Researching for new upgrade...

[Noite Escura]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Professur]

no venom there.

 

[HomeLAN]

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

 

[Huge]

I'm almost there with just Firefox opened.

 

[HomeLAN]

Is that on Vista?

If so, sorry. 650MB.

 

[HomeLAN]

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]

Thats my laptop on vista after a reboot this morning.

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

 

[Noite Escura]

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]

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?

 

[Professur]

Ask me about trying to shoehorn W98 onto a Centrino based laptop.

 

[Huge]

My thoughts exactly!

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.

 

[Inkara1]

Ask me about trying to shoehorn W98 onto a Centrino based laptop.

OK, I'll ask.

 

[Professur]

I don't want to talk about it.

 

[Gonzo]

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

 

[Professur]

Could be. I'm not have sex with him.