Hey people.

Want to know what your opinion(s) are on the 64-bit future of computing.

Firstly, which of the two would you go for? AMD or Intel?

Secondly, do you think AMD will out-perform the Intel equivalent?

1. AMD

2. yes it 0wnz intel

I'm with him

The native 32 bit support on AMD's 64 bit chips will win the day.

Its pointless..theres no reason for the home user to use 64 bit right now... as far as will it beat the P4... well probably the latest northwood but i dont think so against Prescott.. theres too many tweaks to the arch. plus smaller process and more L2 cache... and if the 64 can only beat intel @ less than 9% ... Its not that good. Im not a fan boy but AMD needs to perform better than 9% cause a simple cache increase will close that gap ...only reason why it won was because the 64 has a On Die Memory controller that runs at core frequency ... new tech (Athlon 64) vs. Not as new (p4) ... which doesnt have an on die memory controller... put that in a P4 and im sure u would see things change.

It as BlueScreenOfDeath says. The home user has no real use for 64bit computing at this time. The only worthwhile benefit is that you can use 4GB+ ram, and who does that??? ... No one!

But still, if you are going 4 64 bit, better go 4 AMD, the native 32bit support will is a lifesaver

I agree no need for it yet!!

AMD beat intel by 9% as reported in the news, but remember, AMD and intel are not running at the same CPU frequency.

I'm unsure of whether to go for an AthlonFX, Athlon64, or just stick to the current line when my next planned upgrade is next summer.

I feel uncertain that the AMD64 processors will run 32-bit apps at full speed.

Its pointless..theres no reason for the home user to use 64 bit right now... as far as will it beat the P4... well probably the latest northwood but i dont think so against Prescott.. theres too many tweaks to the arch. plus smaller process and more L2 cache... and if the 64 can only beat intel @ less than 9% ... Its not that good. Im not a fan boy but AMD needs to perform better than 9% cause a simple cache increase will close that gap  ...only reason why it won was because the 64 has a On Die Memory controller that runs at core frequency ... new tech (Athlon 64) vs. Not as new (p4) ... which doesnt have an on die memory controller... put that in a P4 and im sure u would see things change.

I feel uncertain that the AMD64 processors will run 32-bit apps at full speed.

From what I've read/heard, 32 bits apps will run twice as fast on a Athlon64 as they actually do on a 32 bits CPU.

I feel uncertain that the AMD64 processors will run 32-bit apps at full speed.

From what I've read/heard, 32 bits apps will run twice as fast on a Athlon64 as they actually do on a 32 bits CPU.

So what you saying is that a 3.0GHz 64-bit processor would equal a 6.0Ghz 32-bit processor when running a 32-bit Games and such?

So what you saying is that a 3.0GHz 64-bit processor would equal a 6.0Ghz 32-bit processor when running a 32-bit Games and such?

That's what I've read somewhere, but I just don't remind if it were on some hardware news website, or in some AMD propaganda...

please, don't quote me on this, since I cannot backup this saying.

I doubt it'll be 'twice as fast', but obviously the 32-bit software will run considerably faster.

Does this answer your question?

Athlon 64 Benchmarks:

Click here for a screenshot with processor OC'd to 2.15 GHz and video card OC'd.

Here it is at stock speeds for video and processor (2GHz processor).

Nice, eh? All that at 2GHz...