Win2K versus XP Game Performance

[Aries64]

I recently built my first AMD system (FX-53 939) and am currently running Win2K Pro. I use this computer for work as well as for games. Win2K does everything I need to to do, but since I now have a true 64-bit CPU I plan on installing Windows XP 64-Bit Edition next year when it ships.

I play Halo as often as I can and it runs great - but I'm wondering how much faster (if at all) Halo might run under 32-bit XP. I've got a killer system (see sig) now and I want to buy another 36.7GB Ultra320 Seagate Cheetah 15K drive to run in RAID 0.

I would like to know if anyone here can give me an "objective" opinion on whether it is worth it to switch to XP 32-bit now, or wait for the 64-bit XP next year (hopefully with good driver support). Obviously, I would rather not buy a copy of 32-bit XP, as the 64-bit Edition SHOULD be available next year.

Has anyone here run gaming benchmarks under Win2K AND XP for comparison? Here are a few numbers from my system (Halo v1.05 timedemo benchmarks).

Note: Everything turned on/and or set to "High"

1280x1024 84.115 FPS
1024x768 103.575 FPS
800x600 112.286 FPS

Anyone else have a similar setup at all? (6800 Ultras' and Ultra Extremes welcome!) Thanks.

 

[boshuter]

There is very little difference either way between XP and 2000 in games.

Funny you asked this the day after I read this thread by ThugsRook on Bleedinedge forums..... it should answer your question... XP vx 2K in games

 

[dc5]

if you have a "killer" system, you should go with xp since it does run faster over win2k pro.

 

[boshuter]

BTW..... unless you just get a fantastick deal on another 15k scsi drive...... don't bother with the raid. I'm running the same drive as you for my boot drive now, previously I had another matching drive and ran them in raid 0 on an adaptec controller. I can attest to the fact that there is no discernable performance difference. Unless you are doing some particular task that writes very large files to the hdd's , raid 0 will not offer you anything. Use the 15k for a boot drive to take advantage of the awesome seek times and spend your money on large SATA drives for storage.. JMHO

 

[boshuter]

Originally posted by: dc5
if you have a "killer" system, you should go with xp since it does run faster over win2k pro.

Is that opposed to a "non killer" system?

 

[Aries64]

There is very little difference either way between XP and 2000 in games.

Thanks for the reply and link boshuter. Looks like I will wait for Windows 64-bit Edition (hopefully next year).

Also, I see your point about the RAID. I really am not dying to spend another $300.00 for another drive just now, although I didn't realize that the performance is so small. I don't really run Photoshop that much and I don't do any video editing so I guess I'll skip the RAID for now. I can ALWAYS use more storage.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

if you have a "killer" system, you should go with xp since it does run faster over win2k pro.

I guess either my system isn't good enough or dc5 did'nt see my system specs in my sig. Personally I think my system is pretty kickin' (JMHO). Maybe I should sell my FX-53 and K8N Neo2 mobo and get a 3.0E Prescott! I don't think so...

 

[Fern]

Has anyone here run gaming benchmarks under Win2K AND XP for comparison? Here are a few numbers from my system (Halo v1.05 timedemo benchmarks).

No diff between the two I could every find by googling. Ie benchies show about the same performance. Sorry, I can't seem to find the links I uncovered in my reasearch. I think one of our members-Thugsrook- has done the benchies. Might confirm with him. I think he posted the results over at bleedingedgeforums.com (or something similar).

EDIT: Found It! win98se v win2K v winXP HERE

 

[Aries64]

Originally posted by: Fern

Has anyone here run gaming benchmarks under Win2K AND XP for comparison? Here are a few numbers from my system (Halo v1.05 timedemo benchmarks).

No diff between the two I could every find by googling. Ie benchies show about the same performance. Sorry, I can't seem to find the links I uncovered in my reasearch. I think one of our members-Thugsrook- has done the benchies. Might confirm with him. I think he posted the results over at bleedingedgeforums.com (or something similar).

EDIT: Found It! win98se v win2K v winXP HERE

Hey Fern,

Thanks for the reply and for looking up the link to ThugsRook's thread on Win2K vs. XP performance on the bleedin edge site. Actually, boshuter had posted the link in his intial reply to my (original) post, but your research diligence is very much appreciated.

 

[dc5]

Originally posted by: Aries64

if you have a "killer" system, you should go with xp since it does run faster over win2k pro.

I guess either my system isn't good enough or dc5 did'nt see my system specs in my sig. Personally I think my system is pretty kickin' (JMHO). Maybe I should sell my FX-53 and K8N Neo2 mobo and get a 3.0E Prescott! I don't think so...

i did not intend to use the word "killer" that way. maybe i should make myself more clear next time. however, i agree with you 100% that your pc "kills" mine.

 

[THUGSROOK]

i personally dont see any reason for you to leave W2K right now.
unfortunately for Win9x gamers, its time to upgrade.

 

[Canterwood]

I've never experienced XP running faster than 2000 in games. (In fact I've found XP to be slightly slower, but not much)

Don't waste your money, 2000 is just fine till you upgrade to 64bit.