Ok, I know some of you are laughing at the fact that I still use Windows 2000. But for some reason or another, it feels that Windows 2000 provides more a solid performance over Windows XP. With that out of the way, here is my question...
- How would Windows 2000 run a Athlon 64 Machine?

- Would there be any greater performance over the 1.7 Ghz P4 that I use now?

- Go with P4 E on the 32bit or Athlon 64?

8/2/2005 12:31:06 PM

couple things:

-what do u/would u use the comp for? for video encoding and stuff P4 is better than the Athlon64. for gaming, graphic designing and general overclocking i would go with the 64.

-in terms of performance u would have to pick what speed Athlon64 to go with cause there are different levels. i have an Athlon64 3200+ which runs at 2.2Ghz but is equivalent to a 3.2Ghz CPU. the lowest the Athlon64's go, i believe, is 3000+ which runs around 2.0Ghz if i'm not mistaken.

-there is no wide use for 64bit yet but it will no doubt be the future. but if u plan to upgrade when 64bit achitecture and OS's are fully capable then just stick with a 32bit CPU, like the P4 E

also windows 2000 would run good on either machine. XP is quite stable now so u could even make the switch over if u wanted to. i dont think u would have anythin to worry about makin the move.

[Edited on August 2, 2005 at 12:41 PM. Reason : 2000]

8/2/2005 12:40:00 PM

I would suggest you go with the Athlon 64.

- As brianj320 said, P4 is better for video encoding and file compression while the Athlon 64 is the same or better in all other categories

- both processors can run Windows 2000 and Windows XP just fine.

- The Athlon 64 has the ability to run the next windows OS, Vista (Longhorn) in 64bit

- The Pentium 4 E has a prescott core which is notoriously hot. You may run into cooling issues with that processor which means you will have overheating or you may need to get an expensive heatsink with a loud high RPM fan. You shouldn't have a problem cooling an Athlon 64.

I'd suggest you get a socket 939 Athlon 64 processor. It will be supported longer than socket 754.

8/2/2005 1:06:14 PM

Thanks guys, but which AMD core? There are so many for the Socket 939.

8/2/2005 2:16:41 PM

Quote :

"it feels that Windows 2000 provides more a solid performance over Windows XP."

explain.

8/2/2005 2:28:10 PM

it just seems that windows xp takes up more resources than windows 2000. i run mostly developer apps, and could careless about games. and windows 2000 just seems better at running them. the only thing i dont like about Win2k is its load time.

8/2/2005 2:31:33 PM

Venice (Single Core) or Manchester (Dual Core)

8/2/2005 2:34:56 PM