• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

probably a stupid question

T

tokath

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
155
I know people say xp is faster then 2k with a p4 but is it always this bad?
I dont normally use a p4 but i have had a chance to play with one for the past week. specs are 3.0 @ 3.6 240fsb, p4p800se 2x256 hyperx pc4000, 9800 pro. It's kinda wierd when using 2k with sp4 integrated it scores slower than my barton @ 2.2 by a bit ie 17300 compared to 17900 but when i install xp with sp1 it scores around 19900. Both use the same drivers and both have all the critical updates installed with nothing else running in the background. just curious if this was normal, i would give other results but i cant remember them :)
 
ive found XP to be a hell of alot faster, but never encountered that big of a benchmark difference, however i havent compared the two in a number a years
 
Windows 2000 has a number of deficiencies when compared to XP. Video driver performance degredation can be huge. Anywhere from 11% to 45% depending on the driver version and what chipset your using. Nvidia cards seem to lead the pack for good 2000 drivers, but still some performance is lost.

There are documented Firewire issues with Windows 2000, performance is lost there. Windows 2000 also has a higher footprint in memory. Leaving less system resources free. Windows 2000 does not support ATA drive speeds over ATA33 and with a patch it can do ATA66 but still doesn't get where it needs to be. Support for 100 and 133 modes are out of the question.

Even SCSI disk access seems poor. On identical machines with 2000 and XP the Quantum Atlas 10K II seems to stutter alot with Windows 2000. However, with Windows XP it's alot better.

Windows 2000 does not support HT. Although it sees the virtual chips, they don't give you any performance increase when compared to Windows XP.

Interface wise it's slow compared to Windows NT and Windows XP. For the most part I find that while Windows 2000 and XP share common roots and have a similar back end, Windows XP has HUGE improvements in just about every conceivable area. In short Windows 2000 is a pretty worthless OS in my opinion.

Theres additional networking functions that I won't get into. But even there 2000 gets it's ass kicked. Rightly so. It is in fact much older than Windows XP. Why anyone would still use this OS I'll never know. Theres just no reason unless you're just poor and don't have the money to upgrade.

But if you're machine was made in the last two years especially, you can't take full advantage of your hardware with that OS.
 
interesting becuase when i tested my barton 2k and xp score almost exactly the same using the same drivers and hardware. i knew 2k didnt support hyperthreading really, i just didnt expect to see that big of a difference with single threaded applications :) i've been debating using xp, i just dont like the fact you have to activate, but then again every 60 days a reinstall isnt so bad for such a performance increase :) thank for the extra info though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top