Print This Article

Some time ago, we examined a representative range of 32-bit computer systems then most likely to be found in law offices. We concluded then that there was little practical benefit in purchasing the most expensive top-end 32-bit systems and reasonably priced upper mid-range computers performed just as well in daily use. We find now that new high mid-range systems using AMD’s 64-bit Athlon64 3500+ processor continue to show the same relationship, costing roughly 75 percent more ($1,161) than our new low-end reference, the Athlon XP 2800+ ($688), but performing at best only about 27 percent faster, a barely noticeable difference.

The computer industry is now in the early stages of the most radical change in computing hardware and operating systems to occur in the decade since Intel introduced the original 32-bit Pentium and Microsoft introduced the original quasi-32 bit Windows 95 operating system. We suspect that history will, in a sense, repeat itself as 64-bit hardware and software mature but we’re not quite there yet. As you may recall, the first 1994 Pentium processors performed no better than the mass of generic 80486 systems then on the market and initially Windows 95 was merely a means of simultaneously running several older 16-bit DOS programs. The current 32-bit computing regime is now about ten years old and its mature state is quite analogous compared to the mature 16-bit DOS environment whose replacement slowly started in 1994. Over the next five years, those early 32-bit processors and operating systems proved to be the foundation of fundamental changes that completely altered, for the better, our entire computing landscape.

Over the past 18 months, AMD has introduced several new high-end processors in the Athlon64 line, all of which have the ability to use both current 32-bit and forthcoming 64-bit operating systems which, once 64-bit computing matures in a few years, should result in nearly doubled performance from the same CPU and memory. Intel has followed AMD’s lead with a series of faster CPUs that, at least in the current 32-bit Windows XP realm, offer more or less comparable performance. AMD’s Athlon64 series has the theoretically important benefit of incorporating the DDR memory controller directly on to the CPU processing chip while the newest nVidia nForce4 Ultra and SLI chipsets directly connect top-end SATA hard disks to the newest Socket 939 Athlon64 processor. Both of these features should, in time, markedly improve two of the most limiting hardware bottlenecks.

Intel’s course up to this point has focused upon constantly increasing the internal clock frequency of its processors, an approach that seems to have hit a brick wall with the latest Prescott CPUs. Most industry observers now believe that AMD’s Athlon64 desktop CPUs and newest 64-bit Opteron file server processors currently enjoy a substantial lead over Intel at the high end of the Windows computing arena. On the other hand, Intel’s new budget CPUs, starting with the 2.8 GHz Celeron D series, seem to perform better than many of AMD’s new Sempron budget processors except for the fast Semprom 3100+, which is derived from an early Athlon64 design.

Microsoft promises to ship a usable 64-bit version of Windows XP within the next few months and has already been released a penultimate version to final testing. As a practical matter, though, every Windows-based computer system, whether using a 32-bit CPU or a 64-bit CPU, whether AMD-based or Intel-based, remains largely limited by the inefficiencies of the Windows operating system, something with which Microsoft still quite evidently struggles. In the short term, almost all programs of interest to the legal profession will remain 32-bit programs that will not run any faster in the compatibility mode of the first 64-bit version of Windows XP. Hence, even if you decide to purchase a 64-bit system today, you will continue to work within 32-bit performance constraints for the immediate future.

How do representative 32-bit and 64-bit systems compare in today’s legal computing environment? There is little day-to-day 32-bit performance improvement once you get beyond the AMD Athlon XP 2800+ or its Intel equivalent. We compared an Athlon XP 2800+ with an extensively optimized system built around an Athlon64 3500+ CPU because this 64-bit processor is generally acclaimed as the “sweet spot” in 64-bit CPUs, beyond which cost increases exponentially but performance does not. We used a MSI-7125 Neo4 Platinum system board ($154) for the Socket 939 Athlon64 3500+, an excellent mid-range board that uses the highly regarded nVidia nForce4 Ultra chipset and that includes all of the features that you could possibly need for business computing.

We found that there is only about a 13 percent improvement between the inexpensive low-end Athlon 2800+ and the Athlon64 3500+, not a significant difference. This benchmark test result was mirrored by a useful real world application test comparing how many seconds are required to render, format and print a PDF file containing 893 pages of mixed text and graphics discovery responses. Again, the Athlon64 3500+ was only about 20 percent faster than the Athlon XP 2800+ system. This result is consistent with our prior results, which found that simply increasing raw CPU cycles gives little real world benefit because most significant bottlenecks reside elsewhere in the system.

Looking at DDR memory performance, though, we find that the integrated DDR memory controller of the Athlon64 shows an expected and noticeable improvement even in 32-bit Windows XP. The other principal limitation upon overall business computing performance is hard disk speed. Serious hard disk fragmentation damages overall performance more than almost any other factor. If a system’s disk is slow or badly fragmented, it’s equivalent to dropping back one CPU generation. We continue to find that the Western Digital 74GB SATA Raptor hard disk is the fastest desktop hard disk on the market and that it performs particularly well under Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 2.

What sort of day-to-day legal computing performance differences might you expect between a low-end system and an expensive high-end 64-bit system? Overall, the Athlon64 3500+ remained about 27 percent faster than the slowest Athlon XP 2800+ reference computer. Viewed inversely, though, the Athlon XP was only about 21 percent slower than the top end Athlon64 3500+. How do these compare in cost-effectiveness? We found the best available purchase prices for the hardware components of each reference system, excluding monitor and operating system. A balanced Athlon64 3500+ system costs about $1,161, roughly 75 percent more than the low end reference, the Athlon XP2800+, the top-end hardware components for which cost about $683 but recall that the Athlon64 3500+ performs only about 27 percent faster. Intel-based systems show the same pattern, in some cases even more strikingly.

Given that 64 bit versions of Windows XP will probably not be fully mature and stable, nor with adequate hardware driver support for existing hardware, for about a year after first introduction, there is little incentive today to purchase 64-bit computer systems for their ostensible 64-bit upgrade potential. On the other hand, if you are buying a new computer anyway, then the roughly $500 cost differential between equivalent 32-bit and 64-bit computer systems may make sense if you find yourself impatiently waiting for your system.

Personally, we believe that the roughly $500 cost differential would be better spent for high-end peripherals that actually make a noticeable difference in overall business computing performance and productivity. For example, using a $500 cost savings, you could buy both a good Plantronics DSP-500 headset for voice recognition and convenient document scanner for your desktop, such as the Fujitsu fx-5110.