Simviation Forum - Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64

Mar 26^th, 2008 at 5:02am

drummer_tom Offline
Colonel
If to be is to do & to
do is to be. Do Be Do
Be Do
Dunstable, Bedfordshire, UK

Gender:
Posts: 287

Hi guys,

When I built my system, I had the option to get XP Professional x64, or the ordinary 32bit x86 version. I went for the normal one. This was after advice for people due to lack of drivers for x64??

I thought that x64 systems could mirror x86 systems (from reading) so there would be no problem??

Would love some enlightenment on my ignorance please!!

Cheers

Tom

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Mar 26^th, 2008 at 3:47pm

Ivan Offline
Colonel
No, I'm NOT Russian, I
only like Russian aircraft
The netherlands

Gender:
Posts: 6058

XP64 support is shaky at best. If you want 64 bit go for Vista64 instead (which is way more mainstream)

Quote:

I thought that x64 systems could mirror x86 systems (from reading) so there would be no problem??

AMDs are slightly better than Intels, but the gap has been almost closed since the 'Core' line of processors

Russian planes: IL-76 (all standard length ones), Tu-154 and Il-62, Tu-134 and An-24RV&&&&AI flightplans and repaints can be found here

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Mar 26^th, 2008 at 11:28pm

Vodka Burner Ex Member

Erm.... Core 2 obliterates any AMD by a large gap.... larger gap than Athlon 64 - Pentium 4.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Mar 27^th, 2008 at 8:46am

Wii Offline
Colonel
Space

Gender:
Posts: 2787

Quote:

Erm.... Core 2 obliterates any AMD by a large gap.... larger gap than Athlon 64 - Pentium 4.

Really? My Athlon x2 4800+ at 2.5Ghz totally kills my dad's intel core 2 and the laptops core 2.

&&http://352photography.webs.com/

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Mar 27^th, 2008 at 10:00am

Vodka Burner Ex Member

Well, there are many types of Core 2s, so of course a x2 4800 would beat a very cheap, low end Core 2, but there's no way a x2 4800 would even come close to the faster Core 2s.... If your 4800x2 was in a laptop, it would suck the battery dry rather quickly.

You could try comparing an X2 6400 (3.2ghz) with an Core 2 duo E6750 (2.66ghz). They cost the same, yet the Core 2 is slightly faster (efficiancy clock to clock) yet has less than half the Thermal Design Power, then consider the fact you can get a E6750 from stock 2.66ghz to 3.4ghz on stock cooling and volts - it's matter of entering BIOS and changing 333 to 425 - boom, 40% faster computer leaving the 6400x2 in the dust. I think if Intel wanted to they could even ship them, STOCK, like that!

Point is, Intel is kicking AMDs arse, they're far more power efficiant, overclock better, if you get one clocked higher it can be faster than AMD by 40%+. I think Intels processors are capable of a WHOLE LOT MORE while still staying within the capabilities of the chip. Overclockers have got no problem of reaching dramatically higher clocks, even with stock cooling and voltage.

AMDs quad cores still don't perform as well as Intels 1 1/2 year old quads (a replacement called Nehalem comes out in the end of the year.... 6 cores, each core is capable of executing two threads in parralel, integrated memory controller, 32mb of cache.) You cannot overclock the current revision of AMD quads, while I could get my Q6600 to 3.6ghz with an aditional 50$ in cooling, or 4ghz if I up vcore. 45nm Core 2s have a high initial price, but I expect this to soon drop, then the gap would be even bigger.

As Nick (I think) said, AMD is caught with its pants down.

I do like AMD Puma though.

And thank god we're not stuck with Pentium 4.

« Last Edit: Mar 27^th, 2008 at 11:32am by N/A »

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #5 - Mar 27^th, 2008 at 9:52pm

a1 Offline
Colonel
Tied In A Knot I Am

Gender:
Posts: 8217

Quote:

Well, there are many types of Core 2s, so of course a x2 4800 would beat a very cheap, low end Core 2, but there's no way a x2 4800 would even come close to the faster Core 2s.... If your 4800x2 was in a laptop, it would suck the battery dry rather quickly.

You could try comparing an X2 6400 (3.2ghz) with an Core 2 duo E6750 (2.66ghz). They cost the same, yet the Core 2 is slightly faster (efficiancy clock to clock) yet has less than half the Thermal Design Power, then consider the fact you can get a E6750 from stock 2.66ghz to 3.4ghz on stock cooling and volts - it's matter of entering BIOS and changing 333 to 425 - boom, 40% faster computer leaving the 6400x2 in the dust. I think if Intel wanted to they could even ship them, STOCK, like that!

Point is, Intel is kicking AMDs arse, they're far more power efficiant, overclock better, if you get one clocked higher it can be faster than AMD by 40%+. I think Intels processors are capable of a WHOLE LOT MORE while still staying within the capabilities of the chip. Overclockers have got no problem of reaching dramatically higher clocks, even with stock cooling and voltage.

AMDs quad cores still don't perform as well as Intels 1 1/2 year old quads (a replacement called Nehalem comes out in the end of the year.... 6 cores, each core is capable of executing two threads in parralel, integrated memory controller, 32mb of cache.) You cannot overclock the current revision of AMD quads, while I could get my Q6600 to 3.6ghz with an aditional 50$ in cooling, or 4ghz if I up vcore. 45nm Core 2s have a high initial price, but I expect this to soon drop, then the gap would be even bigger.

As Nick (I think) said, AMD is caught with its pants down.

I do like AMD Puma though.

And thank god we're not stuck with Pentium 4.

Pentium 4 was great for me. I like it very much. Kiss

Intel has been kicking but.

790i : QX9650 : 4Gb DDR3 : GeForce 8800 GTX : 1 WD Raptor : 1 WD VelociRaptor 150

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #6 - Mar 28^th, 2008 at 2:04am

Vodka Burner Ex Member

Pentium 4s, atleast later ones, were horrible compared to Athlon 64s. They used more power and had great difficulty keeping up in games. For example, an Athlon 64 3200+ (2ghz) with a 62 watt TDP would obliterate a Pentium 4 650 (3.4ghz) with a 88 watt TDP, while the Athlon costed far less.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #7 - Apr 1^st, 2008 at 7:35am

richardd43 Offline
Colonel
Edmonton AB

Gender:
Posts: 764

Getting back to the subject. I agree with the Go With Vista 64 advice. Why put a 5 year old operating system in a new computer.

I have been useing Vista 64 since it was in beta and have had no problems with it. When it first came out there were a shortage of drivers but that is mostly a thing of the past.

SP1 just came out and fixed a lot of the bugs that had not been taken care of through the update system.

Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Asus P8Z77-V Deluxe
Intel I7 3770K w/ Corsair H100
Thermaltake Level 10 GT
Silverstone 1000W PSU
Corsair 120G Force 3
2 x Seagate Sata 3
16 G Corsair Meemory
2 x EVGA GTX 295
Windows 7 Ultimate

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #8 - Apr 2^nd, 2008 at 7:35am

Brett_Henderson Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB

Gender:
Posts: 3593

Quote:

Why put a 5 year old operating system in a new computer.

Five ? .. Wasn't XP released just after ME.. late 2000 ? I think it's going on eight years old..

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #9 - Apr 2^nd, 2008 at 7:58am

richardd43 Offline
Colonel
Edmonton AB

Gender:
Posts: 764

Quote:

Wasn't XP released just after ME.. late 2000 ? I think it's going on eight years old..

Hey, it was 4 in the morning, what can I say

Asus P8Z77-V Deluxe
Intel I7 3770K w/ Corsair H100
Thermaltake Level 10 GT
Silverstone 1000W PSU
Corsair 120G Force 3
2 x Seagate Sata 3
16 G Corsair Meemory
2 x EVGA GTX 295
Windows 7 Ultimate

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #10 - Apr 3^rd, 2008 at 8:51am

drummer_tom Offline
Colonel
If to be is to do & to
do is to be. Do Be Do
Be Do
Dunstable, Bedfordshire, UK

Gender:
Posts: 287

Yeah but I think the Pro x64 edition was release later, and XP was 2001 so I'm lead to believe.

So why can't a 64bit os just use ordinary 32bit drivers if it can mimic a 32bit system?

Tom

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: