Comments

1. BillF

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 2:33AM  

   I would have gone with an Intel C2D CPU. Far better performance and less wattage while under load.

   I have nearly an identical system, but C2D based CPU and hit 5.5 in the Peformance Index.

   Oh and the price was rather close to the same.
2. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 3:08AM  

   Hey BillF, thanks for the comment! So a Intel C2D CPU would use less power than my AMD processor? Less power is good... I had to scrounge around for a good enough power supply for the PC.

   So your overall Windows Experience Index is a 5.5?

   Also: are you running Windows Vista in 64-bit?

   - Brandon
3. chakkaradeep

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 3:09AM  

   ==> I have heard there are less application support in 64 Bit Vista. Not sure about that. For example, Live Products don't work in 64 bit. So, how did you choose to go with 64 Bit ? How are you using Live suite ? :)

   ==> I would have gone with Intel Core 2 Duo 64 bit processors rather than AMD.

   ==> 4 GB is so good :D

   ==> Where is XBox 360 :D, lol, XBox Live, Xbox Media Center..hmm...
4. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 3:18AM  

   chakkaradeep,

   In regards to running apps in 64-bit -I am not running the Windows Live suite apps on the 64-bit PC as of yet. I am currently using them on my laptop running 32-bit.

   As stated in the release notes for the Windows Live suite betas, 64-bit support will happen when the Windows Live suite hits final release:

   http://windowslivewire.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2F7EB29B42641D59!312.entry

   Once the Windows Live suite hits final release, I'll be good to go.

   What is your reasoning for recommending Intel's Core 2 Duo for 64-bit versus AMD? I'm curious - have you had an experience that leads you to prefer Intel over AMD?

   Oh and I'll be adding more hardware to my "What I Use" page very soon. That was just part 1 ;-)

   - Brandon
5. Parm

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 3:37AM  

   I've recently built a new all round PC that'll act as a media center PC too, I went with the Intel sollution too for the low power usage. The now built system is very quiet and cool, performs great with 4GBs of Ram too.

   I'm using Vista x64 too and whilst I think that more people should make the switch to x64, it's a shame we're still struggling to see it supported. As mentioned above, the Microsoft Windows Live Suite doesn't work. One would have hoped that Microsoft would have been pushing the x64 platform first and foremost.
6. chakkaradeep

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 3:38AM  

   Brandan,

   My friends use the latest iMac 64 bit core 2 duo  with Vista installed. The performance is awesome. Since I use Core 2 a lot and seen others too, thought would choose Intel Core 2 :D. I haven't had much experience with AMD though :(

   So, you reckon Windows Live Wave 2 will have some surprise for 64 bit :D ?
7. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 3:44AM  

   chakkaradeep,

   My understanding is that 64-bit users will be able to enjoy the Windows Live suite once it hits RTM :-) Not sure about any specific 64-bit surprises though.

   Parm,

   You said you've built up a PC specifically for Windows Media Center (and running 64-bit too which is cool!) - what kind of TV tuners are you using if any?

   - Brandon
8. Tesmond

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 4:03AM  

   I have both core 2 duo E6400 and an AMD dual core X2 6000+.  I personally prefer the AMD for the "cool and quiet" technology, and also because I could get the same performance for less money.  My core duo machine is very good though, but slightly more expensive.

   BTW I initially tried to run Vista 64 on a 1GB RAM system, this is a BAD idea, it really does struggle, with constant swapping to HDD.  After I upgraded to 2GB it felt like a new machine (similar to switching from 256mb to 512mb in XP).

   Unfortunately I had to switch back to XP-64bit on one of my machines as MSN Messenger video calling does not work in Vista 64 bit (according to MSDN this is a known bug, unfortunately the work around mentioned does not work for me).

   I even need to dual boot to Linux as my Sony Ericson mobile and my Canon N1220U scanner do not work in XP-64bit or Vista (any version), but do on all of the leading Linux distros.
9. Brandon LeBlanc

   

   
   Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 4:10AM  

   Tesmond,

   You mention that video calling in MSN Messenger did not work on Windows Vista x64. Have you tried the latest Windows Live Messenger releases - such as the 8.5 beta to see if it works? I'll try to test it out myself once the final versions of the Windows Live hit.

   - Brandon
10. Islander

    
    Posted on: November 06, 2007 at 4:26AM  

    I can confirm that video calling unter Vista x64 works just fine with the latest 8.5 beta, since I recently bought the new Quickcan Pro 9000 and now use it every now and then to "video-chat" with my brother who is in another country (and also has the 8.5 beta under x64).

    As for the processor, I have a Athlon64 x2 4200+ (slightly overclocked to something like 4800+) and I have no performance complains at all. But it's true, right now Intel has better price/performance relation, at least at higher end CPUs. That might change when AMD introduces the new Phenom Desktop CPUs... isn't that sometime this or next month?