Re: What is better Athlon XP or Athlon 64 ? Binary incompatibilities ?
- From: "Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:35:08 GMT
"Jason Stacy" <jjstacy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:459fecea$0$18842$9b4e6d93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Which CPU needs less power and hence produces less heat:Power consumption, depends more on speed, and chip 'version'.
Athlon XP or Athon 64 ?
Sorry for this newbie question: Are all programs which run on Athlon XP
able to run on Athlon 64 as well or are there binary incompatibilities ?
Jason
An XP 3200+, is rated at 76.8W, while the Venice core Athlon 64 3200+, is
rated at 67W. However, the Clawhammer, and Newcastle core A64 chips draw
more (89W).
The Athlon 64, has the extra 64bit instructions, but in 32bit mode, runs
identical code.
Best Wishes
.
- Prev by Date: Re: What is better Athlon XP or Athlon 64 ? Binary incompatibilities ?
- Next by Date: Re: Problem reading CD-ROM/DVD Filesystem
- Previous by thread: Re: What is better Athlon XP or Athlon 64 ? Binary incompatibilities ?
- Next by thread: Re: What is better Athlon XP or Athlon 64 ? Binary incompatibilities ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|