I really ought to know this... I might have to turn in my geek card.
I plan to build a system with an Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor. My question, though, is about the operating system. I'm really not considering Vista at this point... so I'm trying to choose between XP Home and XP 64-bit.
If I plan on using just 2 GB of memory, is there any real advantage to using the 64-bit version of windows? Or to put it another way, am I loosing any of the advantages of a 64 bit processor by using XP home?
Building new computer - what OS?
Moderator: Moderators
1.) Why are you getting AMD when Intel beat them in both price and performance? You need to take a look at the Core 2 Duos.
2.) Don't bother with XP 64-bit. I haven't had any experience with it, but I've heard more bad things about it than good. The only advantage the 64bit version of XP has over the 32bit is the option for more memory, but you only plan on getting 2 GB so its not worth it.
2.) Don't bother with XP 64-bit. I haven't had any experience with it, but I've heard more bad things about it than good. The only advantage the 64bit version of XP has over the 32bit is the option for more memory, but you only plan on getting 2 GB so its not worth it.
The Athlon 64 X2 6000+ runs $169 at the moment, while the closest comparable (price-wise) Intel chip is the Core 2 Duo E6550 at $174. Most of the performance comparisons I've read show about a 3-5% performance advantage for the AMD setup. There are a couple tests that give the advantage to the Intel.1.) Why are you getting AMD when Intel beat them in both price and performance? You need to take a look at the Core2Duos.
Basically, they're pretty much exactly equal in both price and performance by my reckoning.
Thanks for the suggestions, guys. Looks like I'm going with XP Home. It'd be nice to get Pro, but I don't see the extra cost as being worth the benefits (and no, I don't want to steal it :)).
Ubuntu might be interesting to try, but I don't have a practical need for it ATM since Windows is a must-have for my gaming obsession anyway. I can't think of anything I'd need Ubuntu for off the top of my head. Just in case, I do have a live linux distro on a CD around here somewhere...
EDIT: Ironically, the reason I need to upgrade is because the last time I built a PC I opted to go with Win2k instead of XP. Now I can't install the latest DirectX SDK 'cuz it's XP-Only. I'm afraid I'm making the same mistake all over again by not going with Vista... but Vista performance is just too crap-tastic to consider at this point
Ubuntu might be interesting to try, but I don't have a practical need for it ATM since Windows is a must-have for my gaming obsession anyway. I can't think of anything I'd need Ubuntu for off the top of my head. Just in case, I do have a live linux distro on a CD around here somewhere...
EDIT: Ironically, the reason I need to upgrade is because the last time I built a PC I opted to go with Win2k instead of XP. Now I can't install the latest DirectX SDK 'cuz it's XP-Only. I'm afraid I'm making the same mistake all over again by not going with Vista... but Vista performance is just too crap-tastic to consider at this point
I use xp64 and have only problems I had was like 2-3 programs/games not working out of maybe 50. Not sure if there's any point in using it tough, very little is written for it I guess.
I have some ubunto CDs lying around for some time and Im gonna purge/renew my system use dual boot with that + xp, possibly also try vista, as soon as I can get over lazyness.
Im thinking linux is perfect thing to have for stuff like p0rn surfing and other shady business where your windows will get lots of crap on it. It can be a pain in the ass to get stuff working in linux tough. This pretty much sums it up:
I have some ubunto CDs lying around for some time and Im gonna purge/renew my system use dual boot with that + xp, possibly also try vista, as soon as I can get over lazyness.
Im thinking linux is perfect thing to have for stuff like p0rn surfing and other shady business where your windows will get lots of crap on it. It can be a pain in the ass to get stuff working in linux tough. This pretty much sums it up:
Last edited by Zpock on 16 Aug 2007, 20:34, edited 3 times in total.
Dosn't seem like there's any point to use vista except for dx10, having a 7800 i dont feel like switching to 8800, then there's no games using it yet (at least that I care about)...
Starcraft2 mentions they might use it...
I have no idea what dx10 does and if it improves anything, or how it compares to opengl. (Man would it be sweet irony if when opengl uses all the fancy stuff on "dx10" cards, on XP/linux/whatever, everyone use this for writing games, and the whole thing backfires on microsoft nukeing dx10 and vista, instead of making everyone get vista and screw opengl like MS wanted.) Could just be marketing for all I know. If it actually does anything I'll know in time when such games come out so I don't really care at the moment....
Well, maybe microsoft screwing XP over somehow with lack of updates could make you have to go for vista to have a secure system (that you can feel safe for handling money, and not get some killer viruz that wipes the HD, fucks the bios, only things i worry about) I guess. But linux takes care of that anyway, and better.
Starcraft2 mentions they might use it...
I have no idea what dx10 does and if it improves anything, or how it compares to opengl. (Man would it be sweet irony if when opengl uses all the fancy stuff on "dx10" cards, on XP/linux/whatever, everyone use this for writing games, and the whole thing backfires on microsoft nukeing dx10 and vista, instead of making everyone get vista and screw opengl like MS wanted.) Could just be marketing for all I know. If it actually does anything I'll know in time when such games come out so I don't really care at the moment....
Well, maybe microsoft screwing XP over somehow with lack of updates could make you have to go for vista to have a secure system (that you can feel safe for handling money, and not get some killer viruz that wipes the HD, fucks the bios, only things i worry about) I guess. But linux takes care of that anyway, and better.
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16
personally, I'm impressed with the difference Vista made on my system....
I'm not going to bother preaching, you guys never listen, you only want instant gratification...
and frankly, there isn't anything wrong with that, its just.. rare.
and Vista is gratification once you figure out how to get around the 1 or 2 kinks, and get the irritating things turned off... the performance increase (as long as your computer can handle vista initially) is, WORTH it....
I'm not going to bother preaching, you guys never listen, you only want instant gratification...
and frankly, there isn't anything wrong with that, its just.. rare.
and Vista is gratification once you figure out how to get around the 1 or 2 kinks, and get the irritating things turned off... the performance increase (as long as your computer can handle vista initially) is, WORTH it....
I dont 'hate' vista. But there is no performance increase at all. Im not saying it becuase I hate vista. Im saying it becuase you dont get performance increase from vista on a game becuase vista takes up resources. Even if the decrease is minimal, its not an increase.LathanStanley wrote:personally, I'm impressed with the difference Vista made on my system....
I'm not going to bother preaching, you guys never listen, you only want instant gratification...
and frankly, there isn't anything wrong with that, its just.. rare.
and Vista is gratification once you figure out how to get around the 1 or 2 kinks, and get the irritating things turned off... the performance increase (as long as your computer can handle vista initially) is, WORTH it....
You may aswell get Vista and maybe Ubuntu.
-
LathanStanley
- Posts: 1429
- Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 05:16
use resources yes, optomize useage of resources by other programs as well, yes.Muzic wrote:I dont 'hate' vista. But there is no performance increase at all. Im not saying it becuase I hate vista. Im saying it becuase you dont get performance increase from vista on a game becuase vista takes up resources. Even if the decrease is minimal, its not an increase.LathanStanley wrote:personally, I'm impressed with the difference Vista made on my system....
I'm not going to bother preaching, you guys never listen, you only want instant gratification...
and frankly, there isn't anything wrong with that, its just.. rare.
and Vista is gratification once you figure out how to get around the 1 or 2 kinks, and get the irritating things turned off... the performance increase (as long as your computer can handle vista initially) is, WORTH it....
You may aswell get Vista and maybe Ubuntu.
overall FPS increase on all directX games on my machine is +~15% FPS.
I went from 47-60 fps on Oblivion (maxed everything) to about 50-70 FPS.
seriously, I got a performance increase from it... believe it or not.