Upgrading to 64-bit

[Nilfennasion]

I have made the begrudging decision that I want to upgrade my PC (again). Problem is, the most cost-effective solution my local store can offer is the Athlon 64 series. Naturally, with this being relatively new technology, I am a little worried about compatability and performance issues. How much of a performance boost can I reasonably expect in DVDShrink from this upgrade? Is it worth the cost of labour and parts?

[celtic_druid]

As far as I am aware there is no 64bit version of DVDShrink, so you would be running it 32bit anyway.

Without knowing what your current setup is or what specific CPU you are getting it is not possible to say how much faster DVDShrink will be, however despite it only being 32bit you should still expect a decent performance boost if you are say going from a 2GHz P4 to a 3500+.

VirtualDub is available as 64bit, XviD is being worked on for WinXP 64 and 64bit *nix. Not sure about MPEG encoders, transcoders, etc. in particular for windows.

[Skynet107]

Firstly, the A64 processor has been on the Market in some form since September 2003 so it is not new and is a very proven technology.

Secondly, you will see zero performance in 32 bit programs like DVDShrink. Programs that will benefit under a 64 bit OS are applications that are coded to take advantage of the AMD64 bit extensions.

One of the most promising areas where 64 will really REALLY pay off is in video encoding. Getting a 64 bit processor now is a good investment and is future proof. It is only a matter of time before WindowsXP64 hits the market.

[doppletwo]

I have seen a 64 bit 3000+ run DVD Shrink. I have a 32 bit 2500+ and the 64 bit 3000+ was I think about 20 to 25 percent faster.


But something suprising is the performance of Celeron 2.66GHz. It beats my 32 bit 2500+ by about five percent. I was shocked. But Intel chips have higher actual clock speeds. My 2500+ only actually has a clock speed of 1.83GHz.

But 64 bit chips are more efficent. Also the RISC chips in MAC's are more efficent even though clock speed aren't spectular.

[Nilfennasion]

My existing setup is in my profile, but I intend to go from an Athlon XP 2800+ with 512MB of RAM to (eventually) an Athlon XP 64 3000+ with 1GB of RAM. The performance of my existing computer has been suss ever since it was caught in a storm here, so I want to make it work properly once more. That's the real reason for the upgrade.

It would also be nice to have a secondary box for backup purposes.

[Soopafresh]

Good choice. The 64 is a tremendous value. Check NewEgg.com for prices as well - a 3000 plus 1GB of PC3200 sells for just under $300.00. Which reminds me - you'll need a new motherboard.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=13-180-061&DEPA=1

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=20-146-299&DEPA=0

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc.asp?description=19-103-486&DEPA=0

[Richard_G]

If you want to see just how much extra performance you'll get from different processors, see here:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-18.html

[vocalmind]

Heard about 64-bit FIREWIRE B?

[Cobra]

Although that link from Tom's Hardware Guide is probably most suitable for you to look at (as this is a video website) do remember that AMDs are faster than Intel chips at some things and vice-versa. One test cannot show the true performance of a CPU.

I have not regretted my jump from a 2.33GHz AMD Barton-core to a 2.42GHz Athlon64 Newcastle-core.

[Cobra]

Moved to the Computer Forum.

[rallynavvie]

do remember that AMDs are faster than Intel chips at some things and vice-versa

Indeed. The first two questions I ask people when they ask me what kind of computer they should get is "what will you be using it for" and "how much do you want to spend". If they wanted a video/DCC workstation I'd point them at an Intel platform, if they play lots of games, use office applications, or are running a server I'd point them toward an AMD solution. If it's just general use like internet and the like then get whatever you find the best deal on.

Until there is native support all around for 64-bit processors (apps and an OS) there isn't really much difference between the 32- and 64-bit chips on the market now. The whole "buy 64-bit now and save yourself the upgrade" smacks of marketing since I don't see full support happening for at least another year or two. The only thing you're really buying on an A64 is the progression of the AMD line (faster clocks) and the better architecture, not 64-bit support. But if you don't upgrade your computer very often like some of us do then perhaps the 64-bit upgrade isn't just a marketing gig.

But it is always fun to buy a new computer isn't it

[ViRaL1]

Is the upgrade from an XP2800+ to a 64 3000+ worth the money? I realize that it's moving from 32-bit to 64-bit capable, but it doesn't seem like much of a jump if running the 2800+ makes you feel like you NEED to upgrade. Just my take.

[waheed]

i just upgraded from a athlonxp 2600+ (512 MB ram) to a athmon64 3500+ (1GB ram) and have have maneged to get dvd shrink to run faster (probrably about 20-30% performance increase)