flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Athlon 64 Bit - Should I buy it?

Goto page 1, 2  Next

Should I buy it?
yes
50%
 50%  [ 4 ]
no
50%
 50%  [ 4 ]
Total Votes : 8

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sylwek32



Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 339
sylwek32
Hello,
is the Athlon 64 3800+ good?
Should I buy it?
Post 20 Oct 2006, 20:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8884
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
yes, buy it !! (if you got $$$)
and buy 8GB ram for it
Post 20 Oct 2006, 23:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mattst88



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 260
Location: South Carolina
mattst88
Extremely vague question.

Should you buy it as opposed to what? A 32 bit processor? Some other Athlon 64? A Core 2 Duo? What are your requirements? Socket 939? AM2? The 3800+ rating isn't even specific. I count 4 different cores that are 3800+ on Newegg.
Post 21 Oct 2006, 01:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Do you want to (eventually) be able to program 64-bit stuff soon? Or are you willing to wait and get one later? Check Wikipedia on what's out now (Turion, Athlon64, Core 2 Duo) vs. what's coming out in the not-too-distant future (AMD's K8L).
Post 21 Oct 2006, 03:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17267
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Depends what you want to do with it. Do you need 64bit? Is there a lower price processor that will do what you need? Is the software you use optimised to make best use of that processor? Is electrical power usage a concern?
Post 21 Oct 2006, 05:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
If you've got the cash, buy a Core2Duo since it kicks ass.

If you don't have cash, and your choices are between a regular Pentium4 and a AMD64, buy the AMD64.

Dualcore rocks, btw Smile
Post 21 Oct 2006, 13:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sylwek32



Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 339
sylwek32
I want to be able to program some 64-bit stuff.
and i can get this processor very cheap here..
Thats why i am asking
Post 21 Oct 2006, 18:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
sylwek32 wrote:
I want to be able to program some 64-bit stuff.
..
Thats why i am asking


64 or even 128, 256 , 512, 1024 processors are good because they give us the HOPE to run 4 or 8 or 16 "8086" TASKS at the same time. The HOPE is to use only SOME REGISTER FOR EACH TASK so you don't need to push pull registers on the stack when switching form task to task. UNFORTUNATLY, software nowadays is very outdated, so you would be obliged to run 32 bit or 64 bit programs ant this is VERY VERY frustrating when you know that you could run 3 or 4 task without PUSH PULL at each task switching...... 64BIT processor???? DON'T BUY IT NOW because it would be too frustrating for you because you are member of an assembler forum...
Post 22 Oct 2006, 15:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Remy Vincent



Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 155
Location: France
Remy Vincent
Remy Vincent wrote:
UNFORTUNATLY, software nowadays is very outdated,...


32 bit programs or 64 bit programs are made by lazy programmers... "OK, I load 200 KB of data with only one instruction, then I process 200 KB of data with only one simple loop, the I write the result with only one instruction... THIS IS FOR STUPID AND LAZY PROGRAMMERS ONLY!!!!!!! As an assembler programmer, you should be able to DO THE SAME PROCESS with a *.COM program, 128 KB OF RAM, and a 8086 processor.

For example, if you look at my own parsers examples, t "geocities.com/remyvincent" you can see that I have done a PARSER with TURBO PASCAL 4 language, so my parser can run with a 8086 processor!!!! In the same .zip file, you can see the same parser done for DELPHI 32 bits, but I am very very sorry to have published this 32 bit example because 32bit programs are is only for STUPID and lazy programmers... I Think
Post 22 Oct 2006, 15:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17267
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Remy Vincent wrote:
64BIT processor???? DON'T BUY IT NOW
This is bad advice. At least let people learn for themselves whether or not 64bit is a benefit they need.
Remy Vincent wrote:
so my parser can run with a 8086 processor
When was the last time you tried to buy an 8086? Compared to modern CPU's they are slow and inefficient. There is no disadvantage to the 386+, they can still run the legacy code of the 8086.
Remy Vincent wrote:
32bit programs are is only for STUPID and lazy programmers
Hmm, well if you say so, but I am sure many here will disagree. There are many very good programmers here that write good 32bit code.

I prefer my code to be efficient and easy to write so as to improve my productivity. Does that really make me "STUPID and lazy"? I would expect I am being at least a little bit smart by using available resources more efficiently.

Good luck with your parser, I guess if many people find if efficient and flexible they will be happy to use it.
Post 22 Oct 2006, 15:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
32- and 64bit processors aren't just about the larger address space (ie, being able to have >64kb buffers without segmenting). It's also about wider registers and more effecient instructions. Even if you could pump a 8086 up to gigahertz levels and have all instructions take one cycle, it will be beaten by a processor that can do one-cycle ops on wider data quantities.

But sure, the jump to 32bit did make a lot of stuff easier - the jump to 64bit isn't such a massive revolution in comparison. What's the problem with something being a bit easier (as well as more efficient)?
Post 22 Oct 2006, 15:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
i think that jump 16-32 was good because everything turned to be 32bit. but jump 32-64 will bring it back, because some things will remain 32, and other become 64bit. Like 16bit programming, where you had far and near pointers, "int"s and "long"s etc...
Post 22 Oct 2006, 15:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8884
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
most of the website i had read said Core2Duo is better than amd64 (maybe u should get the intel Core2Duo) and a mb that support 8GB ram Smile
Post 22 Oct 2006, 19:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
donkey7



Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 127
Location: Poland, Malopolska
donkey7
now we will have 16, 32 and 64 bit modes in one processor. plus plenty of addressing modes, incompatible simd instructions, stack-based fpu, complex instruction encoding, lots of duplicated instructions, etc. x86 is fantastic. big thanks to intel corporation!

this was little ironicstic, but... why not to buy some powerpc machine Smile or buy ps2 and program some game for it Smile

64 bit wouldn't differ so much from 32-bit code. but programming ppc/ ps2 would give much more fun and experience.

what do you think about it?
Post 23 Oct 2006, 16:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Remy Vincent: Perhaps I get your point..? See this post:

I agree with the fact that "newer" computers are evil. It's not because they are faster -- that is, in fact, a very GOOD thing really.. the problem is that people start to get lazy because of them. i.e:

You have an 8086 and an optimized thing, runs in 1 second
You have an AMD64 and the same thing, but bloated, runs in 1 second

It's obvious people get lazy, because hardware is obviously MUUCH faster, but software is obviously MUUCH slower. "Hardware gets faster, faster than software gets slower" is a quote, but I think it's stupid. I.e: Why should software get slower at all?? what the hell? why?? I believe, if hardware gets faster, then software should get even faster!!! just because hardware gets faster doesn't prove the fact that you should write slower software. By all means, even better software in my opinion.

Of course, in this capitalistic world of crap, money means everything... so trash the code and respect the money. Most humans are blind enough to be millionaires but unhappy. I believe we should respect the surroundings and our designs, not trash them in favor of money.

ps: this doesn't mean to "not" buy an AMD64, but it says "you have to be responsible for your actions", or at least "show some respect" to your code. Faster computers have a bad psychological effect, they make you lazier. However, if you can control this and still appreciate code as before, then by all means faster computers are good! (unless they eat more power, of course)


This was only my "idea" of your sayings, so don't take it as an offense. I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but I think the above is pretty correct.


sylwek: If you REALLY need it, do buy the AMD64, but be careful -- take responsibility for your actions (don't get lazy, or other psycho effects) -- i.e not rush into it like alchoolic people want more and more beer.
Post 26 Oct 2006, 14:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Well, IMHO there's a "sweet spot" between not having to über-optimize everything (and thus be a bit lazy), and being superlazy and writing crap bloated code.
Post 26 Oct 2006, 15:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
f0dder wrote:
Well, IMHO there's a "sweet spot" between not having to über-optimize everything (and thus be a bit lazy), and being superlazy and writing crap bloated code.

If you don't über-optimize everything, you're not lazy at all. In fact, hard-optimizations are not necessarily a good thing -- it's the low-level design that matters most. If you über-optimize, it'll be very hard for you to choose a different approach (because you worked hard to optimize it). On the other hand, not optimizing it at all and leaving the design at all, without thinking a bit at improving the stuff.. well that's lazyness Wink

It's always a good idea to optimize things, even if unnoticeable, but it's not necessarily a good idea to optimize everything to the extreme -- that's why there are other people you can count on (if you make it open-source, of course). We all make mistakes, and a method is never the best.
Post 26 Oct 2006, 15:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Madis731



Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 2141
Location: Estonia
Madis731
Hmm...buy a Core 2 and be happy. An example:
I just bought a laptop a few months ago - it was a Core Duo. Intel was 100% sure that they will never make a 64-bit CPU for laps, because nobody needs them. I was 100% sure that it had a 64-bit CPU and bought it.
Boy, was I mad :@ I couldn't run MenuetOS on it - I couldn't test FASMs 64-bit capabilities and I couldn't test these new SSSE3 instructions.
Now I'm selling my laptop (on Monday) and buying a new one with Core 2 inside. Monday will be the happiest day of my life Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy
Post 27 Oct 2006, 13:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Two trivial anecdotes:


  • shrunk 20 bytes off a small util of mine last night (but compressed w/ aPACK, I only saved two bytes, and only then by using one specific assembler)
  • vid's 512-byte para.com program has been super-optimized but AdvanceComp would shrink the .ZIP even smaller (Total Commander's built-in ZIP actually increased the .COM to 516 bytes!)


In short, external compression also affects size. And, this can be tweaked depending on various factors (e.g., UHarc vs. bzip2 vs. 7-zip: see PreComp). Size of the .EXE isn't always the target of optimizations (bandwidth, .ZIP size, source size, mem. use, size of decompressor, etc.).


Last edited by rugxulo on 28 Oct 2006, 03:45; edited 1 time in total
Post 28 Oct 2006, 03:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Madis731 wrote:
Hmm...buy a Core 2 and be happy. An example:
I just bought a laptop a few months ago - it was a Core Duo. Intel was 100% sure that they will never make a 64-bit CPU for laps, because nobody needs them. I was 100% sure that it had a 64-bit CPU and bought it.
Boy, was I mad :@ I couldn't run MenuetOS on it - I couldn't test FASMs 64-bit capabilities and I couldn't test these new SSSE3 instructions.


QEMU and BOCHS both support 64-bit emulation, no? (I've actually been too busy/lazy to try 'em, though). Razz

Madis731 wrote:
Now I'm selling my laptop (on Monday) and buying a new one with Core 2 inside. Monday will be the happiest day of my life Very HappyVery HappyVery Happy


... until 128-bit Octa-core is all the rage! Laughing
Post 28 Oct 2006, 03:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.