Not alone out there
@85.184.x.x | Amd 64 vs Amd X2
Can someone kindly explain the difference between these 2 cpus. I know the Amd 64 is a 64 bit cpu but is the X2 32 or 64 bit? I also realize the X2 is a dual core and Amd 64 is single core. |
|
dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
clubs: | The X2 is the 'next generation' of the AMD 64. 64 bit chip, with 2 cores on 1 die. Just think of it as 2 AMD 64's in one package.
--
Q: When will it be done?
A: When pigs fly ! |
|
Mr_Lyons
Aka Mr Limo
Premium
join:2002-04-12
Novato, CA
clubs: | reply to Not alone out there
it's also a different pin configuration... |
|
decx
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC | reply to Not alone out there
Just remember that the marketing name for the X2's are actually Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core. |
|
JoelC707
join:2002-07-09
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| reply to Mr_Lyons
said by Mr_Lyons  :it's also a different pin configuration... Only if comparing between 754, 939 and AM2. In both 939 and AM2 there are single and dual core versions and they do interchange provided the BIOS supports dual core. To add even more confusion there is also a 940 that the Athlon 64 FX-51 used and the Opterons (old 100's and 200/800) use. AM2 is also 940 pin but different from the Opteron. |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
| reply to Not alone out there
keep in mind though that not a whole lot of apps take advantage of dual CPU configurations. Sure, the OS will offload some stuff to the second CPU, but thats still half assed compared to what a good SMP multithreaded app could do. So in most cases, a really fast A64 will serve you well. We have both in house and i don't really see a huge difference in speed.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" |
|
decx
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC
 ·Bell Sympatico
| It's just not about which CPU can run a single, single-threaded applications faster. Sure with proper support for multiprocessor and multicores in applications there can be a lot of improvement in performance.
However, you're missing the point that many multicore processors users have found useful and that is multitasking. Even if the applications you use isn't multithreaded, there's nothing quite as handy as being able to run a processor intensive task while still being able to work and do other stuff on the same computer.
Also remember, as the user base with multicore CPUs systems increase, more and more applications will be made to take advantage and become multithreaded. |
|
signmeuptoo
Tune in to XM 120. BOO
Premium
join:2001-11-22
LOSTinSpace
clubs:
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Not alone out there
Not Alone out there: They are really the same, as everyone has explained, it just whether or not two processors are on one chip.
A lot of people can benefit from dual cores, but not everyone will. You need it when running multiple processing intensive steps, dynamic stuff. Programs that keep doing some kind of activity. A web browser, for instance, isn't such a process, but if you are running a P2P app and want to burn at the same time, then a dual core is for you.
BTW, if you go with the Socket 939, which AMD is now dropping, the top model, the 4800 can really overclock. Actually the FX-60 is a dual core so it is the top model in that line. If you want to build a system using current technology, than an AM2 series process for the different socket 940 is the way to go.
People who just browse the web and write documents don't need dual cores, IMHO.
Also, as far as the 64 bit is concerned, 64 bit is only somewhat useful, and the OSs out for it, with the exception of the unix type OSs, well, many manufacturers don't have drivers for it, and I have been told that in some tasks running in a 64 bit OS things can be slower, it depends on the type of processes the CPU is, well, processing. Even so, as time moves forward, 64 bit will eventually be how everything is. Probably the next version of Windows after Vista a few years down the line, may only come in 64 bit, we shall see.
--
Let's be nice to each other, k? Life's too short. |
|
