I'm looking to upgrade my motherboard and CPU. I'm currently sporting an AMD 2400+ 266 FSB setup with 768 meg of ram. This is my game computer with a slim install of Win98se (www.litepc.com). All the background crap is stripped out so it's fast like Linux and the os only takes up about 50 megs of RAM. It's a no frills Windows, but the focus here is game speed and not how pretty Windows looks. The 64 bit chips like the 3000+ and the 3200+ price wise are in line with the 32-bit chips but the bench marks shows the 64-bit chips to be a lot faster. I don't really care about the 64-bit OS or other 64-bit software at this time and have no intension of moving from my lean and mean (very fast) install of Win98se Lite. All I really care about is running my 32-bit gaming machine as fast as possible. Considering what I have stated above, does it make sence to purchase the 64-bit board and chip? Will it be better then purchasing the equivalent 32-bit chip and board?
he 64 bits have some good advantages even when not running in 64 bit mode (which is never, considering ur stil using a 32bit OS and 32 bit Apps) considering they are so comparable to the price of 32bit processors....it makes the decision to get an a64 that much easier....plus, it closes the margin of time to when youll need to upgrade again.
It will be quite awhile before there will be any 64-bit benefit at all, so right now the Athlon 64 is paradoxically all about 32-bit performance. Right now you can pretty much add 400 points to an A64 model. So a 2800+ Athlon 64 is about equivalent to a 3200+ Athlon 64. Remember, that's in 32-bit performance... any future 64-bit gains will only solidify that.
My other concern is how stable is this new 64-bit chip and motherboard. The last thing I want to be caught on is waiting for bios updates to stablize the machine or solve other weird problems. I favor Gigabyte mother boards.
<< Right now you can pretty much add 400 points to an A64 model. >> coooooool. I like the sound of that.
They're plenty stable... there used to be some issues with PC3200 support, but they've since been fixed by a new revision, apparently.
Yep, check 'er out, here's the Athlon 64 2800+ vs XP 3200+ in gaming scores: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=33&type=expert&pid=5
It seems odd that one would want to run Windows 98SE with an Athlon 64? Correct me if I'm wrong if you're actually gonna run XP. I can see why you would want a streamlined OS. Less background crap, more performance, possibly better stability. Most new viruses and worms that come out attack 2000 and XP, but leave 98 spared (I would still recommend anti-virus regardless). However, Windows 98SE recognizes only 512 MB of memory. So really, with 98SE you're spinning your wheels with having 768. If you must have Win98SE, I would recommend you dual boot. You can have Windows 98SE and XP. XP is far more stable, and it can recognize much more memory (4 Gigs I think). I have Windows 2000, which is much like XP in many ways, just not as pretty.
um howie if u live in the uk i can recomend a place to get a well decent amd64 based system i ordered myself 1 the other day but thats only if your interested in gettign a completely new system and selling your old 1 off its a amd64 3200 gigabyte k8n 512mb ram 333mhz(i know need faster but hey its cheap) 8x dvdrw driver 120gb harddrive 128mb gfx card(probly only a gf4 mx but u could put it in your old system) thats all for 356 pound delivery inclueded. would every1 else say thats a decent price? or am i being coned? maybe u could build it cheaper yourself but i dout by much not from my research. and howie look into using windows 2000pro it isnt any slower than win98 onse u scale it down abit. its definetly faster in desktop programmes i know that much probly due to the ntfs file system if u use it.
My going 64-bit would be a matter of swapping out mother boards on a home build pc. << It seems odd that one would want to run Windows 98SE with an Athlon 64? >> That's correct. XP is pretty to look at, but it's also a slow hog. I run a stripped down install of Windows 98se (www.litepc.com). The less a computer is doing in the background, the faster it will be translating thousands of points per frame as well as mesh animation. There's a lot of things the video card is not doing. I'm a programmer and I write games for a living. << Most new viruses and worms that come out attack 2000 and XP, but leave 98 spared (I would still recommend anti-virus regardless). >> I'm behind a firewall. Also a slimmed down system is much more stable. << However, Windows 98SE recognizes only 512 MB of memory. >> Not quite. It will see 1 gig but you have to know what to do. It's just a few additional settings in the system.ini file. ME is even a little bit better with this. If your playing a game and the hard drive is not running all the time, then everything is loaded into memory. For me, after the startup load, the hard drive almost never runs so everything is loaded into memory. << If you must have Win98SE, I would recommend you dual boot. >> I don't see a need for that at this time. Everything works good and my games run fast. With my current configuration, I usually meet or beat beefer systems running XP in the same game with equal or greater FPS. Right now my 2400+ system will beat a 2800+ running XP. I installed XP on my computer and thought I would die. It killed my smooth frame rates.
XP probly killed your framrates because your runnin and outdated machine with slow ram. If you invested properly in a good system (a64 is good) with beefier ram (more and faster) as well as a good rpm hard disk then you wouldnt have any problem running xp with games at all. You may like running in anemic mode....but most prefer to have the comfortability of a newer OS, with easier compatibility, more power, and still smooth running games.
This is really simple. The more an OS is doing in the background, the less CPU cycles your game can use per frame. It's just simple math. A game will be happy to take the full load of your CPU. How much of that load is the OS holding hostage? An OS doesn't make your computer run faster, the lack of one will. Microsoft Windows keeps getting fatter and fatter requiring a heaver CPU and more memory. This is also why more and more people are looking at Linux as the next big OS of choice. XP is pretty, but it is a big, fat, cow. Mooooooooo. There are many ways to speed up your system. Pop in a beefer CPU, faster video card, optimize the OS. Add more power and trim out the fat.
First, quit speaking to me like im a dumbass mr. programmer. (if you really are even anything remotely related to the PC industry..) I know quite a bit about PC hardware and OS functions and resource usage..... You obviously did not read what i wrote, but rather gave me a mundane response explaining something i full well know. My initial point was.....why not build a current system that can run xp ( and its big fat "cow" background services) AND run games at a completely smooth and sufficient rate, as opposed to running a slow, outdated PC with a lackluster OS and pretending like your some kind of PC genuis. Its like in the world of cars......if your car is too heavy, dont strip out the interior and take parts off to make it lighter, simply do something to add power....keeping the comfortabliliy and usability of the car while not making it a stripped down hunk of junk thats really making no power anyway.
<< First, quit speaking to me like im a dumbass >> That was not my intension. I'm just having fun and talking smack. I'm not here to start a nerd war. << I know quite a bit about PC hardware and OS functions >> No one is questing your abilities. Since I write 3D code and know the Windows API inside and out, I know how much a game leans on the video card and how much it leans on the CPU (and what Windows is doing). Some games are more CPU hearvy then others. As long as DirectX supports 98/ME, that's all I care about. OpenGL will never care about your OS, but most OpenGL games use DirectX for Direct Sound and Direct Imput. << Its like in the world of cars......if your car is too heavy, dont strip out the interior and take parts off to make it lighter >> This analagy doesn't really work because sports cars are built to be as light as possible because speed is the main issue, but I see where you are coming from. You like your XP and that's fine. I'm just anti XP. << if you really are even anything remotely related to the PC industry >> here, check out my web site - www.howiesfunware.com I also write screen savers as a side business. I'll give you a freebee. Just send me an email and tell me which one you want.
BTW, (www.litepc.com) also has a product that helps you slim down XP (XP Lite). When the day comes where I feel forced to move to XP, that's what I'll do. Check it out. You can easily enable/disable XP componets that you don't need that are always running in the background. You won't be as slim and fast as 98SELite, but you'll be faster and free up more resources. Just a thought.
Im just an anti-XP as you are......because ive nver had anyting but trouble with its stability and vulnerability. the stupid thing acts like it was packaged with spyware i prefer the NT environment myself.
