[ihatepikingnames]

ok here it goes...

I'm still pretty ignorant to programming but know slot of basics. Im buying a new box and swithing over to linus so i have two queswtions...

1) would a 64 bit processor be a hassle for my programming needs? because im also an avid gamer and hope to program some games eventually.and also would it affect my compatability and/or ease of use with any linux distros?

2) Ive been looking alot and im leaning towards either SUSE10 or FEDORA5... any suggestions? (doesnt have to be on either of those)

[Antiokus]

64-bit isn't going to effect your programming nor your use of other OSs. If your any sort of avid gamer than its completely worth it to go for the 64-bit CPU. Have your eyes on any peticular model?

[ihatepikingnames]

well i need a fast cpu obviously so i want a 4000+ amd athalon64. I was looking at dual-core because of the hyper transport... i think the regular would suffice though.

[max302]

Depends on what you game. Also, if your a gamer, don`t think that you'll be playing anything better than Quake or Wolf ET.

Personally, I have a Gateway MX3410h laptop (or something), and for 900$CAN with tax, it comes with 512 ram, AMD Turion 64 x2 ML-50 (1.7 ghz) and a Geforce 6100, and I can run battle 2 ok, when I get the money to buy an extra 1 gb stick, it'll run perfectly. Quake 4 runs between ok and borderline, again because of ram. I game mostly Wolf ET, so it's wayyyyyy good for me. I think that if you don't have a computer at all, you should think into buying a laptop, because it's hell of a lot more convenient.

For a desktop, go with AMD. It's a sure choice. I havent tested Core 2 yet, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing that AMD can't beat with it's present line, if you count the FX series which are priced impossibly high.

As for the OS, if you really want to go linux, Fedora Core 6 just came out. Personnally, I'm Gnome and Redhat person, so I would go with any Red-hat based distro. If your starting linux, FC6 is the shit, because it's about as easy as linux gets.

[Antiokus]

Well they all have hyper transport. its the bus memory controller that AMD uses. Basically all it says is that it runs on a 2 ghz FSB even though it looks like 1 ghz.

As far as extrensive computing goes... if you are wanting a fast CPU and are comfortable with OCing it, go for an Opteron. Athlons will OC quite nicely but nearly as well as Opterons.

The 4000+ is a nice cpu though, and so are the Athlon X2 (dual cores). Dual core might be the better solution, just because it will stay a little more up to date. But by all means, the single core is plenty of power for most people. Unless your a power junkie and like extremely fast and often unnecassry clocks.

[Antiokus]

That 4000+ and the 4000+ X2 can run almost anything you throw at them. Not as fast as the FX series but its what you pay for really. There are a lot more things to take into consideration with the gaming part of your decision though. Most importantly, video card and RAM. But thats besides the question you asked.

Also, @max302, you may be having some lag issues in games because of the video chipset (the 6100 is shared memory isnt it?). Adding more ram may or may not help depending on how the video is set up. Im sure that the 6100 is 128 so it may just be a problem with not having enough video ram, not just system ram.

[max302]

It's shared, but my mobo has a good chipset and the stuff seems to be getting across. I've never ever lagged with my lappy on any game I've played. Well except FEAR, but back then I didn't know my machine very well. The only really issue is that it heats up really quick, which is harmful on long term for the GPU and CPU, prolly RAM too, but I'll be solving that in the days to come with the construction of a cooling base.

[capty99]

AMD is lagging right now on the good stuff MAX, intel is where its at for the foreseeable future if you want quality power.

[eLliDKraM]

don't listen to him, i have stock in amd so buy all their shit

[eLliDKraM]

im going to have to disagree the benchmarks for the 4600+ X2 look more promising than any intel you can get for the relative same price and the energy efficiency is better per dollar as well. it is only with notebooks i'm going to have to say get an intel core duo but you didn't hear that from me.

doing more digging now, i see that even at the 5200+ X2 it's too close to call it and it's more or a price/preference battle. it is kind of parabolic with their highest of the line shit that AMDs max is right before and intel doesn't start gaining true ground until it gets up there, but the question is, do you need it? no you really dont but it's always fun to have a fast computer i suppose

This post has been edited by eLliDKraM: 24 October 2006 - 07:49 PM

[Antiokus]

Id have to agree with Intel isn't wear its at. The Core 2 Duo Extreme may be worth it i guess, but AMDs well pretty much bench mark the same and for a lot cheaper. AMD is known to be better for gaming, and it still holds true. Besides benchmarks tend to be misleading and really doesnt show which CPU is better for your system.

Intel gained a slight edge with the Core 2 duo, but really it wasnt really an edge, they just managed to catch up with the Athlons. But I would still perfer a dual core opteron, just clock it up to like 2.8-3.2 and take anything on the market with it.

Good idea on the cooling station for your laptop, Ive noticed that they do get quite hot with some games. Cooling stations arent too much money though.

[ihatepikingnames]

So whats the dif between the operon and a regular amd64?

[dorknexus]

Quote

If your any sort of avid gamer than its completely worth it to go for the 64-bit CPU.

64 bit is completely useless unless you are running under a 64bit operating system. even then, the games you will be playing need to be designed to take advantage of 64bit memory/bus usage to see any bit of difference.

[Antiokus]

I beg to differ on the part of needing the game to be 64-bit. Having a 64 bit CPU doesnt always mean better gaming, this is true. But it does offer much better multi tasking, say if you wanted to use a voice program while you play an MMO like WoW. That is where this comes in handy.

Gaming performance, I know, only increases with 64 bit games, but with the 64 bit CPU on a 32 bit game your multi tasking abilities are far greater, and a lot less taking on the CPU its self. Sorry for the confusion on that, I should have specified what I meant.

As for the opteron vs althon 64, the only real difference is the silicon that the chip is set on. This allows for a lot more stress to be put on them as well as making them one of the best overclockers since the enhanced silicon can take the extra heat a lot better than the athlons can. Althons are of course still very easy to overclock, but just recently I was able to over clock (with a zalman 120mm cooler) an opteron single-core (i think it was a 173) from a stock 1.8 ghz to 2.8 which is the equivilant of the FX-57, which costs nearly 400 dollars more last time I checked.

[dorknexus]

Quote

I beg to differ on the part of needing the game to be 64-bit. Having a 64 bit CPU doesnt always mean better gaming, this is true. But it does offer much better multi tasking, say if you wanted to use a voice program while you play an MMO like WoW. That is where this comes in handy.

Gaming performance, I know, only increases with 64 bit games, but with the 64 bit CPU on a 32 bit game your multi tasking abilities are far greater, and a lot less taking on the CPU its self. Sorry for the confusion on that, I should have specified what I meant.

actually, if you don't have a 64 bit operating system, that 64 bit processor is nothing better than a 32 bit processor with the same speeds and bus capacity. Multitasking has nothing to do with how big the registers are on the chip, and everything to do with how your operating system handles multiple cores and multiple threads. if you are running on a 32 bit operating system, your software has no idea those other 32 bits exists, and will only utalize the chip as if it were a 32 bit processor.