Is buying a CORE DUO still worth??

was just wondering about this
core duo is 32bit.............so is it still worth going for it at this age???
with all the 64bit processors out and windows vista on the verge of being launched, will a core duo be able to handle all that??
plus what will be the difference between the vista for 64bit pcs and the one for 32bit pcs

 

If you can get a good deal on a notebook with a Core Duo, there's really no reason not to go for it.

 

well, 32bit is slowly and right now very slowly fasing out. Vista will be able to be used to its full potential an 64bit whereas though it will still run on 32bit, you will not get to utilize all the features of Vista. Depending on the cost...you may just want to get the 64bit Core 2 Duo. If its only the difference of say $80 or less, then I see no reason to buy a 32bit processor over a 64bit.
BTW...are you building a computer or just buying a laptop from a company that offers both 32bit and 64bit options?

 

there is a nice deal on a toshiba
core duo 1.83ghz
x1600 256mb
1gb ram

 

For how much money?

 

about $1250
but its no good if its not future proof
and i have to last the laptop for 3 years

 

It ll last for 3, i m sure.

 

how can you say that it will last 3 years if 64bit stuff is slowly coming in the mainstream..........
plus will i be able to use windows aero in a core duo???

 

If you get a really good bargain on the CD I see no reason not to get it. Even if 64 bit becomes all the rage, you computer will still work fine. It remains to be seen if they will sort out all the driver issues on Vista 64 which they have not on XP64.

 

ZaZ is right. 64-bit CPU HARDWARE is quickly becoming the rage in the market... however, there is a huge lack of 64-bit software. I don't think 64-bit will be "standard" for at least 3-4 years or so...

32-bit will be around for quite some time still.

 

As most folks here have been saying, if theres a Core Duo system going for a bargain price, go for it. But, personally, I think the Core 2 Duo is worth it even if does cost slightly more. In general go for the Core 2 Duo when you can-computer technology moves incredibly quickly with advancements being made on practically a monthly basisso it makes sense to keep up to date. Its not like with cars for example where any old banger can probably fulfil most of a modern car's demands

 

but y shud i buy core 2 duo if even core duo is all powerful but with a lil difference
and as said before in this thread that 64bit is gonna take time to land in the mainstream

 

Funny you should mention it, I was working on a old ThinkPad 560 with a 133MHz Pentium, 2.1GB hard drive, 64MB of memory and Windows 95 not too long ago. It booted fine despite the slow hard drive. I installed Office 97 on it with no trouble. I threw in a PCMCIA WiFi card and Opera. It had no problems surfing the net. I listed to music on it. The person who gave it me just wanted something to get on the net and work on a few type office documents on. For those tasks it will work fine. I suspect she'll be using it for some time into the future irregardless of 64 bit, dual cores, flash hard drives, blah, blah, blah...

 

Well it depends on how long you intend on keeping the notebook. I'd say if you're looking at 3+ years then go for a Core 2 Duo

ZaZ: I'm sure you could do all that but probably not all at the same or at least with loads of lag

 

I've had my AMD-64 Athlon for THREE years now..still waiting

 

lol..........guess that explains my question

 

32 bit isn't going away anytime soon, trust me, its gonna be around for a while.

 

yup got it
and how do you say this laptop is:
Core Duo 1.83
X1600 256MB
512 DDR2 RAM (which im anyways gonna upgrade to 2GB)
80GB 5400rpm HDD(i might consider upgrading it to 7200rpm)
and this costs about $1250

what do u think about this

 

Those specs are very similar to mine. I'd suggest upgrading to at least 1GB, possbily 2GB if you don't intend on getting a 7200rpm HDD. You may want to get 2GB anyway depending on what apps you'll be running e.g oblivion, 3D design programs etc.

Overall good stuff, but definitely at a bare minimum up grade to 1GB of RAM

 

yes i will be upgrading it to 2gb ram and also a 7200 rpm hdd dont worry about that

so this is a good config right??
overall is it worith buying??
after upgrading and all it will cost me about $1500

 

Agree with Best Foot Foward, RAM is more important, 1GB is a must, otherwise you cannot even get Vista (rubbish though I heard) working nicely. Also, hydra had a point, AMD has been leading 64bit innovation, why don't you try AMD Turion™ 64 X2 Dual-Core if you want that?

Btw, currently I am using neither Vista nor AMD. I run SUSE10.0 on Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 (EM64T VT). 64bit SMP kernel runs happily!

 

I think 64 bit is the equivalent of widescreen TV. Sure your dvds have a better picture but most broadcasting (in the UK at least) is still 4:3 so you get a better picture most of time on an 'outdated' 4:3 TV.

Sure, a 64 bit cpu is way better when you have an operating system that's 64 bit, all the correct drivers and all the apps working ok but that won't happen anytime soon. 32 bit is still fine!

 

hmmmm interesting

so ok how about this
and amd turion 64 2ghz or core duo 1.83
these are the 2 laptops which suit my budget

 

The popular opinion seems to be that Core Duo architechture is better than AMD's. Is that AMD Turion X2 or just AMD Turion? Core Duo is definately something that beats solo core AMD by far (I'm assuming you're looking for a Yonah here, not Merom, the Core 2 Duo T5600), so I'd definately put my money on Intel.

If the choice is between a 64bit solo core AMD Turion, and a 32 bit Duo Core Intel, I'd still go for the Intel even if it's just 32 bit - doesn't seem like 64 bit will be on the "requirements" list any time very soon, but of course a Merom (Core2Duo) would be more futureproof.

 

Well, one issue that keeps getting lost in the shuffle of FAQs/sites/opinions is this:

The Athlon64, the Turion64, and the Core 2 Duo processors are not true 64 bit processors. They all share a technology created by AMD and licensed by Intel (AMD calls their implementation AMD64 and Intel calls their implementation EM64T) that allows for the execution of 64 bit code and 64 bit memory addressing, but none of them - not one - is a true 64 bit processor.

The only true 64 bit processors on the market today are the AMD Opteron and Intel Itanium, and both of them are still a bit beyond what your normal consumer is willing to pay for a decent computer. Sure, you can build one yourself based on an Opteron for an arm and a leg almost, or an Itanium for an arm, a leg, half your stomach, the backside of your head, your Wife, your firstborn child and then perhaps a grandchild too, but the cost is just too prohibitive across the board.

So, keep in mind that while the Athlon64/Turion64/Core 2 Duo allow(s) you to run 64 bit code, it's not fully 64 bit all the way through as Opterons and Itaniums would be.

On one of those processors, running a 64 bit OS, and running a 64 bit application (not some 32 bit half-breed), you can expect roughly 10-20% improvement in performance - it does not double as one might commonly assume. It's just a minimal performance boost when running true 64 bit code on one of those processors.

On a true 64 bit processor, running a 64 bit OS, with that same 64 bit application, the performance reaches into the 40-60% faster/more efficient range than it's counterpart at 32 bits on a 32 bit processor running a 32 bit OS.

A Core Duo laptop will last you a long long time, and the prices continue to drop now that Core 2 Duo processors are the "standard" from Intel. If you see a great price on a Core Duo machine, grab it and have fun with it. It's marginally slower on most day to day applications, and the battery life isn't that bad compared to the same machine with a Core 2 Duo in it.

Besides, you might even get a laptop (like my Gateway MX6931) that has a simple bottom panel that allows me to get easy access to the CPU socket for future upgrades. I can replace the CPU in my MX6931 in under 10 mins if I wanted to - not many other manufacturers have made it quite so easy.

There's an entire thread about the MX6930/6931, what I believe to be the best Core 2 Duo values on the entire market at this moment over at:

MX6930 Core 2 Duo - Anyone? Anyone?

Hope this helps...

 

my question is:

i'm getting 2 nice deals on a laptop
one is an acer ferrari
its got amd turion ml-37 2Ghz(single core)
the thing is its a ferrari and im getting it at an extremely cheap price

the other one is a toshiba satellite a105
its got core duo 1.83 ghz

which processor is justified to buy??

 

I call complete and utter BULL. Athlon64's, Core 2 Duo's and Turion's are all true 64bit processors. They run 64bit code in native mode without any kind of translations or anything, so they are by definition 64bit processors. Opterons and Turion's/Athlon64's are essentially identical, just a bit of cache size and hypertransport implementation differences that make the Opteron better suited to Workstations/Servers, and the Athlon64/Turion a fine Desktop/Notebook chip. Itaniums are a RISC based chip (vs x86, or the common Intel and AMD chips), and they are 64bit, but not something that would run applications most people use. You will NOT get a magical 40-60% jump in performance for anything except maybe some highly-tuned scientific simulations. Why would you think that? Do you have benchmarks? 64bit just means that the data bus is 64bits wide, so it can do manipulations on a larger chunk of data at one time, so it depends HIGHLY on the application that's being used. You will get some performance enhancements from 64bit, but nothing NEAR 40-60%, and often not even your somewhat more reasonable 10-20%, especially running consumer applications. Look at this. And take it from a guy who HAS run a 64bit OS as well as the 32bit version, on the same exact machine. It's not magic. But things will move that way, and 64bit Intel chips even have some enhancements that let them run 32bit core efficiently by using all 64bits of their processing capability in parallel basically. 64bit is meant to address more memory, and be able to use large blocks of memory more efficiently, loading once instead of twice and so on. It won't change much in the appearance of computing, though, and for the next two to four years, a 32bit processor will suffice.

Get your facts straight.

 

Riiiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.

To quote that second link you posted, near the bottom of the page:

"We also hope that a 64-bit version of this benchmark is released."

So you ran off to Google to prove me wrong, and you came back with a link to published benchmarks that say "On a 32 bit OS, SPECView shows <xxx> performance, while on a 64 bit OS this 32 bit benchmark shows <yyy> performance decrease."

You just shot yourself in the foot, son. I said and I repeat it here: 64 bit applications running on a true 64 bit processor that's using a 64 bit OS will show 40-60% gains in performance over their 32 bit version running on a 32 bit processor running a 32 bit OS.

I didn't say running a 32 bit application on a 64 bit processor with a 32 bit OS or even a 64 bit OS would perform better. Anyone with half a brain can read what I said and see I'm talking about two different platforms: pure 32 bit (CPU, OS, Application) compared to pure 64 bit (CPU, OS, Application).

Might wanna pay more attention to what you're reading before lambasting me so quickly.

An application written in 64 bit code running on a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit CPU will outperform the same application written in 32 bit code running on a 32 bit OS on a 32 bit CPU. Period.

As far as things changing over the next 2-4 years, it's already started. Vista is coming in 32 and 64 bit versions (upon request), so apparently the two biggest names in the personal computer industry - Intel and Microsoft - now think it's time for 64 bit computing to make its move.

And I agree.

bb

 

This whole "real 64-bit" discussion is a bit pointless. Nobody has even bothered to define "real".

If a processor can run 64-bit code, then in some sense it is 64-bit. The question then becomes whether there is any performance benefit. This is what most consumers would care about ("Is it faster?") I have seen nearly double performance in one application (MATLAB) going from a 32-bit to a 64-bit processor, but most applications won't see any major benefit unless they do a lot of math with 64-bit floats (like MATLAB, which uses 64-bit floats for _everything_).

Whether a processor supports AMD64/EM64T is totally irrelevant to whether a processor is 64-bit. These are instruction sets, and could in theory be emulated on a 32-bit processor (for example, on this page VMWare calls it "theoretically possible", though they don't support it). I have heard some people state that the Pentium 4 with EM64T actually uses its 32-bit cores to do 64-bit math. Supposedly since they're often data-starved, calculating multiple instructions with the same data doesn't cause much of a performance hit. Either way, this isn't really relevant.

Personally, I think that any processor with 64-bit general-purpose registers which performs 64-bit operations on them is a 64-bit processor. This means that it is doing 64-bit math all the time, which is the whole point. It also means that it uses 64-bit pointers e.g. for indexing more than 4GB of memory. The Athlon line and the Core 2 Duo both meet this criteria.

If there is a definition of "real 64-bit" which is more stringent that that, it could be interesting to discuss. But please state it clearly.

 

I'm for Core Duo here - why? Even based on layman experience, two cores does help you when you run multiple applications: so if you do that, it's a deal for you. I run maths heavy processes, and play games, and so on, and I don't like to end up in a lag drivel whenever some automated process hits me. In my view, the jump from Pentium M to Core2Duo was a very comforting one. I do notice the difference, I don't know how benchmarks rate it, but for what I've heard the core architechture itself is very good, and two cores is an improvement. I suppose you might want to give some thought to the other specifications too (especially RAM and CPU, if you play games).

 

ok got it
but the turion clocks at 2 ghz and the core duo at 1.83
so which is better

 

Benchmarks for some mobile processors here.

T2400 ranks higher overall than ML-34, and performs better in the available benchmarks.

Here and here you can find some more tests, not T2400 or ML-34 though, but generally showing where Core Duo beats Turion 64 - multitasking for now.

Again, the drawback of T2400 Core Duo is that it's not doing 64bit code, Turion 64 will run 64 bit code better, but then again, at the current moment there are really few applications which offer proper 64bit code support, and the Microsoft support for 64bit (before Vista comes) is nigh inexistent.

 

Show me your benchmarks claiming the 40-60%, because I have plenty that show otherwise. 40-60% on the same clock speed is completely stupid to claim. 64bit isn't magic, it's just a wider processing bus. All memory pointers are expanded to double their size, which means that there's more memory taken up for pointers, so you get slowdowns from longer memory access latencies. You get increases from loading larger pages of data, but the actual instructions haven't doubled in their throughput. You aren't running two 32bit instructions in parallel, you're running the exact same instructions you were before on a larger data set, primarily. The only gains you see from 64bit are from the efficiency of accessing larger blocks of data, and that's not common. You will almost certainly see a performance DROP across the board, what you gain is extensibility and the ability to address more memory and larger sets of data. This is important in some very specific circumstances and will actually show improved performance, primarily databases and scientific apps, but not for a general user.

Also, notice how Athlon64 and Core Duo's are listed as 64bit processors. They aren't a "false" 64bit of any sort as you originally claimed. And, notice how the 64bit processors can run 32bit code WITHOUT ANY PERFORMANCE PENALTY. It's perfectly valid to run the a 32bit OS on the same machine as a 64bit OS, and compare the performance of the different bit sizes. It's MORE valid than trying to compare Core Duo's to say, Turion's to assess 64bit vs. 32bit performance because of the difference in the CPU architectures. Your claims of the 64bit chain are completely without merit.

Now, look here to see the EXACT same source code, compiled once for 32bit, and once for 64bit. Look at the performance differences. Look at the next page.

I stand by my assertion. Get a clue before you mouth off about things which you don't know. I do this stuff for a living, have a degree in Computer Science with a minor in Engineering, and understand the actual technology better than most people here. There's a reason my Rep Power is as high as it is. Period.

 

well............these links provide excellent info i wanted them so bad
thanx man that was of major help

 

So, you had to bring out the big guns, the paper degree that says "I know my stuff" but that wasn't enough. Then you had to insult the forum members here basically saying "You're all beneath me and I know more about this stuff than you do." Rep power means jack squat to most forum users overall.

Riiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt.

bb

 

Yeah, it hits 1 at somewhere around 10 posts. After that you get another for every 250 posts. That makes 7 and you have a green bar which goes with a rep point I believe.

All your rep proves is you've made 1500 posts. The green boxes do a bit more to say 'people have added to my rep' but all you have to do is make a few useful posts and some kind ppl with high rep will add to your rep points.

Honestly I don't know which of you is right. What I do know is it's not worth having a slanging match over in some guy's poor thread who's asking what cpu is best for his needs!

 

Chill out. It's perfectly fine to discuss things, but it's not OK to insult and fight with other users. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

We appreciate everyone's comments on this manner, but if you can not respect each other, then don't bother posting. These forums are open to everyone's opinion, but you need to respect each other.

 

64-bit capability seemed like a hollow technology from the very start. Even if Vista will take full advantage of 64-bit, by then most of us will have purchased new computers, making AMD's first 64-bit CPUs certified rip-offs!

 

The really funny thing about this is that they could both be wrong. I see a third possibility. Both of them are making claims about benchmark results right now, but are also implicitly extrapolating into the future. Most people (e.g. non-enthusiasts) keep their computers around for more than a year or two. Also, it seems to me that most people buy a computer then continue to buy or upgrade their software incrementally over the following years. So most people might care if buying a 64-bit CPU could provide some future benefit.

Here's the thing. It seems entirely possible to me that 64-bit OSes are still so rare on x86 that software developers aren't bothering to write 64-bit code which is as optimal as it could be. They're just compiling their same old code for 64-bit and letting the compiler do all the work (and compilers might not be so well optimized for x86-64 either!) and assuming that there is nothing which needs to be changed. Many articles out there on optimizing code for x86-64 suggest otherwise. So one possibility other than "x86-64 increases performance" and "x86-64 doesn't increase performance" is "64-bit doesn't increase performance now, but it will a couple of years from now because software will be better optimized for 64-bit in the future". Depending on how long an individual plans to keep their system, that might matter to them.

Of course, that's all just a discussion of performance. If your computer is fast enough for you, then who cares? Well, one other reason to care is that 32-bit software will stop getting upgraded/patched at some point as developers start to focus entirely on 64-bit, just like 16-bit software did years ago. For example, Office 2007 is 32-bit, but what if the next release is 64-bit only (remember how Office 95 was 32-bit only even though it was released just after Windows 95)? Are you okay with potentially not getting the newest version of some software at some point in the future (unless you buy another new computer, that is)? Maybe it depends on how far in the future you think that is. Yet another thing to consider.

 

In my original first post (#25 in this thread) I didn't point out or mention or even go to the trouble of trying to link to any specific benchmarks - why? Because they're pointless to anyone that really reads them unless they have the exact same hardware and OS that's used in the benchmarking. Most of the links that were provided as "proof" against my performance expectation claims were old ones, using XP64 on machines from 2004 and 2005 - check the dates on the pages the links take you to.

The one that jumped out the most was the one I commented on - a 32 bit benchmark was being compared running on a 32 bit OS (XP) and then the same benchmark running on a 64 bit OS (XP64) - which of course then shows a performance drop as expected. 64 bit processors running a 64 bit OS are "tuned" to run 64 bit code and will take a performance hit when running 32 bit code; this is a simple fact and I'm not going to hit Google to back up the claim.

Yes, current "64 bit" processors can run 32 bit code, but they do so at a performance hit because they're really designed to run 64 bit code. Someone mentioned I should specify what I'm calling a 64 bit processor, and I didn't which got me into trouble, so here you go:

The DEC Alpha is a 64 bit processor, albeit old, one of the originals if not the original 64 bit CPU, and is 64 bit start to finish. It took a massive hit in performance when trying to run 32 bit code because it's simply not designed to do such things. It's designed to run 64 bit code, and 32 bit code just chokes it, simple.

Everything else we have nowadays is merely an extended copy of that technology extrapolated into current day hardware.

So, the SPECView example (a benchmark I am very familiar with considering I design 3D workstations for computer graphics and film work studios) is a fantastic thing for testing the overall performance benefits and ROI on workstations, but the example provided is a shoddy one at best.

To compare a 32 bit benchmark running on a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit capable processor and then immediately comparing the same 32 bit benchmark on a 64 bit OS on a 64 bit capable processor and then complaining or making any statements at all about how "64 bit just doesn't live up to the hype, neither on the OS or CPU level" doesn't hold any water.

Does that make sense? You can't use a 32 bit benchmark for anything except showing the performance of how the CPU in the testing handles 32 bit code, even if the OS is different. And that's what the SPECView did, it even said that last comment I quoted about "We hope they release a 64 bit version of this benchmark" - that was a very smart thing of them to do on that page, although they should have made it more clear to people at the top of the page that they were running a 32 bit version of the benchmark at all.

So my original point still holds:

If you compare things in this format - CPU/OS/SOFTWARE - then obviously 64/64/64 is going to beat 32/32/32, period. A 64 bit CPU running a 64 bit OS with a piece of software written and compiled for 64 bit operation will outperform a 32 bit CPU running a 32 bit OS with a piece of software written and compiled for 32 bit operation.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

One of the best examples of real-world performance gains when it comes to using a 64 bit OS over it's 32 bit counterpart and getting all the benefits of 64 bit computing power is on the following page, demonstrated with two short demo videos from two huge markets: audio production for digital audio workstations, and 3D computer graphics used for movies and film.

When I say real-world performance I mean just that: real-world, as in how people use the machines on a day to day basis to get real work done, not some test lab computer running a benchmark just to throw up some numbers that can be inflated and bogus from start to finish - and we all know in the benchmarking game over the past few years, several "scandals" have tarnished what was once a "Hey, this runs this fast, and this runs this fast" simple thing.

Now it's all about advertising and the bottom line: what do we have to do to make our hardware look better/faster? And that, especially with respects to drivers and 3DMark, turned out to be a big fiasco for ATI and Nvidia, and that's just one example where "reputable" benchmarks were basically tarnished forever.

The only benchmark I trust is the one I run myself on my own hardware, or the benchmark I can do to get hard data for a client that's paying me to show him why XXX is faster than YYY and what justification they have for spending ZZZ amount of money.

Tech websites simply are not valid sources of benchmark data to base monetary expenditures on; people like me and the testing suites I use are.

Here's the link (and please, don't groan about where it takes you because it's good information and provides perfect real-world examples of how 64 bit computing power can make a huge difference):

See Windows XP Professional x64 Edition in action

On the next link you'll find a whitepaper written by Newtek, creator of Lightwave 3D, one of the most popular 3D modeling and animation programs ever created and used to do the 3D CGI work in a bunch of Hollywood blockbusters since its creation way back in 1986. It documents how effective 64 bit computing is with helping to increase performance and speed up the 3D animation and creation process:

NewTek boosts performance in its animation program, LightWave 3D

Last one provides a whitepaper from a company that does a lot of consulting and design work for water treatment plants and they use 64 bit computing for the necessary engineering and layout computing.

DHI Water & Environment improves the speed and reliability of its software

This isn't about "my benchmark is better/bigger than yours," it's about providing information related to 64 bit computing overall. I didn't point out specific benchmarks, I didn't point out specific links, etc. because none of that matters to even the most casual observer or "hit and run" reader that happens upon this thread.

There's nothing in my original post that was inaccurate in any way. I stand by the numbers I posted because they are numbers I've seen and been able to repeat in my own testing and numbers I've used to show clients just what they can expect when it comes to using 64 bit computing in a variety of ways.

If I must clarify them, I would narrow it down now and say the numbers I provided in my original post were averages denoting the performance gains across a fairly wide variety of software applications on 64 bit computing platforms - both AMD and Intel based, including high end Opterons and Itaniums. Some apps did marginally better with their 64 bit versions over the 32 bit versions on a 64 bit OS base; others did amazingly better.

So, I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest with my original posting, and I know this one will probably get me some evil eye stares considering how off-topic it probably is.

Just so I do get on-topic before I get myself into too much trouble, the simple answer to the OP's question of whether buying a 1st generation Core Duo is still worth it, the obvious answer is:

Of course it is. It's a fantastic processor, with great power efficiency compared to processing efficiency, and will last you a good long while. I've got 2 laptops that are both over 5 years old, and I use them almost daily for several purposes. I would expect anyone getting a Core Duo laptop at this point in time to have two things:

1) A long lasting laptop.

2) A great price considering Core 2 Duos are taking over pretty fast.

I hope this overly worded explanation of my original idea helps, and just in my own defense I'll say I didn't even know this board was censored in the sense of using word filters. I did the * thing on my own and wasn't trying to get around such filters. I apologize if that's the perception.

I understand quite well, more so than most unfortunately, that your "Mr. Joe Average, computer owner" may or may not use the types of software that will most directly benefit from 64 bit computing on the CPU and OS level, and that's why - again I state this - I didn't mention anything specific with respects to applications or software, nor to specific benchmarks of any kind or links to such things in my original post.

I would never come out and say "Oh you can expect insert OS here to run insert application/game/etc here insert arbitrary percentage here than insert comparison example here on insert CPU type here"; that would be a silly thing to do.

I said (using the CPU/OS/SOFTWARE format) that 64/64/64 will give you performance gains over 32/32/32, and if you can't make sense of that simple fact or see the truth in it, no link that I or anyone else will ever provide can change that.

bb

 

You lost me there. Are you saying my AMD64 won't run Vista or that paying no more for the Athlon-64 over the 32 bit Intel mobile CPU was a ripoff? I got a far better deal on the AMD-64, at the time, 3 years ago. My old Athlon-64 has run everything I have thrown at it 32 bit wise but as for 64 bit code...well due to lack of 64 bit drivers, I never installed the free beta 64-bit Windows OS.

"..build it an they will come"

 

yup its being said again and again

 

Sorry, but what exactly is "being said again and again"?

So you've got an Athlon64, it runs 64 bit code just fine. What's the issue? If you have older hardware that didn't have hardware support, that's one thing, but it does not reflect in any way on the usefulness of the Athlon64 you have.

What irritates me is when people place the blame for "xxx" on "yyy" when "yyy" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

That's a pretty ignorant statement there. The first Athlon64's had nothing to do with the fact that:

- there really wasn't an OS to take advantage of the 64 bit capability of the CPU except for Linux distros and some other lesser known and less popular operating systems, and
- hardware manufacturers chose to hold back on developing 64 bit drivers to support a wider variety of hardware

Neither of those are valid reasons to make a comment saying "they're rip-offs."

It's like people already starting to blame Vista for something that doesn't work, be it an application, or a piece of hardware. It's not Vista's fault that 'xxx' application or 'yyy' hardware doesn't work with Vista - make that distinction clearly before proceeding. The software you buy and the hardware you buy has to work with Vista and not the other way around.

You can't blame the OS for software or hardware issues because it's not the OS's fault. You lay that blame on the companies that put out the software and put out the hardware and they alone are responsible for making their products work with Vista, not Vista itself nor Microsoft.

If you or anyone else chooses to continue running 32 bit OSes and software, that's perfectly acceptable. But it's not a good thing to come out with so many opinions (and we know everyone has one, right?) about 64 bit and say it's "a waste of time" etc... because it's not, and it's here now and finally about to take off because Intel and Microsoft - arguably the two biggest names in the personal computer industry - are now fully committed to 64 bit computing.

XP64 was an experiment that failed spectacularly, but it was one big beta test to see how well 64 bit might work. On machines that support(ed) it, it works better than any other version of Windows ever made, even with a few pieces of hardware that weren't properly supported by the hardware manufacturers nor software that was properly supported by the software developers.

For the people that need(ed) XP64, meaning businesses and organizations that had a need for such processing power and RAM expansion, it was a big success because the companies that made the software and hardware actually supported their software and hardware and wham, it was a winning thing all the way around.

But for consumers, computer enthusiasts, gamers, etc. - the people that wanted XP64 just because it's a bigger better OS - ended up having hardware incompatibilities and software issues and that simply wasn't XP64's fault, it never was, it never will be. It's not a gaming OS which tends to be the most common group of people that complain about it.

You can do everything with XP64 that you can do with XP, period. It's the same OS, just compiled for 64 bit operation. The "issues" that people have with XP64 are caused by - once again - the hardware manufacturers and software developers making a choice not to support that operating system for their hardware and software.

If you own an Athlon64, congrats, you got into the 64 bit arena before a lot of us, myself included. But I owned a working DEC Alpha workstation back in 1994 so... I think I got the jump on most of you.

64 bit computing is here, right now, and it's going to take over. You can choose to use the power your processor has - meaning Athlon64, Opteron, Turion64, Core 2 Duo - or you can simply let it sit there and continue to run 32 bit code. Talk about a waste.

If everyone that owns one of the above processors started running a 64 bit OS, and talked about it, and put the word out that 64 bit is here to stay, and... and... and...

If everyone that owns one of the above processors starts running a 64 bit OS and complained to the hardware manufacturers of their favorite hardware, and complained to the software developers of their favorite software that they want 64 bit support now, that will put the word out that people want it, they have support for it from their CPU, and they deserve it if those companies wish to keep their customers happy and loyal.

Makes sense, doesn't it? If people demand 64 bit support, it'll happen faster. If people keep running 32 bit stuff and never demand better - especially if they have a CPU that's 64 bit and ready to roll - then the status quo will never change.

We as consumers have to stand up and say "Ok, I've got 64 bit support now, I paid for it in this CPU, and Microsoft and several Linux distros are available in 64 bit versions... it's time you get off your tails and start supporting this/these OSes..."

If people just keep putting 64 bit computing in a drawer for some other day, it'll never grow. So stop hiding it in the drawer... you paid for the 64 bit hardware, now make it clear you expect the hardware and software makers to get on the ball.

Just my $.02...

bb

 

things seem to be getting really HOT in this thread
take a chill kids!!!

 

I'm sorry, you've lost me. Some of you are saying that 64 bit processors cannot run 32 bit programs as well as 32 bit processors?

 

I think everybody is drifting away from the topic.
It says:
Is buying a CORE DUO processor still worth?

 

Yes, it is, especially if you can get a great price on one, but unfortunately right now at this moment I can show you dozens of places that are selling Core Duo laptops for more money than the exact same laptop with a Core 2 Duo processor in it.

Same laptops, same exact hardware from start to finish, only the processor is different - a Core Duo instead of a Core 2 Duo - and the Core 2 Duo laptop costs less money.

So while a Core Duo is still a fantastic CPU for laptops, at this moment do some research and if possible, and if you can save money, buy a Core 2 Duo since it'll most likely cost less and give you better performance, better battery life, and well... you figure it out from there.

bb

 

That's quite strange. As I recall, Intel annouced to have the exact same pricing for both Core Duo and Core 2 Duo processors.
However, some companies such as Dell and HP have taken advantage of this and priced Core 2 Duo processors higher than Core Duos.

But in regard to the original thread purpose. If granted that both Core Duo and Core 2 Duo processors were priced at the same amount.
Getting Core Duo wouldn't be the financially best investment idea. It has been shown already that Core 2 Duo has a relative performance boost over the Core Duo.

These performance are negligible to a normal computer user but for gamers, it's shown to have roughly ~20% increase in gaming benchmarks. If you were to take a look at the the Thinkpad T60 Widescreen Review.

So if they cost the same, why buy the lesser if you could get the better? Unless, you have personal preference reasons.

 

here in the UAE core 2 duos are pretty much more expensive than core duos
there are cheap core 2 duos in HP but i dont like the new series and i find the touchpad and keyboard very uncomfortable to use
plus the toshiba a100-237 has a nice config at a nice price which is pretty rare in other brands