I mean the pc you use for development stuff.
Posted on 2004-12-11 17:05:47 by clippy
I use AMD-64 3500+, 1024MB Ram, WinXP Pro SP1, SB Audigy 2, and nVidia 5600 256RAM for my main development. I use www.farstone.com Virtual Hard Drive (RAM Disk) 64MB for my MASM32, RadASM development (MASM32 8 only takes 3 seconds to install into the RAMDisk).

I use Microsoft Virtual PC 5.2 with 384MB/512MB for my VS.NET 2005 deveopment. Wow, all I can say, is that even in an emulator, it is blazing fast.

I have about 50 other VPC guest OSs (mostly all Win95/98/98se) for testing various browsers for my web development stuff.

Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2004-12-11 19:18:20 by _Shawn
AMD 64 - 3200+, 1GB RAM, ATi 9800 Pro, 160GB SATA HD, 19" IIyama CRT, 100mbit internet connection, Windows XP SP2 / Windows 2003 64-bit edition beta / Gentoo 64-bit

Just got it a month ago, and to work on it is pure bliss 8)

Of course now I actually feel guilty when I'm programming instead of playing games... :shock:

I agree that VirtualPC is a blessing... as are the free educational licenses we get for nearly all MS products over here.
Posted on 2004-12-12 05:23:41 by Qweerdy
P4 2.53GHz, 1024meg ram. Going to get a new box soonish, still pondering which hardware it'll be. But certainly at least 1024meg ram, and certainly HT or MP (probably HT, MP seems beyond my budget.)
Posted on 2004-12-12 09:09:18 by f0dder
I am going to get a new box too.

Can anyone give me any reason to buy p4?
Athlon is faster and cheaper!
Posted on 2004-12-14 15:43:37 by clippy

Can anyone give me any reason to buy p4?
Athlon is faster and cheaper!

I don't know how it is with the Athlon64's, but before that, "faster" certainly depended on what you did. It's true that the Athlons generally had more instructions per cycle, but once you started using SSE2, the Atlons sucked P4 dust... one review had a P4 2.53GHz outperform a, what was it, AMD 3000+ I think, in DivX encoding. And IMHO, it's really heavy (and time-consuming) tasks like that that matters, not how fast the CPU is at running word or excel (generally, both CPUs are fast enough for most applications running integer code, and if not, a bunch of that code could be rewritten to run MMX or SSE2-MMX, which would again put the P4 at an advantage).

As for cheaper, do remember that a system is both CPU and motherboard. At least around here, many of the (non-sucky) AMD motherboards are more expensive than the (non-sucky) P4 motherboards.

But as I said, I dunno how it is with the Athlon64. I'm probably getting one of those instead of a P4, as it does seem to be more bang for the buck, and I don't want to wait for the P4s with 64bit support.
Posted on 2004-12-14 15:51:16 by f0dder
Generally speaking, unless the code is specifically tuned for the P4 or memory bound then the Athlon cannot be beat in terms of price/performance, and in general it is the case. Athlons are so cheap, but P4's are falling in price as well.

We are programmers though so the question is harder - we will/can code to the full capacity of whatever we own. Buy it, code it, and tell us what it really can do! :)
Posted on 2004-12-14 16:35:03 by bitRAKE
Bitrake
We are programmers though so the question is harder - we will/can code to the full capacity of whatever we own. Buy it, code it, and tell us what it really can do! Smile

Well i code in HLL so that aint a problem ;)

Fodder

But as I said, I dunno how it is with the Athlon64. I'm probably getting one of those instead of a P4, as it does seem to be more bang for the buck, and I don't want to wait for the P4s with 64bit support.

Exactly what is the use of a 64 bit processor unless you have more than 4gb of ram???
Posted on 2004-12-14 17:50:19 by clippy
Exactly what is the use of a 64 bit processor unless you have more than 4gb of ram???
...all those extra registers. <drool/>
Posted on 2004-12-14 17:58:24 by bitRAKE
But almost all programs available have been compiled for 32 bit processors, so they cant use those extra registers. So unless you run a java or .net program which is JIT'd, i dont see how u will be able to put those extra registers to use?
Posted on 2004-12-16 05:22:11 by clippy
clippy, there are not only 64bit compilers using all the registers, but we can use them in asm as well. It is like saying we can't use MMX or SSE. Please, explain why we can't use the registers?
Posted on 2004-12-16 10:14:39 by bitRAKE
clippy probably means while running in 32bit mode until you get a 64bit os with stable drivers etc?
Posted on 2004-12-16 10:16:12 by f0dder
And that is for what is a good moment for write a OS in 64 bits :), no backward suport, because there are no applications to support :), full 64 bits :).


By the way, also I supose that there is some time for get real impact in such market, eg, my computer:


AMD Athlon, 650 MHz (3.25 x 200)
Alias: CPU Argon, K7
Stepping: C2
L1 code: 64 KB
L1 data: 64 KB
L2: 512 KB (Built-In, Half-Speed)

128 Mb I up and down constantly. 80Gb HD, GeForce3 Ti 200.

Start windows in less than 30 s, altought my bro will buy the 64Bit computer, pheraphs I will use it for testing :).
Posted on 2004-12-16 10:32:07 by rea
clippy, there are not only 64bit compilers using all the registers, but we can use them in asm as well. It is like saying we can't use MMX or SSE. Please, explain why we can't use the registers?

bitRake,
You misunderstood me. I meant that all the programs that have already been compiled.

But most of the commercial programs available today , say Visual Studio or Adobe Photoshop, they have already been written for 32 bit processors, so they dont use any of those extra registers in your 64 bit processor. Thus they wont gain any speed.

Of course you can use those extra registers in your own program :)
Posted on 2004-12-16 14:12:59 by clippy
I think there is more to a 64bit CPU than just the size of the word it can work with over the 32bit CPUs
like pipe linning , parlelling , caching and other tricks
it's like when intel came out with the 80386 the clocks per instruction
was cut by at least half in some more
the 80386 was more than twice as fast than a 80286
running 16 bit code at he same clock rate
the same may be true for the 64bit CPUs
Posted on 2004-12-17 23:17:53 by rob.rice
clippy, I misunderstood. Let me explain further: f0dder does not seem to purchase computers often and I have assumed his present machine is not meeting his needs. Because the industry itself is transitioning to x86-64 (over several years) I think it's important to invest in the migration path - with the idea of extending the lifetime of the computer.

I have other biases as well. I didn't buy into the P4 because the additional cost didn't seem to give the additional performance, but it looked promising because Intel kept saying the architechture would do 10Ghz. Over the last couple years it has become more apparent Intel made a wrong turn with P4. (because the chip doesn't turn well :P)

Not that AMD is perfect - 3DNow is kind of useless. But being mindful of the need for a migration path and given the experience of their mistakes AMD has made some very impressive design choices with their processors. Intel seems to have been humbled and hence more respectful of the market environment.
Posted on 2004-12-18 11:19:42 by bitRAKE
I have an AMD Duron 1.3Ghz, 512MB RAM, 30GB and 40GB HDD's and a 128MB R9100. Nothing fancy lol, I plan to upgrade to an XP 2500+ when I get the cash (my friend is giving me a great deal)
Posted on 2004-12-19 23:06:13 by x86asm