[UPHPU] Going 64 bit

Hill, Greg grhill at corp.untd.com
Wed Jan 24 14:01:50 MST 2007


> Good question Joshua.  I was thinking of going AMD.  I've always gone
> AMD, which has been ahead of Intel since the 2 ghz Athlon processors.
> Is it not 64 bit?  What's the difference?  I'll probably want PCIE
> support for a later video add-on.  When I buy a processor, I usually
> consider the pricing curve this way:

Well, AMD's were better long before 2GHz, but anyway, the Core 2 Duo
processor outperforms the Athlon x2 in every conceivable way (beats it
in every benchmark, uses less power, generates less heat).  That said,
Intel copied AMD's 64bit instruction set, so I doubt by 'true 64bit'
they mean Intel (unless they're ignorant of that fact).  I'm still not
sure what they mean, since AMD is real 64bit.  Maybe they mean Itanium
or G5?  Either way, both AMD and Intel outperform those chips, by a huge
margin.

> Processor A: $50
> Processor B: $60
> Processor C: $70
> Processor D: $74
> Processor E: $77
> Processor F: $80
> Processor G: $200
> 
> In that list I'd probably choose Processor F.  Usually there's a
cluster
> of closely priced processors then a large jump.  I'll get the fastest
> processor before the big jump - which usually means the most speed and
> performance for the $1.

I usually do the same.  The problem is the Core 2 Duos are better
bang-for-the-buck than AMD's lineup, across the board.  If you're
building new, there's no point in going AMD right now (which pains me to
admit, since I've used AMD since the original Athlon Slot A processors).
So, find the jump-off point for prices and buy the Intel just below the
jump.  Oh, and cpu prices don't cluster quite as much as they used to a
few years back.  You'll see $20-50 jumps in each model, then a $200+
jump at some point.  So, the 'F' processor in that example might be more
than you'd like to spend, but you'll have to figure that out for
yourself.

Greg



More information about the PLUG mailing list