Researching for new upgrade...

Noite Escura

The unpredictable
So an Athlon 64 3800+ is a 2.4 GHz, while the A64 x2 3800+ has 2 2 GHz cores. Question is what is better for gaming?
I had an habit of going for 3 times the perfomance of the former machine, every 3 years, but I don't think there is a processor that can outperform my Athlon Xp 2600+ by that margin and is "buyable" nowadays?
 

Huge

Holla if you hear me!
Staff member
I'm not sure how optimized games are for dual cores; my old A64 3500+ was great for gaming. Problem was it was tied down in an AGP system. My guess would be to get the dual-core cpu.
 

HomeLAN

Bumbling Idiot
Staff member
I think it might be close enough as to make no difference with the software out right now. The issue is endurance. That dual-core should be able to take advantage of a lot of software advances in the next three years that a single core simply can't.

The bigger deals to me, for gaming, are the video system and the operating system. What are you thinking about in those areas?
 

Noite Escura

The unpredictable
Video may be something in the GeForce 8 series, low/mid-range. It may take 1-2 months before I'm ready to spend, so it's worth to see what ATI will come up with until then. OS... well I wouldn't want to part with Win2K, but I think it will not have decent support for the new wave of CPUs, so, with the knife on the throat, I may finally make the move towards XP. I suppose DX10 will work with XP?
 

HomeLAN

Bumbling Idiot
Staff member
Probably. I just wanted to be sure you didn't do something stupid, like move to Vista.
 

HomeLAN

Bumbling Idiot
Staff member
Not really, no. I just prefer an operating system that can sit at a desktop without consuming 750MB of memory.
 

Huge

Holla if you hear me!
Staff member
vista.jpg


I'm almost there with just Firefox opened.
 

HomeLAN

Bumbling Idiot
Staff member
If it's on XP, what all are you running in the background?

This work system is Win2k, and it's using less than 256 MB with e-maio, firefox, and my palm program up and running. Naldesk is also going.
 

Huge

Holla if you hear me!
Staff member
Thats my laptop on vista after a reboot this morning.

According to this PDF, this is why it uses more memory than xp:

memory.jpg
 

Noite Escura

The unpredictable
Not really, no. I just prefer an operating system that can sit at a desktop without consuming 750MB of memory.
That's one of the reasons I still run Win2K. I don't like to pay for doubling my memory, only to have my efforts reduced to nothing by Micro$**t.
XP is not exactly diet on memory either...
 

HomeLAN

Bumbling Idiot
Staff member
True on XP being a bit of a hog in it's own right, but you're VERY soon going to be facing a situation where W2K isn't supported anymore. That qualifies as very bad.

I figure you've probably got that 3 year cycle you were talking about before they cease to support XP.

Huge - it's not a bug, it's a feature - right? :D
 

Huge

Holla if you hear me!
Staff member
My thoughts exactly! :D

But there are still some features I like; the search is much better and doesn't crash on me like desktop search for xp does. But it runs much better on newer hardware so I might go back to xp for now.
 

Gonzo

Infinitesimally Outrageous
Staff member
Oh nice, get his hopes up, only to dash them against the rocks. What are you, his new girlfriend?
 
Top