Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

I'm putting together a base system tomorrow and could use some advice.
Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

mobile 2500 and asus a7n8x-e deluxe would suffice
"SpicaTC50" <bluesguitar@verizon.com> wrote in message
news:2k64ptF16pd29U1@uni-berlin.de...
> I'm putting together a base system tomorrow and could use some advice.
> Thanks.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Thanks. Any rec on memory without breaking the bank?

In article <JulDc.5071$a92.4364@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
xxrabramson1xx@xxsi.rr.comxx says...
>
>mobile 2500 and asus a7n8x-e deluxe would suffice
>"SpicaTC50" <bluesguitar@verizon.com> wrote in message
>news:2k64ptF16pd29U1@uni-berlin.de...
>> I'm putting together a base system tomorrow and could use some advice.
>> Thanks.
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Oh come on. Newegg.com has a Athlon64 2800+ & Mobo & FarCry for $223.
It's time to stop recommending socketA.

rms

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
64bit cpu all of them


On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 22:30:43 GMT, "rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net>
wrote:

>Oh come on. Newegg.com has a Athlon64 2800+ & Mobo & FarCry for $223.
>It's time to stop recommending socketA.
>
>rms
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
> 64bit cpu all of them

So what? the guy is considering the AthlonXP, which the Athlon64 beats
handily in 32bit. 64bit Windows is a non-issue at the present (and beta)
time. *But it's there* for the using once a real 64bit Windows is
available.

rms

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
news:ATqDc.8074$Pt.660@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
> > 64bit cpu all of them
>
> So what? the guy is considering the AthlonXP, which the Athlon64
beats
> handily in 32bit. 64bit Windows is a non-issue at the present (and beta)
> time. *But it's there* for the using once a real 64bit Windows is
> available.
>
> rms

the A64's are more expensive
Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
no known issues.
Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY and try to keep end users from
buying it (this could be an issue to many people). If you think it's BS
then tell me where I can buy the XP Media Center Os.

What was suggested would cost the op 100$, and that'll let them get an extra
100$ in ram, or more towards a nice video card (in other words, the system
might just be faster than what they could buy in the a64 range)..

I am not saying we should stick with socket A but I do think it's good kit
for most people out there.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Well ill stick with SocketA for a while, and upgrade to the newer
mobile cpus , well thats if AMD release them, 2800,3000,3200 ?

Ill go 64bit when a OS is their and APPS and games take advantage of
it, just like the 16 to 32 bit conversion.

Oh well the times are a changing.


On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:56:00 +0100, "rstlne" <.@text.news.virgin.net>
wrote:

>
>"rms" <rsquires@flashREMOVE.net> wrote in message
>news:ATqDc.8074$Pt.660@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
>> > 64bit cpu all of them
>>
>> So what? the guy is considering the AthlonXP, which the Athlon64
>beats
>> handily in 32bit. 64bit Windows is a non-issue at the present (and beta)
>> time. *But it's there* for the using once a real 64bit Windows is
>> available.
>>
>> rms
>
>the A64's are more expensive
>Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
>no known issues.
>Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY and try to keep end users from
>buying it (this could be an issue to many people). If you think it's BS
>then tell me where I can buy the XP Media Center Os.
>
>What was suggested would cost the op 100$, and that'll let them get an extra
>100$ in ram, or more towards a nice video card (in other words, the system
>might just be faster than what they could buy in the a64 range)..
>
>I am not saying we should stick with socket A but I do think it's good kit
>for most people out there.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

> Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
> no known issues.

You are forgetting that PR ratings are not the same for Athlon64 vs XP.
An Athlon64 2800+ is probably about equal to a XP3200+ in 32bit. And you
can overclock Athlon64 just as easily as the XP on any of the newer boards.

> Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY

Why would they do this?

rms

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Jake Smith wrote:

>
> How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
> 64bit cpu all of them
>

Hmmm... if you are still running windows... yup. It's slower. However, in
linux land... things are much faster. Even when running 32bit apps on a
32bit version of linux ... something like 20% faster.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"> the A64's are more expensive
> Will a pr chip at 2800+ beat out a chip that can go straight to 3200+ with
> no known issues.
> Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY and try to keep end users
from
> buying it (this could be an issue to many people). If you think it's BS
> then tell me where I can buy the XP Media Center Os.
>
> What was suggested would cost the op 100$, and that'll let them get an
extra
> 100$ in ram, or more towards a nice video card (in other words, the system
> might just be faster than what they could buy in the a64 range)..
>
> I am not saying we should stick with socket A but I do think it's good kit
> for most people out there.

Not much more expensive & the A64 runs great, much cooler then a XP chip...
I tried the XP-64 windows, work great & it is much faster, but better
drivers are needed.
much like XP when it started beta, drivers were the main problem...

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Jake Smith" <paulm@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:gvrsd09bs9q8e03eosrvc78sgjlgqvv0q8@4ax.com...
>
> Does that mean it will only install on a dell and like with specific
> hardware ?
>
> >> Microsoft might make XP-64 a OEM product ONLY

Bit hard getting a Dell with a AMD Athlon 64 CPU
as they don't sell AMD system

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

Isn't Linux a nightmare to set up?
"Jerry McBride" <mcbrides9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7ai3r1xk4i.ln2@spinner.my.domain...
> Jake Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > How about that 64bit OS and Applications, all games run slower on
> > 64bit cpu all of them
> >
>
> Hmmm... if you are still running windows... yup. It's slower. However, in
> linux land... things are much faster. Even when running 32bit apps on a
> 32bit version of linux ... something like 20% faster.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

SpicaTC50 wrote:
> "With AMD releasing their Athlon 64 bit desktop processors, one of the
> issues in upgrading or buying a new computer is "will I need a 64 bit
> processor." For most people the answer is not until the later part of
> this decade.
[...]
> So unless you
> are a high level gamer, run high-level scientific or content creation
> applications, or run Macs you should wait on getting a 64 bit
> processor computer.

However, this doesn't really apply to the A64 case (yet). There's a lot more
to the A64's than just AMD64, and until Sempron comes out (and maybe not
even then, depending what Sempron has for a core) there's no way to get an
A64 without AMD64. Yes, most people probably don't need a 64-bit CPU, but
given that is comes along free with the other architectual benefits of an
A64 it doesn't mean that you shouldn't buy an A64. AMD64 is sorta a mild
plus, instead of a requirement. Ie: you shouldn't "wait on getting a 64-bit
processor", but nor should you not buy a P4 or XP because it's not 64-bit.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

"Travis King" <Anonymous@none.com> wrote in message
news:AHpEc.2081$7t3.1279@attbi_s51...
> Isn't Linux a nightmare to set up?

No, it depends on the installer (OS, not the person) and/or the users
experience.

I've used a few different types:-

Red Hat, Yellow Dog and Mandrake installed very easily because of their
installers.

OpenBSD and another, BSD derivative I think, were much more difficult
because quite a lot of it had to be installed manually.

The configuration of the base machine does have an impact on the
installation, the less memory it has the more you have to do manually.
Another consideration that has an effect is the use that installation will
be put to. The various Linux versions I used were for something to replace
Windoze so I wanted a GUI and various office apps, etc.

There are lots of variations of Linux out there so you really have to do
your homework before you make a choice, eg whether you want a full blown on
or a cut down one to run an internet firewall/ICS sharer.

Dave