest]

I'm really confused about the whole 32/64 bit issue. I use Gibbs CAM at work
and need to get a new desktop system built for it. When I call Gibbs they
recommend building the new system based on the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ processor
and running the Windows XP Professional OS. They maintain this configuration
really works great and operates better than an Intel 32 bit system. They said
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT USE THE WINDOWS XP PRO 64 BIT VERSION as it does not run
well and I will have compatibility issues with Gibbs and possibly other
software even if I am operating in legacy mode. Gibbs, by the way, does not
support 64 bit.

So, I guess my main questions are:

What advantage is there to running a 32 bit program (Gibbs) on a system
built around a 64 bit processor (AMD Athlon 64 3200+) using a 32 bit
operating system?

Can 64 bit applications run on standard XP Pro?

Is the larger RISC instruction set on the AMD 64 utilized by standard XP Pro?

Are 64 bit extensions used with standard XP Pro?

Do the extra registers, etc. on the AMD 64 come into play even when running
standard XP Pro?

Does a 2Ghz AMD 64 have a potential of running this cad/cam program better
than, say, a 2.4Ghz Intel Prescott as Gibbs maintains?

Help and links would be appreciated.

 

[NotMe]

Did Gibbs provide any benchmarking statistics to back up their claim?
AMD runs some software faster, Intel runs some faster.
Do they sell AMD systems?
Does Gibbs have a stake in AMD?
I've seen the debate about AMD vs Intel for years.
I don't put much faith in opinion without hards stats to back it up.

 

[R. McCarty]

Windows XP 64 Bit uses a software "Emulation" sub-system called
WoW64 (Windows on Windows). This allows the 64-Bit system to
execute the 32-bit application.

AMD Athlons are comparable to Intel. The AMD's now employ a
"Cool & Quiet" driver and self-throttle itself based on system loading.
But heat wise, both recent AMD/Intel CPU's will run around 90-100
degrees Fahrenheit.

Windows XP 64 will run "most" all 32-bit applications, with no major
difference in performance. (or perceptible performance).

64-Bit applications cannot run on a 32-Bit Operating System (XP Pro
and Home)

As to your other questions, I can't really respond. Eventually, All CPUs
will be 64-Bit, Dual-Core - but applications that can utilize them aren't
really available, but will be as the industry converts to those platforms.

 

[Guest]

Gibbs doesn't have a stake in AMD. They will build a system around platform
you wish. This is thier recommendations based on customer feed back and thier
own inhouse experience. I have seen the debate also and am skeptical as to
who to believe.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the response; however, most of my interest here is whether or not
there is any significant performance increase by using AMD 64 bit in
conjunction with standard Windows XP Pro (not 64 bit). The throttling is
definitely something I have considered. Prescotts run terribly hot and the
fans that come with them are about as quite as a 747 during takeoff thereby
making it necessary to purchase more expensive cooling alternatives in order
to maintain a quite system. I currently run Thermallink heat pipes with
SilentX fans on all my prescotts. Great combo!

 

[R. McCarty]

I'm still using a P-4 Northwood and use a Zalman fan - every effective.
Just requires a little fin cleaning about every 3-4 months.

I've not installed a newer Intel lately, but this past weekend I built up an
XP 64-Bit rig with an Athlon +3500 and the fan that came with it is very
noisy (At least 35db). If my distributor had been open, I would have
replaced the fan before delivery - but the customer didn't want to spend
another $30.

 

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

What they are really saying is that they have not ported their application
to the 64 bit platform. Of course they are going to say that in no way
should you run an AMD 64 bit processor system. Their application isn't
compatible. When they do port it over, as all reputable companies will do
with their software, it will fly!

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

 

[Richard Urban [MVP]]

Correction!

What they are really saying is that they have not ported their application
to the 64 bit platform. Of course they are going to say that in no way
should you run on ***a 64 bit operating system***. Their application isn't
compatible. When they do port it over, as all reputable companies will do
with their software, it will fly!


--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

 

[Guest]

Hi Rich,

I know what you are saying about vendors upgrading software to 64 bit
operability and they admit that they are not ready for xp 64. In fact they
are waiting for the 64 bit market to mature a little before making the leap
to 64 bit software as are many of vendors. However, they do recommend going
to a 64 bit platform but to continue using standard XP Pro instead of 64 bit.
I'm trying to dertermine if there is any advantage to doing this. They
maintain that the AMD Athlon 64 runs better (faster and more reliable) than a
32 bit system. Why would that be? Does the architecture of the 64 bit
processor improve its performance even when used with 32 bit software?

 

[McGrandpa]

Thanks for the response; however, most of my interest here is whether or
not
there is any significant performance increase by using AMD 64 bit in
conjunction with standard Windows XP Pro (not 64 bit). The throttling is
definitely something I have considered. Prescotts run terribly hot and the
fans that come with them are about as quite as a 747 during takeoff
thereby
making it necessary to purchase more expensive cooling alternatives in
order
to maintain a quite system. I currently run Thermallink heat pipes with
SilentX fans on all my prescotts. Great combo!

I have both a p4 3.0E prescott and A64 running. The first thing I'll tell
you is that the A64 is cooler, uses less current. Generally speaking, they
both run great, and i'm having no noise problems with either but I do have
heat issues to deal with in the P4 rig. The A64 also treats system RAM
differently. It has the on-die memory controller, and in this aspect is
faster than the P4, yet the p4 uses Hyper Threading and so in multithreaded
apps is faster than a single core A64. It's kinda an apples and oranges
thing, they're both GOOD. And they can both be noisy depending on the
HS/fan you choose.
I didn't say yet, which A64 I'm using because it would be a totally unfair
comparison in any but the most general aspects.

It'd been years since I'd had an AMD based rig. I decided I wanted to try
one of the new A64 processors. So I got an X2 4800+. Yes, as you might
expect, in almost everything it runs rings around the old P4 3.0E. Even
so, certain things do stand out. That the 90nm core A64 process does use
less current and is cooler is one. And that on-die memory controller can
make a whopping difference in CPU intensive crunching.
HIH a little,
McG.

 

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

Hi Rich,

I know what you are saying about vendors upgrading software to 64 bit
operability and they admit that they are not ready for xp 64. In fact they
are waiting for the 64 bit market to mature a little before making the
leap
to 64 bit software as are many of vendors. However, they do recommend
going
to a 64 bit platform but to continue using standard XP Pro instead of 64
bit.
I'm trying to dertermine if there is any advantage to doing this. They
maintain that the AMD Athlon 64 runs better (faster and more reliable)
than a
32 bit system. Why would that be? Does the architecture of the 64 bit
processor improve its performance even when used with 32 bit software?

An Athlon 64 will perform better on a 32-bit OS than a 32-bit CPU. An
importatn consideration now is future upgrading. When this application you
use is ported to a 64-bit OS, you'll have to upgrade your system to a 64-bit
processor if you don't have one already. This is nothing more than my
opinion, but I think any serious consideration for a new system for someone
like you should only include 64 bit processors.

 

[frodo]

AMD Athlon 64 is a fine processor, just as good as an Intel. Intel holds
about 80% of the market tho [read anything you want into that...]
Gamers tend to like AMD better, for their value and overclockability, and
they run games well (which tend to be single-threaded). Intel is
preferreed by corporations, because they're the market leader.

One advantage of AMD64 is it supports true "data execution protection" in
the hardware; Pentium does not.

AMD typically runs faster for "real world applications".

Intel runs faster for "number crunching applications", and Intel's
HyperThreading can make multitasking seem "snappier" (or so claim some
users; personally I've never noticed that).

AMD _IS_ cheaper ($$ wise, not quality-wise).

AMD 64 is 64-bit compatable, but that doesn't mean anything yet - 64-bit
computing is still a few years away from "mainstream" on the desktop.

===========

Win XP 64-bit Edition is still immature, that's why they didn't recommend
it.

===========

Bottom line: Expect to save about $50-$75 on an AMD based system over an
Intel system of the same class. The user experience will be about the
same.

Shop around....

 

[Carl Kaufmann]

I'm really confused about the whole 32/64 bit issue. I use Gibbs CAM at work
and need to get a new desktop system built for it. When I call Gibbs they
recommend building the new system based on the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ processor
and running the Windows XP Professional OS. They maintain this configuration
really works great and operates better than an Intel 32 bit system. They said
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT USE THE WINDOWS XP PRO 64 BIT VERSION as it does not run
well and I will have compatibility issues with Gibbs and possibly other
software even if I am operating in legacy mode. Gibbs, by the way, does not
support 64 bit.

So, I guess my main questions are:

What advantage is there to running a 32 bit program (Gibbs) on a system
built around a 64 bit processor (AMD Athlon 64 3200+) using a 32 bit
operating system?

Future upgrades

Can 64 bit applications run on standard XP Pro?
No

Is the larger RISC instruction set on the AMD 64 utilized by standard XP Pro?

If you mean the 64-bit instructions, then no.

Are 64 bit extensions used with standard XP Pro?
No

Do the extra registers, etc. on the AMD 64 come into play even when running
standard XP Pro?
No

Does a 2Ghz AMD 64 have a potential of running this cad/cam program better
than, say, a 2.4Ghz Intel Prescott as Gibbs maintains?

Absolutely. Except for certain encoding tasks that can keep the
insanely long P4 pipeline filled, AMD chips of the same clock speed
will beat Intel.

Help and links would be appreciated.

BTW, I have no problem running any of my legacy software on XP Pro
64-bit edition, but if the vendor of your primary software says don't
do it, then don't ... you don't need the support hassles you'll get
as soon as you say "... running on 64-bit XP ..."

Carl