Dual-core and/or 64-bit processors... Pointless?

[Dominus Atheos]

I am putting together a computer for a friend (for a 10% fee ), and have heard that getting a 64-bit processors is pointless, because 64-bit code will only work on the 64-bit version of windows, which basically crashes every time it tries to run 32-bit code. Is this true? My friend will not be upgrading to Vista with this computer, so if XP Home or Pro will not run 64-bit games, he will never be running 64-bit code on this machine.

I have also heard that virtually no programs take advantage of dual-core processors, and that they too are pointless. Is this true?

[Uraniun235]

You heard wrong. The Athlon64 processors are still very powerful chips, even when running 32 bit code. Furthermore, 32 bit programs do not always crash under XP64 or 2003. (from what I've heard, the bigger problem there tends to be finding 64-bit drivers) And, frankly, given how stubborn the game industry is about adopting DVD-ROMs in lieu of CD-ROMs, I can't see 64-bit-only games being released any time soon.

As for dual-core processors... come on, seriously. Think about it. If that were really the case, why would anyone build or buy multi-processor computers? Also, even if a given program does not take full advantage of a dual-core processor, most any operating system will; this means that if you have one program using up all the available processing power on one core, the other core is still free to do anything else, which tends to result in a more responsive system.

[Glocksman]

Most apps that take advantage of dual core processors right now tend to be fairly high end ones like Adobe Photoshop or Premiere, though I think some lower end video editors do as well.
In the future though as they become widespread, games will start to use dual core capablity more and more.

In other words, go ahead and get it.
It may not be that useful right now, but that'll change in the near future.

[Praxis]

I am putting together a computer for a friend (for a 10% fee ), and have heard that getting a 64-bit processors is pointless, because 64-bit code will only work on the 64-bit version of windows, which basically crashes every time it tries to run 32-bit code. Is this true? My friend will not be upgrading to Vista with this computer, so if XP Home or Pro will not run 64-bit games, he will never be running 64-bit code on this machine.

I have also heard that virtually no programs take advantage of dual-core processors, and that they too are pointless. Is this true?

You heard wrong both times.
Windows XP 64-bit edition runs 32-bit code terribly, true, so don't use it. Even on 32-bit code, not using anything 64-bit, the processors that are 64-bit are usually so much faster anyway that they're worth buying.

Even running everything 32-bit, Athlon 64's will blow away the competition.

In the case of dual core- again, not exactly. There are programs that take advantage of dual core processors- and when you're not using any, it STILL will let you multitask better as one program can be running on one core while a second program runs on a second core- more things at once without big slowdown.

Further, games will be multithreaded in the future, for one simple reason. The XBox 360 has three processors. The PS3 has NINE (8 cells and 1 regular processor). Most Macs have two (PowerMacs have two or four, iMacs and Power- oops, MacBooks have two, only iBooks and Mac Minis still have one) as well, and PC adoption is rising. Developers writing games that will be on consoles too will write the code to take advantage of multiple processors- if they don't, they're idiots.

[Master of Ossus]

I am putting together a computer for a friend (for a 10% fee ), and have heard that getting a 64-bit processors is pointless, because 64-bit code will only work on the 64-bit version of windows, which basically crashes every time it tries to run 32-bit code. Is this true? My friend will not be upgrading to Vista with this computer, so if XP Home or Pro will not run 64-bit games, he will never be running 64-bit code on this machine.

I have also heard that virtually no programs take advantage of dual-core processors, and that they too are pointless. Is this true?

You have heard completely wrong on both counts. Although few 64-bit aps exist right now, the Athlon 64 is a vastly better chip than any comparable Pentiums at running 32 bit applications. While few individual programs take advantage of multiple cores, that does not make them useless (and many, like most content creation programs, do take advantage of both cores) because one core can be used for (say) gaming while the other one maintains other programs you're running.

[Dominus Atheos]

The processor I was leaning towards was the Pentium D 920, which is dual-core, but 32-bit (I think). I had heard from my computer teacher that dual-core processors were a pointless buy right now because almost no games supported them, and I should just save my money and upgrade in a year when the processors are better and more games and programs support it. I thought I would ask if that was true, and while I was at it, ask if it was true the if I bought a 64-bit processor, it would be unable to run 64-bit code unless I got a really buggy special version of windows.

My budget for Processor and Motherboard is $300 (for which I get payed an extra $30 that goes right into my pocket ), so if anyone can recommend a better combo for that much, I can get it.

[Glocksman]

I haven't really kept up on pricing, but when I bought my kit last year, the AMD's at a particular price level spanked the Intel offering as far as performance goes.
The key to buliding a good AMD system is chipset selection.
I had USB issues with my nForce3 board, but my VIA K8T800 board has been flawless over the last 9 months or so.
But YMMV, as a lot of nForce owners never had the issues I had.

[Praxis]

The processor I was leaning towards was the Pentium D 920, which is dual-core, but 32-bit (I think). I had heard from my computer teacher that dual-core processors were a pointless buy right now because almost no games supported them, and I should just save my money and upgrade in a year when the processors are better and more games and programs support it. I thought I would ask if that was true, and while I was at it, ask if it was true the if I bought a 64-bit processor, it would be unable to run 64-bit code unless I got a really buggy special version of windows.

My budget for Processor and Motherboard is $300 (for which I get payed an extra $30 that goes right into my pocket ), so if anyone can recommend a better combo for that much, I can get it.

Games will be supporting them soon, and even looking at today's games, consider that you can run Windows on one core and the game on the other (yes, I know this is an extremely simplified way of looking at it).

And yes, you're right, a 64-bit processor can't run without a buggy special version of Windows (or a 64-bit Linux or other OS), but the 64-bit processors on the market today run 32-bit processes better than most 32-bit processors, so it really doesn't matter.

[Stark]

I haven't heard of anyone even considering Pentium chips for home use in almost a year. They've been pretty much left in the dust by the Athlon64s, and of course the AMD chips beat the shit out of them on price. My cheapass emergency-I'm-broke-and-I-need-a-new-chip 3200/64 outperforms my friends 3Ghz P4 (an older one) easily, and at about half the price (adjusted).

It's amusing, actually: I remember that the Intel 64-bit processor that never made it to the market (IIRC) could only execute 64-bit code, unlike AMDs offering.

[Master of Ossus]

The processor I was leaning towards was the Pentium D 920, which is dual-core, but 32-bit (I think).

A comparably priced Athlon is a much better option.

I had heard from my computer teacher that dual-core processors were a pointless buy right now because almost no games supported them, and I should just save my money and upgrade in a year when the processors are better and more games and programs support it.

That's retarded. Most games run a little program called an operating system in the background, many games even today ARE multi-threaded, and the majority of games coming out in the near future are also multi-threaded. In all of those environments a multi-core processor presents significant advantages.

I thought I would ask if that was true, and while I was at it, ask if it was true the if I bought a 64-bit processor, it would be unable to run 64-bit code unless I got a really buggy special version of windows.

My budget for Processor and Motherboard is $300 (for which I get payed an extra $30 that goes right into my pocket ), so if anyone can recommend a better combo for that much, I can get it.

You can get a Pentium 920 and a mobo for $300? The processor itself is over $260 at most places. In that range, a Pentium D might be the best option. What's the budget for the entire machine, and what else are you thinking about putting in it?

[Dominus Atheos]

You can get a Pentium 920 and a mobo for $300? The processor itself is over $260 at most places. In that range, a Pentium D might be the best option. What's the budget for the entire machine, and what else are you thinking about putting in it?

$1,000: GeForce 6600 gt ($100-150), Case ($50-80), 160gb SATA ($50-100) 2gb ram ($100-200), 2 x DVD-RW ($100-150)

To answer your next question: eBay, which I use for all of my computer components, and have never had a problem with.

[Chris OFarrell]

You can get a GeForce 6800 gt for 150 dollars......


*EDIT*

Ohhh. It was a 6600. Phew. I was about to drop my jaw and scream given that I just upgraded my video card

[Seggybop]

Windows XP 64-bit edition runs 32-bit code terribly, true, so don't use it.

What gave you this idea? I ran XP64 and 32 dual boot for quite a while until drivers for everything I needed were available for 64, and 64 was consistently faster when running both 32 and 64 bit software.

[DaveJB]

It's the Itanium version of 64-bit Windows that runs 32-bit code terribly. The AMD64/EM64T version of 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit code perfectly well in most cases.

[Xon]

It's the Itanium version of 64-bit Windows that runs 32-bit code terribly. The AMD64/EM64T version of 64-bit Windows runs 32-bit code perfectly well in most cases.

I'm positive Itanium versions of Windows arent even sold in Retail.

Also the AMD64/EM64T version of 64-bit Windows runs better at things like fileservers, FTPs, and anything else which hits the disk more often or anything which needs to open a large number of files/sockets/kernel objects at the same time.

[Glocksman]

The problem with Ebay is that it's only as good as the seller you're purchasing from.
I haven't been burned yet on ebay, but only because the one time a seller (a dealer, btw) tried to burn me, I raised holy hell with Paypal, the CC company I paid PP with and ebay themselves.
Newegg.com, mwave.com, and zipzoomfly.com are all trustworthy vendors who have really good prices.
They may not be the absolute lowest, but they're close enough.

[Ace Pace]

Dual core isn't exactly usful for...FPS, but it is usful in a day to day setting, AV, Firewalls, whatever side programs, all can keep working while your surfing, its not neccesarily better preformance but its easier to use.

[phongn]

Dual core isn't exactly usful for...FPS, but it is usful in a day to day setting, AV, Firewalls, whatever side programs, all can keep working while your surfing, its not neccesarily better preformance but its easier to use.

Newer nVidia drivers attempt to use both cores for a variety of purposes.

It's amusing, actually: I remember that the Intel 64-bit processor that never made it to the market (IIRC) could only execute 64-bit code, unlike AMDs offering.

Itanium is on the market but has been almost entirely relegated to scientific computing, despite continuous cash infusions by HP and Intel. It will run IA32 code, but slowly. Older Itanium processors had a complete P5 core onboard while soon-to-be-released ones will switch to emulation.

[Ace Pace]

Dual core isn't exactly usful for...FPS, but it is usful in a day to day setting, AV, Firewalls, whatever side programs, all can keep working while your surfing, its not neccesarily better preformance but its easier to use.

Newer nVidia drivers attempt to use both cores for a variety of purposes.

From what I've seen there isn't that much of a boost. So I held off talking about them.

[Captain tycho]

From a personal standpoint, I find my dual-core processor very convienient. I can offload a fuckload of programs (AIM, Opera, AV, Winamp, etc) to the second core and play a game on the first core with zero slowdown.

[Praxis]

I haven't heard of anyone even considering Pentium chips for home use in almost a year. They've been pretty much left in the dust by the Athlon64s, and of course the AMD chips beat the shit out of them on price. My cheapass emergency-I'm-broke-and-I-need-a-new-chip 3200/64 outperforms my friends 3Ghz P4 (an older one) easily, and at about half the price (adjusted).

It's amusing, actually: I remember that the Intel 64-bit processor that never made it to the market (IIRC) could only execute 64-bit code, unlike AMDs offering.

Are you referring to Itanium? (runs 32-bit code TERRIBLY)

Anyway, I think the only decent products Intel has for home use is Centrino and Yonah. Yonah is awesome.

[Praxis]

Windows XP 64-bit edition runs 32-bit code terribly, true, so don't use it.

What gave you this idea? I ran XP64 and 32 dual boot for quite a while until drivers for everything I needed were available for 64, and 64 was consistently faster when running both 32 and 64 bit software.

You're completely right, I'm sorry, the problem wasn't that Windows XP ran 32-bit code badly, it's that Windows XP lacked 32-bit DRIVERS. That's what I get from writing responses half-asleep in bed with my laptop.

[Ace Pace]

Anyway, I think the only decent products Intel has for home use is Centrino and Yonah. Yonah is awesome.

Intel pretty much has the notebook market locked up.

Sidenote: Looking at the latest benchs, Intel is slowly but surely closing the gap between them and AMD, esspecially with the latest Pentium D 9xx series, however, it dosn't change the fact that anyone who cares for his power bills would stay away.

[BabelHuber]

I'm using Win XP64 for half a year now. No problems whatsoever, Doom3,W40K DoW,SS2,Q4 etc. all work flawlessly and as fast as with Win XP 32Bit.

Getting drivers is no problem whatsoever (NF3/GF6800GT), only finding the S-ATA Silion Image RAID drivers which work was a PITA (although I assume that it's the mainboards fault).

ALcohol 120% does not work with 64Bit yet, but D-Tools does meanwhile - all application which add drivers must install 64Bit drivers, even if the application itself is 32Bit.

[Glocksman]

Anyway, I think the only decent products Intel has for home use is Centrino and Yonah. Yonah is awesome.

Intel pretty much has the notebook market locked up.

Sidenote: Looking at the latest benchs, Intel is slowly but surely closing the gap between them and AMD, esspecially with the latest Pentium D 9xx series, however, it dosn't change the fact that anyone who cares for his power bills would stay away.

I don't know about that.
Given the high cost of natural gas, just connect the furnace ductwork to your Intel system and heat the entire house.