AMD Athlon XP +2400 - Better Win 2000 Pro or Win XP

[RussDogg]

I am running an Athlon XP +2400 and was wondering what anyone's opinion was on what operating system is better with this cpu. I know P4's operate better with XP, but am wondering if AMD XP's run just as good on Win XP or better with Win 2000 Pro.

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Honestly it doesn't matter. It's really a question of which do you prefer, XP or 2k?

 

[EeyoreX]

I know P4's operate better with XP

I hope you are referring to HyperThreading in this case... And, other than HT support in Windows XP, and the fact that it is just a newer version and will be supported longer, it is essentially the same OS as Windows 2000, so it doesn't matter which one you use with any CPU (barring the HT issue I mentioned). The OS runs f the same way on both (and other) CPUs.

\Dan

 

[RussDogg]

I guess I'm just wondering if the two operating systems run better or faster with the Athlon XP cpu. I brign this up because I was told that Win XP is better used with P4's, and Win 2000 is better used with P3's or older cpu's. Being that AMDs aren't Pentiums I was wondering if Win 2000 would suite them better, or if it even mattered.

 

[EeyoreX]

I was told that Win XP is better used with P4's, and Win 2000 is better used with P3's or older cpu's

Maybe whoever told you this was referring to using XP with all the eyecandy and visual features. And even if they were, I'd still say he was misinformed. PIIIs, Celerons, and AMDs Duron, all "lower-end" CPUs can run Windows XP just fine, and nearly as well as a P4 on otherwise similarly configured systems. Windows is not that CPU intensive, it is more RAM intensive. If you have a PIII with 512MB of RAM vs a P4 with 256MB of RAM, I would put my money on the PIII being faster, with XP or 2000. Also, you seem to be a victim of "Intel is better than AMD" propaganda. Sometimes this is true, and sometimes it is not. In some cases the P4 is superior and others the AMD. In the desktop operating system arena they are the same, and it doesn't matter in the least (other than in my previous mention of Hyper Threading). The Athlon XP can run equally as well as a similarly rated P4 with Windows XP, 2000, NT, 98, or ME. It simply does not matter.

\Dan

 

[Texun]

I've got both OS's in my XP2400 with a gig of ram and Win2K is pretty zippy. XP works fine as well but I don't have any scientific info to prove one over the other. I have never had a problem with 2K feeling slow but I have with XP. Then again I have never loaded apps in 2K as heavily as I have with XP. OSCC (Operating System Crud-Creep) will eventually pull any Win OS to its knees. When I did a fresh install on my new drive drive, both OS's felt quite fast. Opinions will vary, but if all I needed was speed I would probably go with 2K. I've thrown rocks at it and it keeps on ticking.

 

[RussDogg]

Thanks for the clarification. Knowing that I don't think I'll ever buy a P4,....unless it's damn cheap, because the AMD's are so damn affordable. For the money, and if you're always upgrading like I am, it's AMD all the way. Thanks.

 

[Texun]

Originally posted by: RussDogg
Thanks for the clarification. Knowing that I don't think I'll ever buy a P4,....unless it's damn cheap, because the AMD's are so damn affordable. For the money, and if you're always upgrading like I am, it's AMD all the way. Thanks.

I like Intel. I have a Northwood 1.6 and it does a great job, but before I go with another Intel cpu I will need to feel the kind of speed that leaves me gasping for air. Right now the prices alone do that. The 2500'ish range of XP's have a great price\performance ratio.