Yesterday I got my processor in the mail (an AMD Atlon X2 64 – 3.0 GHz). Not big news, I know, but I’m pretty excited to be one step closer with what I could consider to be the more “permanent” hardware.
I did NOT go quad-core. Just regular old dual-core for me. I went with dual-core for two reasons – 1) the prices on quad-core processors are still higher than I want to pay right now. 2) Several sites like the Ars Technica system guide say that the advantages of the quad-core setup will not be seen for a while in terms of programs efficiently using all four cores.
What I DID do is go 64-bit. One could make the argument that, like having a quad-core, the advantages of having a 64-bit system will not be immediately apparent. I think that argument is less clear cut. The advantages with regards to processing speed seem to be debatable. Depending on the benchmarks, 64-bit systems will perform somewhat better than 32-bit, but in just as many it’s kind of a wash.
One way I will be able to benefit from having a 64-bit system, however, is when it comes to system memory. 32-bit systems are limited to 4 GB of RAM. I believe a system with regular Vista on it will only recognize 3.something GB when 4 is installed.
On a 64-bit system, the sky’s the limit when it comes to RAM. Theoretically, Ultra Mega Super Duper Vista 64-bit Pro supports up to 128 GB of RAM. Realistically, however, when say that the sky’s the limit I really mean that the motherboard is the limit. The motherboard will likely be my next purchase, and the one I get will likely support up to 16 GB of RAM.
Also, I will also freely admit that I went 64-bit for the cool factor. 64-bit. Yeah.