how well does EM64T work? 23 replies

Please wait...

carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

I just sold my true 64-bit AMD system on eBay to buy a cheaper, worse for gaming, but pretty cool Media Center PC, and I wan't it to be fairly future proof. I really want my system (has to be quiet for the home theater) to use Intel's BTX form factor, so I'm planning on going in the Intel direction. I also want to be fairly future proof (Windows Vista MCE if there is one), so I was wondering if Intel's EM64T technology that they use in there 600 series processors to make them 64-bit compatible has any disadvantages when running 64-bit applications. I don't know much about what 32/64 bit means when referring to a processor, and I know nothing about how EM64T works. So even though it is compatible with Windows Vista... does the fact that it isn't a true 64-bit processor have any kind of effect on performance?




cokefizz3000

The forums last hope

50 XP

29th July 2005

0 Uploads

827 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

I hope you are not talking about the system in your signature. If anything they will run 64 bit processes better. Intel is good with many programs at a good speed while amd is good with one process at an insane speed.




Hmmmdonut

The real Homer

50 XP

5th July 2005

0 Uploads

441 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago
carl4286I just sold my true 64-bit AMD system on eBay to buy a cheaper, worse for gaming, but pretty cool Media Center PC, and I wan't it to be fairly future proof. I really want my system (has to be quiet for the home theater) to use Intel's BTX form factor, so I'm planning on going in the Intel direction. I also want to be fairly future proof (Windows Vista MCE if there is one), so I was wondering if Intel's EM64T technology that they use in there 600 series processors to make them 64-bit compatible has any disadvantages when running 64-bit applications. I don't know much about what 32/64 bit means when referring to a processor, and I know nothing about how EM64T works. So even though it is compatible with Windows Vista... does the fact that it isn't a true 64-bit processor have any kind of effect on performance?

IT should perform the same as AMD 64 bits, because it is the same thing. ALl the 64 bits does is allow more ram ro be accessed. Something like 128gb's of ram.

If you want a cool, and fast media center though you should have kept your AMD. Presscotts run to hot for that type of application. You could wait for PM dual cores to come out, but that might be a while.




cokefizz3000

The forums last hope

50 XP

29th July 2005

0 Uploads

827 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

:gpost:




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago
HmmmdonutIT should perform the same as AMD 64 bits, because it is the same thing. ALl the 64 bits does is allow more ram ro be accessed. Something like 128gb's of ram.

32TB.

If you want a cool, and fast media center though you should have kept your AMD. Presscotts run to hot for that type of application. You could wait for PM dual cores to come out, but that might be a while.

QFE. Or at worst, you should've traded up to a Manchester X2 3800+.




carl4286

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,605 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

I would have, except for a few things: 1) Cool is great, but I want quiet first. Even with the higher temps that P4 runs at, the BTX form factor (Intel only) is the quietest cooling that I'm going to get without spending a load of money. The a BTX system is the same cost as an ATX, roughly, and the heatsink was only $39. 2) Multitasking. You said yourself that Intel's are better at doing multiple things at once, while AMD's are better for doing only one thing more intensively. 3) MP3 encoding. My grandpa (really high-maintenance) has assigned me the task of encoding about 450 CD's for me to put on his new iPod. With a 3500+, the process just goes very slowly. 4) GMA950. It won't play any high-end games, but its better than anything integrated (cheaper) that I'll get with an AMD system.

5) 65nm process. AMD's are cooler now, but Intels 65nm chips are coming out in early 2006. AMD doesn't even have one planned yet AFAIK. Hopefully, if the price is right I'll be upgrading to a 65nm chip in about 6 months, give or take (I probably won't be able to resist that long). It's not too late though. I'm committed to selling my current system, but I haven't even priced out a new one. If an AMD really is a better option, can someone reccommend me a cooling solution that won't cost me too much if I really care about noise?




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago
carl42861) Cool is great, but I want quiet first. Even with the higher temps that P4 runs at, the BTX form factor (Intel only) is the quietest cooling that I'm going to get without spending a load of money. The a BTX system is the same cost as an ATX, roughly, and the heatsink was only $39.

Hate to break it to you, but BTX isn't any quieter than ATX. Cooler, at best.

2) Multitasking. You said yourself that Intel's are better at doing multiple things at once, while AMD's are better for doing only one thing more intensively.

I'm so sick of hearing that, as it frankly doesn't hold true anymore for most people. You'd have been better off moving to Manchester, in all reality.

3) MP3 encoding. My grandpa (really high-maintenance) has assigned me the task of encoding about 450 CD's for me to put on his new iPod. With a 3500+, the process just goes very slowly.

A CD takes 4-8 minutes to transcode from FLAC to MP3 on my Intel. Ripping it to FLAC with EAC takes around 15-30, length dependant. Was that really worthwhile?

4) GMA950. It won't play any high-end games, but its better than anything integrated (cheaper) that I'll get with an AMD system.

Did you type that with a straight face?

5) 65nm process. AMD's are cooler now, but Intels 65nm chips are coming out in early 2006. AMD doesn't even have one planned yet AFAIK. Hopefully, if the price is right I'll be upgrading to a 65nm chip in about 6 months, give or take (I probably won't be able to resist that long).

Intel will be lucky if a 65nm Prescott-derivative brings them down to the A64's TDP levels. They need a brand new core; no amount of die shrinkage is going to help what they have now.

It's not too late though. I'm committed to selling my current system, but I haven't even priced out a new one. If an AMD really is a better option, can someone reccommend me a cooling solution that won't cost me too much if I really care about noise?

Coolermaster Hyper48 if space contrained, Sythe Ninja with a Nexus 120mm if not. Agruably, it may all be moot, since I wouldn't recommend keeping the Shuttle. Realistically though, I'd put thought into an X2 3800+, especially if you plan to use this machine while en/de/transcoding.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

God bless you C38368!

Yes it is true today. Theres no difference today with Intel and AMD at multitasking now with their dual cores. AMD is faster with their dual cores over Intel. Toms hardware guide did a review on them and I had the link posted some where in the techforum I'll try to find it but they said AMD Dual core is faster than Intels and more faster under heavy loads and stress. They had to overclock the Intel dual core just to match up speeds with the AMD dual core.

But Intels 64 is the same as AMD 64. They both give you 64bit extensions.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

AgentlaidlawGod bless you C38368!

Yes it is true today. Theres no difference today with Intel and AMD at multitasking now with their dual cores. AMD is faster with their dual cores over Intel. Toms hardware guide did a review on them and I had the link posted some where in the techforum I'll try to find it but they said AMD Dual core is faster than Intels and more faster under heavy loads and stress. They had to overclock the Intel dual core just to match up speeds with the AMD dual core.

But Intels 64 is the same as AMD 64. They both give you 64bit extensions.

I think I shall expound on this a little :)

First, a clarification of my position: if you (carl, or anyone else) are considering buying new hardware for a computer intended to be used primarily for any multimedia duty more stressful than pure music serving, I strongly suggest a good, hard look at dual core CPUs. And currently, AMD has a markedly superior design working in their favour.

Suppose for a moment that you have an Intel Pentium D 820 versus an AMD Athlon X2 3800+. These are both company's entry-level dual core parts, with the Intel starting at about $245 and the AMD at a rather higher $320 or so. 800MHz seperates their clocks (in Intel's favour), but if you farm out tasks to one core or another (which is the whole point on a box dedicated to media: core 1 handles DVR, en/de/transcoding or media serving duties while core 0 is used for whatever programs you as the user will be doing, or for playing back the video you're recording, etc), then you're looking at a situation where you're basically comparing a 2GHz A64 Venice to a 2.8GHz P4 Prescott. And we all know where that ends up.

On BTX: this is Intel's pet project. It's supposed to make for quieter running by using only one fan, but has a couple problems. Namely, there's still a fan in the PSU (often one of the loudest fans on a computer), and the combined CPU/case fan must move enough air to not only cool the CPU but also evauate the rest of the case. The only aftermarket BTX HSF unit I've seen was a Thermaltake that was slightly less obnoxious than a Tornado. In practice, all that BTX really brings to the table IMNSHO is a better layout for RAM cooling, which isn't even a factor for probably 97% of all users out there. And for those to whom it is, noise isn't likely to be an issue. BTX itself also has some annoying shortfalls that I've covered in other threads, but to retiterate: bad HSF attachment design, need for half-height PCI cards (case issue, but I haven't seen a full-height case yet), and the need for a riser card for video that costs as much as some motherboards.

Anyway, I just feel that your money could (and would) be better spent walking down a different path. You'll also wind up with more options, at least for the time being.




Σl.Ðestructo

People say I post too much

50 XP

12th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,449 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago

Why must it be BTX, not microATX or whatever?