Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > General > Links
Links Archived stickys.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old
  (#151)
Pastrami X
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 11-30-2005, 11:27 | posts: n/a

Well, I am planning on doing my own test on XP in the near future to see if there's much decrease/increase in scores between Win2k and XP on my hardware.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#152)
madlax
Master Guru
 
Videocard: XFX GX-295N-HWFC
Processor: Intel Core i7 920@4.0 GHz
Mainboard: ASUS P6T
Memory: Kingston 3x2 GB DDR3 1333
Soundcard: SB AUDIGY 2 ZS
PSU: Corsair 750TX
Default 11-30-2005, 11:36 | posts: 234 | Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Use Norton Ghost and create a backup of your current OS on DVD-ROMs. XP is troublesome, it takes a lot of time to fine tune it.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#153)
Pastrami X
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 11-30-2005, 13:50 | posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally posted by madlax
Use Norton Ghost and create a backup of your current OS on DVD-ROMs. XP is troublesome, it takes a lot of time to fine tune it.
Yeah it does, but when I used XP I didn't bother to tweak it at all, and it ran a lot slower than untweaked win2k, so I scrapped XP, since win2k runs a lot faster without needing to be tweaked.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#154)
madlax
Master Guru
 
Videocard: XFX GX-295N-HWFC
Processor: Intel Core i7 920@4.0 GHz
Mainboard: ASUS P6T
Memory: Kingston 3x2 GB DDR3 1333
Soundcard: SB AUDIGY 2 ZS
PSU: Corsair 750TX
Cool 11-30-2005, 15:54 | posts: 234 | Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Perhaps that was true for that time. Installating all updates makes a lot of difference in both 2000 and XP.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#155)
Pastrami X
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 11-30-2005, 19:58 | posts: n/a

Quote:
Originally posted by madlax
Perhaps that was true for that time. Installating all updates makes a lot of difference in both 2000 and XP.
Well it's still true, even right now.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#156)
OldGuy932
Master Guru
 
OldGuy932's Avatar
 
Videocard: Radeon 3850 / 3870 Crossfire
Processor: Phenom 9600 / Q9450
Mainboard: Asus M3A32-MVP Deluxe/ Rampage Form
Memory: 2x1gb Kingston 5-5-5-15 1.8v 1060
Soundcard: JBL Venue Series Stadium Towers
PSU: PC Power and Cooling 1kW / 860W
Default 11-30-2005, 22:52 | posts: 623 | Location: At Chipotle

Installing all the updates on XP made my scores down, even with me just running on 13 processes. And when I did my first batch of tests, they were on a ti4200 which was the bottleneck of the system. On the system I did this batch of tests on the cpu was the bottleneck.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#157)
Xall
Newbie
 
Videocard: XFX 6600 256 @ 550/610
Processor: P4C 2.6 @ 3.2
Mainboard: Albatron PX865PE Pro II
Memory: 2x512 Corsair XMS Pro PC3200 @ 496
Soundcard: Audigy 2 ZS Gamer
PSU: Most Ghettorized PC Ever
Default 12-01-2005, 15:11 | posts: 8

for me...2003 was faster than xp and 2000 when all were fully tweaked using the same drivers and tweaks. 2000 sp4's load times were horrendous and the fps were slightly worse than xp's. xp is much faster than 2000 concerning load times and slightly faster in the fps department. 2003 was, as i said, the fastest for me...with marginally better fps and load times than xp. since i see no extra effort going into using 2003 over xp, i figured why not...free speed boost.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#158)
thewiseyoda
Master Guru
 
Videocard: BFG 6800GT PCI-e
Processor: AMD64 3000+ venice e3
Mainboard: ECs RS480-m
Memory: 2x 1GB OCZ Platinum PC3200
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-02-2005, 07:03 | posts: 309

windowXp pro x64
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#159)
OldGuy932
Master Guru
 
OldGuy932's Avatar
 
Videocard: Radeon 3850 / 3870 Crossfire
Processor: Phenom 9600 / Q9450
Mainboard: Asus M3A32-MVP Deluxe/ Rampage Form
Memory: 2x1gb Kingston 5-5-5-15 1.8v 1060
Soundcard: JBL Venue Series Stadium Towers
PSU: PC Power and Cooling 1kW / 860W
Default 12-03-2005, 02:45 | posts: 623 | Location: At Chipotle

Quote:
Originally Posted by thewiseyoda
windowXp pro x64
How can you say this without actually giving something to base it on? I'm sure that if I got a better agp card for the amd comp of mine I would still have xp pro still run better than x64. Besides, how many things actually have been optimized for x64 yet?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#160)
thewiseyoda
Master Guru
 
Videocard: BFG 6800GT PCI-e
Processor: AMD64 3000+ venice e3
Mainboard: ECs RS480-m
Memory: 2x 1GB OCZ Platinum PC3200
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 12-19-2005, 06:58 | posts: 309

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldGuy932
How can you say this without actually giving something to base it on? I'm sure that if I got a better agp card for the amd comp of mine I would still have xp pro still run better than x64. Besides, how many things actually have been optimized for x64 yet?
it just feels fasters in terms of start up and loading times. Has a faster feel to me. everything loads in a snap.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#161)
death__machine
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Sapphire 270X TOXIC 2GBx2
Processor: i5 4670K
Mainboard: MSI Z87 G45
Memory: 8GBx2 2133MHZ DDR3 Viper
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: Antec HCG 750W
Default 12-30-2005, 13:40 | posts: 795 | Location: Dubai

hey are the apple os any good for gaming
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#162)
Anarion
Ancient Guru
 
Anarion's Avatar
 
Videocard: EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 ACX
Processor: Intel Core i7 3770K
Mainboard: ASUS P8Z77-V
Memory: G.SKILL RipjawsX 16 GB
Soundcard: Sound Blaster Zx + HD 595
PSU: Corsair AX760
Default 12-30-2005, 13:59 | posts: 12,887 | Location: Finland

No, Because you need PowerPC cpu and that just is not for gaming.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#163)
JairunCaloth
Newbie
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default 02-02-2006, 05:32 | posts: 2

Quote:
First of all, a windows OS is best for games. Yea, I'm aware that some linux junkies can squeeze more outta a linux box than some can from windows, but who has the years it would take to get to that point? Let the programmers make a few more advances yet right?
Ok, I take issue with this statement. First off I do have linux installed on my personal box. I do not call my self a linux junkie, heck I have problems just finding my way around linux. I'm still very much a linux n00b. With that said, I have some games that I play under linux, some of them are even windows games that I've had to use some, fairly simple, workarounds to run, but I'll go ahead and tell you, the performance is better on those games than it is in windows. Higher framerates, less stuttering, better image quality. It's crazy, linux can do a windows game better than windows can. Now before everyone goes nuts over this statement, I will admit that not all windows games can be made to run in linux. Hell, most of them can't, and this is why right now windows is a better gaming OS. Not for performance reasons, but for the simple fact that there are not alot of games out there for linux right now. But just you wait, when everyone is running linux you will wonder to your self why you ever wasted your time with windows.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#164)
cmay119
Member Guru
 
Videocard: EVGA GTX980 Ti Classified
Processor: Intel Core i5 3570k @ 4.6
Mainboard: Asus P8Z77-V Pro
Memory: 2x4GB Samsung 30nm DDR3
Soundcard: HT Omega Claro Halo XT
PSU: Corsair AX860
Default 02-02-2006, 06:34 | posts: 120 | Location: Minneapolis, MN

Quote:
Originally Posted by JairunCaloth
Ok, I take issue with this statement. First off I do have linux installed on my personal box. I do not call my self a linux junkie, heck I have problems just finding my way around linux. I'm still very much a linux n00b. With that said, I have some games that I play under linux, some of them are even windows games that I've had to use some, fairly simple, workarounds to run, but I'll go ahead and tell you, the performance is better on those games than it is in windows. Higher framerates, less stuttering, better image quality. It's crazy, linux can do a windows game better than windows can. Now before everyone goes nuts over this statement, I will admit that not all windows games can be made to run in linux. Hell, most of them can't, and this is why right now windows is a better gaming OS. Not for performance reasons, but for the simple fact that there are not alot of games out there for linux right now. But just you wait, when everyone is running linux you will wonder to your self why you ever wasted your time with windows.

I'm suprised about that, since DirectX is embedded into the Kernal, in comparison to XFree86 which runs on the software level. DirectX than has complete access to drivers/hardware, where as XFree86 does not. XFree86 in that manner is lovely for stability, because if your GUI goes to hell on you, you don't get a system wide crash.

I'm also a Linux n00b, so if I'm incorrect on this, than by all means correct me.
   
Reply With Quote
win. pro
Old
  (#165)
Braylean
Newbie
 
Videocard:
Processor:
Mainboard:
Memory:
Soundcard:
PSU:
Default win. pro - 02-02-2006, 21:04 | posts: 1

Personally I have used both XP PRO and HOME and while both work fairly well with gaming I have to say that if you have as much hardware connected as I do such as network, printer and scanner and such that Pro is much more stable with drivers and updates and such. My XP Home would get trashy about every 3 months and have to be dumped and reloaded where as Pro is about every 6 months to a year most time.
Alas I ordered a free set of ubuntu cd's today because after looking there is alot of support for the games I play availible and everywhere I read says the linux platforms are near load it and forget it as far as stability is concerned once you get past the initial headaches of getting everything working in the first place.

As far as the post that microsoft has the monopoly and just to live with it----That attitude will only allow microsoft to control the computing world for a longer period of time. I agree that linux will be no walk in the park but hey I personally am getting tired of padding microsofts pockets for broken software.

Just the view from here.
Braylean
58 ShadowKnight
Luclin Server
EverQuest
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#166)
SirLink
Ancient Guru
 
SirLink's Avatar
 
Videocard: Geforce 980Ti
Processor: Xeon X5690 Hex 3.46GHz
Mainboard: Mac Pro 5,1
Memory: 16GB DDR3-1066
Soundcard:
PSU: 980W
Default 07-24-2006, 21:58 | posts: 4,529 | Location: Va. USA

Is there any noticeable difference between xp32 and xp64 in gaming?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#167)
Rockthesmurf
Newbie
 
Videocard: Geforce 7900 GX2
Processor: AMD Athlon 3500+
Mainboard: MSI, K8N Platinum
Memory: DDR 1024 MB
Soundcard:
PSU: Jeantech 600 watt modular
Default 07-26-2006, 10:04 | posts: 21 | Location: Knutsford, Cheshire

Well first of all it's definately going to be a Windows based OS, this is backed up by the fact that if you look at all the major 'profsesional' gaming tournaments they will be running a version of Windows, and more often than not Windows XP.

As for what OS gives the best gaming performance; this will vary somewhat from computer to computer, on my last PC windows 2000 ran very well and XP ran a lot more sluggish, and there was a definate drop in frame rate in the games I play. On my PC before that, windows 2000 (and windows XP) performed badly, Windows ME was most responsive and gave me the best in game frame rate. With my current PC, XP is easily the operating system of choice, I used to be 100% for Windows 2000 because on my previous PC it was amazingly stable, it never randomly crashed for me at all, but now Windows 2000 is lacking support for some games and general support for other utilities/applications. Another side of it for me, being a games developer, is the later DirectX SDK's do not even install if a Windows 2000 OS is detected, this was reason enough to make me upgrade to XP.

Linux isn't really a contender for a serious gaming OS, many games simply aren't supported under linux, and personally I've never seen a Linux OS running a game at a higher frame rate than the Windows counterpart. Personally I don't think Linux is particularly well suited for a desktop environment at all, 'X' really isn't too great. If people insist on looking at alternative OS's to mess around in, they should at least check out NextStep which offered an amazingly smooth, snappy GUI OS environment while Windows was struggling to allow the user to drag a window around the scren at more than 2 FPS (10 odd years ago, although on the PC I'm using right now at work, any alpha transparencies, like on the start menu, make the screen update at about 5 fps, impressive!)

Anyway,

Steve
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#168)
gilbarum
Member Guru
 
Videocard: GigaByte NVIDIA GeForce 6600 256MB
Processor: Pentium 4 2.8 @ 3.0 HT
Mainboard: Asus P4S800D
Memory: 512 MB DDR PC3200
Soundcard: Onboard SoundMax
PSU: 400W
Default 10-15-2006, 21:23 | posts: 142 | Location: Israel

maybe someone already wrote this (i didnt have the energy to read all the post), but dont forget that HT, 64 Bit and Dual core CPU will only work on XP, and these have huge impact on games
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#169)
madlax
Master Guru
 
Videocard: XFX GX-295N-HWFC
Processor: Intel Core i7 920@4.0 GHz
Mainboard: ASUS P6T
Memory: Kingston 3x2 GB DDR3 1333
Soundcard: SB AUDIGY 2 ZS
PSU: Corsair 750TX
Exclamation 12-05-2006, 09:39 | posts: 234 | Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

That may be true for your HT Intel processor but by 64 bit meaning usage of Windows XP x64 Edition right?

Can someone please ellaborate on why I should/should not use Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4 over XP again?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#170)
blitze
Master Guru
 
Videocard: Power Color 4870 1GB PCS+
Processor: Intel E8400 @4Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte something good
Memory: DDR2 4Gig 1066Mhz
Soundcard: Echo Gina 3G
PSU: NFI 650W
Default 01-03-2007, 03:22 | posts: 194 | Location: South Pole

Quote:
Originally Posted by madlax View Post
That may be true for your HT Intel processor but by 64 bit meaning usage of Windows XP x64 Edition right?

Can someone please ellaborate on why I should/should not use Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4 over XP again?
Short answer is: So you can pay Microsoft again.

Long answer is: There are slight under the hood advances in XP and the kernel is more recent (compiled version) SP2 than Win2K SP4 which means it will be more effecient on more recent hardware.

Personally I prefer to run XP for the more updated drivers and easier administration, that's if I have to run Windows. If I don't have to run Windows then I don't.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.