NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Deciding on Mobile AMD Athlon 64+
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Deciding on Mobile AMD Athlon 64+ - Page 2

post #21 of 50
10/5/04 at 4:16am
nark, sorry you're wrong. First of all, Windows 64 DOES NOT emulate 32 bit code - that one runs natively on AMD64. Itanium runs 32-bit in emulation, AMD64 runs it natively. Because 64-bit assembly code is actually more efficient than 32-bit code, 32-bit games might experience an increase in performance running unmodified in Windows 64.
AMD64 is a cool and exciting technology!

And it's not hard at all to write 64-bit apps, not any harder than writing 32 bit apps. The compiler takes care of most of the work for you.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 50
10/5/04 at 5:06am
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/6...ation/faq.mspx

Quote:

Q: What is the Windows on Windows 64 Subsystem?

Windows on Windows 64 is a 32-bit Windows subsystem that allows you to run 32 bit applications on 64-bit Windows. Because 32-bit applications run in an emulation mode, Microsoft recommends running 32-bit applications on 32-bit hardware for optimal performance.
Quote:

Q. Will my applications be faster on Windows XP 64-Bit Edition?

...Most 32-bit applications should continue to perform best on 32-bit versions of the Windows operating system. To learn whether specific applications will be migrated to 64-bit versions for Windows XP 64-Bit Edition please contact your ISV
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 50
10/5/04 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Hi Sanna,

Thanks again for your reply.

Can you elaborate on what you meant when you said "unless you are a Linux user, your notebook will be old at that time". I didn't get that?

It seems you have Acer Ferrari with Mobile AMD Athlon 64+..right?
How is it with respect to my questions in my first post.
Can you elaborate?
Yes, that's my laptop.

I just meant that it may still take a while before the 64 bit Windows OS and programs for it are released. Linux is already available in 64 bit, as are most of the programs you might need. I just suspect it might take a bit longer until there's a viable 64 bit Windows environment available, that the cpu speed will be far too low when it actually does finally come out. So I wouldn't buy it just to be prepared for the future.

Other than that, there's absolutely nothing negative about buying a 64 bit cpu now. It won't be taking a whole lot of advantage of its 64-bitness in Windows, but it's a good cpu overall, runs games very well, and if you indeed do want to use Linux, you will benefit from the 64 bit architechture directly.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 50
10/5/04 at 5:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDDa
EDITED: by the way, he told about linux because it already has a 64-bit version (Fedora is one, for example http://fedora.redhat.com/download/), so, it's supposed to be the one you will see a real difference.
Yes. I'm a she, btw
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 50
10/5/04 at 9:18am
That old FAQ only relates to the Itanium version that is called Windows XP 64-bit Edition, and not the the AMD64 version that has changed name to Windows XP x64 Edition. You can read more about this version in these reviews:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...p641218&page=1
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...p641069&page=1
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...amd64xp&page=1
Quote:
3) Will all my programs work?
Here's the beauty of the AMD64 architecture. Everything just works. No fuss, no hassle, no nothing. Just as the Opteron/Athlon 64 architecture can execute 32-bit and 64-bit code side by side, so can Windows XP 64-bit Edition for AMD64. You can be running a 32-bit applications right alongside a new 64-bit application, both running at full speed with no slowdowns. Everything, such as games, graphics applications, programming utilities, will run as seamlessly in XP 64-bit edition as they do in today's 32-bit editions of XP.

As many of you know, the Intel's 64-bit Itanium and Itanium2 processors can run 64-bit and 32-bit programs simultaneously, but Itanium handles 32-bit software through emulation. While I have not personally tested 32-bit software on Itanium, I'm not qualified to venture the performance hit this takes on the software. From all indications, 32-bit performance is not anywhere near "full speed" on the Itanium.

With simultaneous 32-bit and 64-bit program execution abilities, software compatability really becomes a non-issue. All of our 32-bit applications installed and ran perfectly fine without any special installation instructions. This allows you to use all of your current software which is working today, and as AMD64 variants are released over time, you can upgrade and see better performance. Pretty simple, we think.

It’s not as simple as it may seem though. There's an interesting concept going on which allows Windows XP 64-bit edition to run 32-bit programs, which sounds worse than it actually is, Windows On Windows 64. (WoW64 for short)

WoW64 is implemented in both Windows XP and Windows Server for AMD64, and basically translates 32-bit function calls to 64-bit for the OS to understand it. While the nomenclature of WoW64 makes it appear that there is another 32-bit version of Windows running on top of the 64-bit variant, this is certainly not the case. WoW64 is completely seamless to the end user, and if I hadn't read about it in the AMD technical documentation, I would have had no idea that it was active and running on our test system.

From what we've seen, Windows-On-Windows 64 is absolutely seamless, and all 32-bit applications worked fine without ANY hassle. Keep in mind, the need for a layer between the application and the OS is an issue with Microsoft, not AMD's Opteron implementation. WoW64 is also used for 32-bit application use for Intel's Itanium processor as well.


WoW64 (Windows On Windows 64) In Action

4) Does WoW64 (Windows-On-Windows 64) decrease performance?
WoW64 does not have the performance penalties that full-scale 32-bit emulation incurs. But, as the CPU is translating 32-bit calls into 64-bit calls, there is always a bit of performance overhead, which takes away speed from the application. While we have not run any full-scale performance benchmarks on the operating system yet, from our early time with the OS it does not appear that WoW64 will take a noticeable performance hit for running 32-bit applications under Windows XP 64-bit Edition. If we were to estimate numbers, we would likely say under the 1-2% percentage point for performance loss in comparison to a 32-bit operating system.

Our folks at AMD say any performance loss associated with WoW64 will likely be overshot by the performance gains one will see with the efficiency of 64-bit drivers and 64-bit memory management. In short, 32-bit games and applications should run just as fast on current Windows XP 64-bit Edition as they do on today's 32-bit Windows XP Professional.
I hope this clears up a few things
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 50
10/5/04 at 9:17pm
Thread Starter 
Hi snoore,

Can you try out DV editing using your Acer Ferrari notebook or point me to links which had done benchmarks with DV editing?

I'm not a game savvy and most of my work will be DV editing, DVD burning and programming in .NET against memory intensive databases (SQL Server and Oracle).

Thanks.

- myownnotebook
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 50
10/5/04 at 11:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by snorre
That old FAQ only relates to the Itanium version that is called Windows XP 64-bit Edition, and not the the AMD64 version that has changed name to Windows XP x64 Edition. You can read more about this version in these reviews:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...p641218&page=1
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...p641069&page=1
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...amd64xp&page=1

I hope this clears up a few things
yup, i guess your right. But the article still states that 32-bit apps will take a performance hit. It won't run faster on a 64-bit OS than it does on a 32-bit OS.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 50
10/5/04 at 11:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanna
Yes. I'm a she, btw
Sorry, really, really sorry...
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 50
10/6/04 at 12:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nark
currently, unless your running linux, there is ABSOLUTELY no advantage of a 64 bit cpu vs a 32 bit cpu. Even if windows xp does come out today, there is still the issue of 64 bit programs. (...). If the reason that you are getting amd 64 is because of its speed(...), then go for it.
yes, I agree with the quoted above. And I'll mark "ABSOLUTELY no advantage of a 64 bit cpu vs a 32 bit cpu" as a comparision of the technology, not real processors, not if one is cooler and the other is hot, not if one gives better battery life and the other not that much.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 50
10/6/04 at 12:30am
mynotebook: Sorry no, but if there's a freely available DV editing benchmark I'll be happy to run it for you


Quote:
Originally Posted by nark
But the article still states that 32-bit apps will take a performance hit. It won't run faster on a 64-bit OS than it does on a 32-bit OS.
No, with proper 64-bit drivers there will actually be a performance boost for 32-bit apps on a 64-bit OS:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...p641218&page=1
Quote:
Build 1218 is a major step forward for Microsoft’s 64-bit Windows program, as we’re finally starting to see performance increases over today’s 32-bit Windows XP variants. This could be due to optimizations on the OS level, the addition of 64-bit DirectX 9.0 components, nVidia’s 64-bit Forceware drivers, or a combination of all of the above. While performance varies from application to application, many applications and games are now seeing noticeable performance boosts under 64-bit Windows.
Microsoft senior vice president Bob Muglia (BM) also talks about it in this Paul Thurrott interview that a 64-bit OS will have a clear performance benefit over a 32-bit OS with the same apps:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._winserver.asp
Quote:
BM: One thing we've found is that 32-bit applications run better on the 64-bit OS than they do on 32-bits. Just adding a 64-bit processor and the 64-bit OS changes everything.

Paul: Now what are you comparing there? Are these machines running the same clock speed...

BM: Same everything. Same chips, same everything. We run apps on 32-bit Windows, and then take those same apps and run them on 64-bit Windows, and you'll get about an 8 percent performance improvement on average.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 50
10/6/04 at 12:41am
cool
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 50
10/6/04 at 12:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nark
is the increase in performance because of microsoft finally being able to put out a decent OS system? Or is it really because it is run on a 64-bit OS?
Get yourself a 64-bit processor and find out for yourself
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 50
10/7/04 at 2:05am
Thread Starter 

Deciding on Mobile Athlon 64+

Hi guys,

This is my comprehensive posting...Please help me on this:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_10220_10221^11029,00.html

Quick questions on the comparisons done by AMD on their website.

Number of Transistors:
=================

Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 is 68.5 million against Intel Pentium M with 140 million.

My question is which is better based on the number of transistors?

System Bus Technology:
==================
Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 has HyperTransport™ technology, up to 1600MHz Full duplex while Pentium M has 400MHz Front Side Bus
Half duplex.

Which is better and why? I reviewed some of the benchmarks sites and they claim that FSB with 400Mhz is better than AMD technology with Full Duplex 1600Mhz. Is is true?

Integrated DDR Memory Controller (MCT):
===============================
Low Power AMD Athlon 64 is
64-bit + 8-bit ECC PC3200, PC 2700, PC 2100, or PC1600 so-DIMMs
while Pentium M has No, Discrete logic device on motherboard.

Which is better and why?

Integrated Northbridge:
=================
Low Power AMD Athlon 64 is 128-bit data path @ CPU core frequency while
Pentium M has Discrete logic device on motherboard, 64-bit data path @ 100MHz.

Which is better and why?

High-Performance, On-chip Cache:
=========================
Low Power AMD Athlon 64 has L1: 128KB, L2: 512KB (exclusive)
Total Effective Cache: 640KB
while Intel Pentium M has L1: 64KB, L2: 2048KB (Inclusive)
Total Effective Cache: 2048KB

My concern here Pentium shines in L2 Cache. Will this boost its performance significantly? Does anybody think that AMD will release the next version of Low Power AMD Athlon 64 processor with increase in L2 Cache?
Based on the current availability, how does Low Power AMD Athlon 64 cope up with the low L2 Cache?

Advanced Power Management:
======================
Lower Power AMD Athlon 64 has AMD PowerNow!™ technology while
Pentium M has Enhanced Intel SpeedStep technology.

Which is better and why?

Also, based on this URL:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_10220_10221^10269,00.html

In the Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor 3400+ (2.2 Ghz) the L2 Cache is 1MB which is definitely lower than Pentium M's L2 Cache of 2MB.

Can anybody comment on this?

Also, the Thermal Design Power is 62W when compared to Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 is only 35W.

Is this the reason the 35W is termed as Low Power?

My main usage of a typical notebook with AMD Athlon 64 processor is heavy digital video editing (running Adobe Premiere/Avid, various plugins, DVD burning software etc) and also programming extensively with Visual Studio.NET against multiple databases (Oracle and SQL Server 2000/2005).

I'm very keen on Low Power, high cooling as well as more processor power.
Do I need to go for the Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 3000+ processor (2.0 Ghz) released on Sep 20, 2004 or the Mobile AMD Athlon 64 3400+ processor (2.2 Ghz)?

I very much appreciate honest replies and I don't care on the price tag ($2500-$3000) is OK for me.

Anybody doing extensive video editing as well as programming using memory intensive applications is a GOD send to me to answer my questions.

Also, can somebody list all genuine online dealers who support AMD? (e.g) Acer, eMachines, iBuyPower etc. with rating in a scale 1 to 10.

Appreciate honest and extensive replies.

Rgds
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 50
10/7/04 at 2:19am
Rgds, check out this review. Has many benchmarks which should help you out. They are testing the standard 81W athlon64 chip, however, I am almost 100% certain that the mobile 62W chip has the same performance. The low power 3000+ probably has the same power as the standard 3000+, but again, I am not 100% certain. But, anyway the review
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 50
10/7/04 at 2:34am
Thread Starter 
I have seen this review.
It doesn't talk about Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 processor.

Appreciate extensive replies wrt video editing and running memory intensive applications.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 50
10/7/04 at 4:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by snorre
Get yourself a 64-bit processor and find out for yourself
have one, runs pretty fast. Its a neutered cg claw though.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 50
10/7/04 at 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Number of Transistors:
=================

Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 is 68.5 million against Intel Pentium M with 140 million.

My question is which is better based on the number of transistors?
The Intel Pentium M have more transistors because of the big L2 cache, but more transistors also means higher cost of production and thus a higher price tag compared to low-power Mobile Athlon 64.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
System Bus Technology:
==================
Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 has HyperTransport™ technology, up to 1600MHz Full duplex while Pentium M has 400MHz Front Side Bus
Half duplex.

Which is better and why? I reviewed some of the benchmarks sites and they claim that FSB with 400Mhz is better than AMD technology with Full Duplex 1600Mhz. Is is true?
Not at all! HyperTransport is an extremely efficient bus technology and offer much more dedicated I/O bandwidth when needed and helps remove system bottlenecks. A 800MHz HyperTransport bus gives 6.4GB/s dedicated I/O bandwidth, and that's way better than the 3.2GB/s that the shared 400MHz Front Side Bus (FSB) of the Pentium M no question about it. For more information about HyperTransport see this:
http://www.devx.com/amd/Article/17437
http://www.techonline.com/pdf/pavillions/h...ransportfaq.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Integrated DDR Memory Controller (MCT):
===============================
Low Power AMD Athlon 64 is
64-bit + 8-bit ECC PC3200, PC 2700, PC 2100, or PC1600 so-DIMMs
while Pentium M has No, Discrete logic device on motherboard.

Which is better and why?
Integrated (on-chip) memory controller is always better since there will be lower latency when accessing memory, dedicated memory bandwidth (no FSB bottleneck) and it also supports faster memory than the Pentium M (PC3200 vs. PC2700).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Integrated Northbridge:
=================
Low Power AMD Athlon 64 is 128-bit data path @ CPU core frequency while
Pentium M has Discrete logic device on motherboard, 64-bit data path @ 100MHz.

Which is better and why?
Because the low-power Mobile Athlon 64 has the memory controller and HyperTransport host integrated it will communicate with those directly at full speed and that's always better with regards to performance than going through an external memory controller that's part of the chipset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
High-Performance, On-chip Cache:
=========================
Low Power AMD Athlon 64 has L1: 128KB, L2: 512KB (exclusive)
Total Effective Cache: 640KB
while Intel Pentium M has L1: 64KB, L2: 2048KB (Inclusive)
Total Effective Cache: 2048KB

My concern here Pentium shines in L2 Cache. Will this boost its performance significantly?
Yes, its big L2 cache will help hide its memory latency and 400MHz FSB bottlenecks. Without the large L2 cache the performance would be poor I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Does anybody think that AMD will release the next version of Low Power AMD Athlon 64 processor with increase in L2 Cache?
Yes, they will release a version with 1MB L2 cache 1Q next year (codename Lancaster). You can read more about this here:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/...611102838.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Based on the current availability, how does Low Power AMD Athlon 64 cope up with the low L2 Cache?
Very well because of the fast integrated memory controller and HyperTransport bus, it actually performs faster clock for clock than Pentium M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Advanced Power Management:
======================
Lower Power AMD Athlon 64 has AMD PowerNow!™ technology while
Pentium M has Enhanced Intel SpeedStep technology.

Which is better and why?
They're pretty the same thing, but Pentium M can operate at minimum 600MHz while the low-power Mobile Athlon 64 can only operate at minimum 800MHz which means that Pentium M will have lower power consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Also, based on this URL:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_10220_10221^10269,00.html

In the Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor 3400+ (2.2 Ghz) the L2 Cache is 1MB which is definitely lower than Pentium M's L2 Cache of 2MB.

Can anybody comment on this?
Again, this is no bottleneck because of its fast integrated memory controller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Also, the Thermal Design Power is 62W when compared to Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 is only 35W.

Is this the reason the 35W is termed as Low Power?
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
My main usage of a typical notebook with AMD Athlon 64 processor is heavy digital video editing (running Adobe Premiere/Avid, various plugins, DVD burning software etc) and also programming extensively with Visual Studio.NET against multiple databases (Oracle and SQL Server 2000/2005).

I'm very keen on Low Power, high cooling as well as more processor power.
Do I need to go for the Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 3000+ processor (2.0 Ghz) released on Sep 20, 2004 or the Mobile AMD Athlon 64 3400+ processor (2.2 Ghz)?

I very much appreciate honest replies and I don't care on the price tag ($2500-$3000) is OK for me.
Both should work great for your applications, but the Mobile Athlon 63 3400+ is definately faster no question about it. Make sure you get a fast harddrive and PC3200 memory too, as this also will affect overall performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
Also, can somebody list all genuine online dealers who support AMD? (e.g) Acer, eMachines, iBuyPower etc. with rating in a scale 1 to 10.
Acer=9
Sager/Clevo=8
Uniwill=8
Mitac/iBuyPower=7
Arima=7
Asus=7
Sharp=7
Compal=7
eMachines=6
HP/Compaq=6
Packard Bell=5
Dell=1
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 50
10/7/04 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mynotebook
I have seen this review.
It doesn't talk about Low Power Mobile AMD Athlon 64 processor.

Appreciate extensive replies wrt video editing and running memory intensive applications.
There's no difference between the low-power Mobile Athlon 64 processors and the standard Athlon 64 processors with the same xxxx+ rating with regards to performance. The only difference is the power consumption and thus battery life, everything else are more or less the same. Keep that in mind when reading reviews

This is an old, but very good review:
http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000253
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 50
10/7/04 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by snorre
Acer=9
Sager/Clevo=8
Uniwill=8
Mitac/iBuyPower=7
Arima=7
Asus=7
Sharp=7
Compal=7
HP/Compaq=6
eMachines=6
Packard Bell=5
Dell=1
I resent HP/Copaq being ahead of emachines...I love my eMachines and it definately should be ahead of HP, even if they do have the same numerical score...
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 50
10/7/04 at 8:12pm
This really should be that complicated. To me ther is only two options:

1. If you _desperately_ trying to extend batterylife, and are willing to sacrifice performance and the abillity to run next gen 64-bit operating systems and software for an extra 30min battery life, then yes a Centrino based laptop is an option. But if any gaming is your intentions then the bennefits of having a Centrino CPU is low due to GPU and over all system power demand.

2. For ALL other cases than the above there should really be no confusion. The AMD64 is the way to go. It give you better performance and bettery batterylife than Intel (non centrino) based notebooks. And the Acer Ferrari 3200 probably being one of the most complete and best all around notebooks ever, AMD or Intel. The performance of the Ferrari 3200 is real!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General
NotebookForums.com › Forums › General Notebook Discussions › Notebook Forums - General › Deciding on Mobile AMD Athlon 64+