>> In the i386-on-i386 comparison by the way, P4 Extreme significantly outperforms AMD64.
I am not too sure about that. You might want to check: http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q4/athlon64-fx55/index.x?pg=1 They do a good job of listing the control elements of how they capture the data so it is easy to evaluate their results. They also compare a wide variety of Intel and Amd processors against one another. It seems the SIMD and SIMD2 in Intel is much better than Amd's. So if all you do is mp3 and Divx Intel will work better. In applications like Doom3, Far Cry, Unreal Tournament 2004, and CS Source Amd seems to be on top. As for which is better 64 bit vs 32 bit that I don't know. I just look at the end performance of how I will use the processor. Amd is not 40-50 times faster but Amd can be 20% faster than Intel (based on CS Source results). -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin C. Gould Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [hlds] RE: amd64 cpu compairson I too call shenanigans, in a big way. Someone has had their ear too close to the AMD Propaganda Loudspeaker. While it's true that on Linux, some test operations are faster on AMD64 in 64 bit mode, on Windows XP they run essentially neck and neck (with some gaming benchmarks being, as I said, slower in 64 bit mode). Here are some tests of AMD64 3500+ in both modes: http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2114&p=3 Essentially, those tests compare the chip against itself, in 32 and 64 bit modes. The flaw with saying that the new 64 bit chips are so much faster is that generally speaking that comparison is of the 64 bit chip in i386 mode versus a straight i386 chip, not the chip in 64 bit mode versus a straight i386 chip as one would expect. AMD64 is not a true 64 bit chip, TBH. Its instruction set is around 80% i386. In the i386-on-i386 comparison by the way, P4 Extreme significantly outperforms AMD64. So, if you're looking to spend all that extra cash, it's better spent on P4EE right now. I've little doubt that over the long run, 64 bit technology will mature into a viable consumer platform. For now, 64 bit is great for corporate/enterprise server and engineering compute environments where it's already been operating for years (HPUX/PA-RISC, Itanium/Itanium2, etc.) For consumers, the usefulness is still years away. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian mu Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hlds] RE: amd64 cpu compairson (Justin C. Gould) it is shenanegans tbh, but still "significantly" faster tbh, but not that level :). I'd personally estimate at 20% faster. On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:09:45 -0700, m0gely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeromy Statia wrote: > > > You can > > even run 32 bit window on AMD's new chip's and that will run upwards of > > 40-50 times faster than a comperable 32bit chip. > > I call shenanigans. > > > > -- > - m0gely > http://quake2.telestream.com/ > Q2 | Q3A | Counter-strike _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
