AMD 64 vs. XP
 

Why is the 64 model so much more expensive than XP? Is the 64's newer techology worth the extra cash?

I noticed that the Athlon 64 processors only come in socket 754. I guess a socket A mobo will not accept it.

No it will not. An Athlon 64 is AMD's next generation processor, and it will run in 64 bit mode (current processors, like XP and P4 are 32 bit processors). You must have software to take advantage of the 64bit computing though. I believe there is a Windows 64bit edition coming soon, and I know there are several Linux distros optimized for 64bit processors.

I plan on getting an Athlon 64 for my next machine.

And yes they are amazingly fast ;)

there is already a winxp 64... http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...ds/upgrade.asp
you can download it...

my next system will be a 64 bit one :D

So what processor from intel is supposed to be the competition for the new AMD 64's?

Their new Prescott chips, I think.

And they suck. Tom's Hardware said they are a joke, not worth purchasing. The article is in another thread around here somewhere.

And an anti-Intel statement coming from Tom's is like an anti-Christian statement from Falwell.

Well, as far as 64-bit computing goes, Intel has had Itanium for several years.

But they don't really compete on price or price/performance with AMD64.

Yep. That shows you how much it sucks :) If even Tom's Hardware says it's bad.....you KNOW it's bad

Tom's Hardware Guide said:
Despite 1 MB L2 cache and some optimizations, Prescott is slower than Northwood in roughly a third of our benchmarks. Software, like many 3D shooters and more serious applications like Lame, MS Movie Maker 2, Mathematica, Cinema 4D or even 3DStudio perform worse than before...So what is the meaning of this "average Prescott" we were given today? At existing clock speeds, Prescott is not faster than Northwood and is thus a pretty useless product, as the socket is meant to be phased out shortly anyway.