New workstation, your advice please

[Brian Ellis]

Good luck, Jerry, with your "beta" MS OS. As MS issue beta versions as SP1 release, when they say it is beta it must be alpha minus 1

I notice Intel is rising on the NYSE/Nasdaq as AMD is going down. I certainly would not go on a limb with a new processor from an unsteady company who are gambling their all on it for survival, a new m/b and a new OS, all untried and untested together, to obtain zero short-term benefits (no 64 bit software to run on it).

[Dr Mordrid]

Yeah, but some of us are naturally adventurous and like trying new things and toys, especially expensive things and toys

I get in a lot of trouble with the wife that way, especially when I mention taking Erik skydiving once he's old enough

Dr. Mordrid

[Jerry Jones]

Agree with Doc. :-)

Also:

You - Brian - are FLAT INCORRECT when you state that there are "no short term benefits."

Even 32-Bit software programs will enjoy a substantial performance increase on the AMD Opteron 64-Bit processors.

How can you type that horse manure?

What you wrote - in that regard - is not consistent with what we've already seen on the Anandtech Web site where the speed advantages of a 64-bit chip have already been documented in connection with 32-bit programs.

The stock market?

Ha!

Since when did the stock market serve as a reliable predictor for ANYTHING?

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

More AMD Opteron 64-bit mainboards:

http://www.amdboard.com/opteron_boards.html

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

The new Asus SK8N AMD Opteron mainboard:

http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=SK8N&langs=01

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[fberger]

To me the two alternatives spell out this way:

1. You want a performance platform today that works, is stable and very cost effective: get a P4/800 with HT and W2k or XP.

2. You're ready to gamble, and maybe you'll win in 12 months, maybe not: wait for AMD's 64 bit workstation.

Most people will have to choose one of the two alternatives, and will go with solution number 1 for video editing if they do their homework.
Some people can afford to have 2 platforms, one to do real work and one to play with. They will benefit from both because they'll be ahead of the curve if AMD succeeds.

Fred

[Jerry Jones]

AMD will succeed.

The question isn't about the processor end of the equation.

The question is about Microsoft - and 64-Bit Windows.

I will admit anything 'new' from Microsoft tends to make me nervous.

I won't be beta testing the 64-bit Windows.

But I will gamble on the first official release of the software.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

By the way, if it turns out to be successful, then you can expect 64-Bit processing will afford the same kinds of benefits that 32-Bit processing afforded after we made the switch from 16-Bit systems.

The improvement was ENORMOUS.

It all depends on how fast one has to upgrade.

If you need to upgrade NOW - then go for the fastest Pentium 4 you can buy.

If you can wait, then it will probably be worth it.

Apple will be releasing a 64-Bit operating system - Panther - to run on their new IBM-powered 64-Bit G5 workstation.

That story is here:

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43076,00.asp

When that happens, do you really want to be working on a 32-Bit PC workstation - letting the Mac-heads have all of the fun?

Not me.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Brian Ellis]

But the first official release is what others call a pre-beta

Jerry, you must have a lot more money than I do: you are playing a lottery and we all know the chances of winning!

Good luck to you!

[Jerry Jones]

"...you are playing a lottery..."

Not really.

One could just as easily say that it's a gamble to walk across the street.

Sure there's a small chance one might be hit by a car.

But the odds of that happening are very small.

Sure there's a slight risk associated with upgrading to 64-Bit Windows.

But my transition will be quite smooth as I have no plans to discard my 32-bit systems.

If my new 64-bit system fails to work, I can fall back on my current systems, which - by the way - run on AMD processors PERFECTLY.

If past experience is any indication, the upgrade to 64-Bit should be painless.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Ray Austin]

If intel wasn't afraid of the 64bit rush why would they secretly work on a 64 bit chip of their own. Many news reporting agencies have reported there is a supposed switch that will change the intel proc to 64bit. So don't think for one second that it's going to be an AMD/ MAC only 64bit world.

We have AMD to thank for the 64 bit push as it will propel things forward. For those of us deciding to wait, we have much more to wait for than 64bit. For one Intel is redesigning the PC with PCI Express bus connectors. This will do away with PCI, AGP.... so if you go and buy a puter now all that stuff will be obsolete in seconds in Computer years, not a wise investment if you ask me.

Naturally if you really need something you should buy it, but I would avoid spending more than $100 on a video card, because the PCI Express is coming in 2004. PCI will more than likely be on the first gen mobos but even then probably in limited fashion... like one or two... so all your fire wire cards, controller cards, usb cards etc will have to all fit in those 2 slots.

Intel has their own road map and it isn't less costly than AMD. But change is good, hopefully tho all these changes will leave us with some spare coinage after the dust settles so we can upgrade or dig a hole what ever you prefer.



If game manufacturers support the new 64bit, that could fuel some growth for Amd. The game industry is doing quite well these days.

[Flying dutchman]

Is it wise to buy a 64-bit system yet? After all, the editing software available is still 32-bit. Moreover, I wouldn't overestimate the stability and availability of the first 64-bit driver generation (especially for graphics cards). Some companies (let's not name names here, ahem) need some time to write mature drivers.

Can Microsoft in the long term support two (incompatible) 64-bit platforms? I haven't forgotten what happened to Windows 2000 for Dec Alpha. "There can only be one".

For software developers such as yours truly it's a P.I.T.A. too, they will need two systems in order to develop 64-bit software for both AMD and IA64. The solution to this might be the new ".NET" architecture which works with an intermediate platform-independent microcode, similar to Java. Can you imagine the inherent speed penalty? 64- bit .NET software will actually be slower than 32-bit native software!

[Marshmallowman]

It probably is too soon to jump on to AMD 64bit bandwagon....but I don't think I could resist IF I had the $$ to buy a 1MB cache opteron or 2.

Methinks maybe runnig 32bit windows may be a adequate fallback...I am assuming AMD 64 can run win 2k/xp in standard 32bit mode?

[Flying dutchman]

Speed and CPU bit-width are not equivalent anyhow.

The most efficient Intel-compatible processor around today, in terms of commands executed per clock cycle, is.... the mobile Pentium-M! A 1.3 GHz Pentium-M is as fast as a Pentium4-2000.

[Marshmallowman]

We'll my favourite flavour of linux has an opteron/Athlon 64 distribution so I am set OS wise....

I am not likely to use the the full 64bits for a while unless I start writing my own stuff, but 64 bit ut2003 is a start..

My bro is hanging out for it, for him this is excactly what he requires for his research project..

I wonder how long it will take for codec's coded in 64bit to appear? either for 32bit OS with 64bit extender or native 64bit..