Gaming XP VS 2000 PRO

[warhorse9000]

Hi

I was talking to a tech the other day and he told me that a good way to get a boost on a little performance was to switch from my windows XP configuration to 2000 pro. I have read some benchmarks and it seems like XP does have a better "gaming" environment but he swears to get better frames on 2000. It is true that 2000 is easier on the resources.

Can anyone help

Specs:

Windows XP SP1
MOBO: GIGABYTE 8X GA-7VAXP ULTRA
PROC: AMD ATHLON XP 2100+
VID: Radeon 9000 PRO 128 meg
MEM: 512 DDR PC 2100
HDD: 40 GIG 7200 RPM

[bonzai]

XP is much better in gaming. can see it in Warcraft.

[Force Flow]

In my gaming experience, XP does better. ;)

[Nuclear Krusader]

Stay with XP.

The compatibility wizard sure comes in handy every now and then and 2000 doesn't have it.

[warhorse9000]

Well the compatibility wizard is available with SP3 for windows 2000 and also I have just done a clean instal of Win2K to figure this thing out for myself.

I ran 3D Mark 2001 SE in XP and in 2000 now and these were the basic results

Windows XP Score = 6908

Windows 2000 Score = 7114


I of course will run it several more times to make sure but that was it so far. Having less of that GUI and "secret" processes is a plus but XP has become a little dear to my heart. I guess I will have to wait to see what my real FPS are like in my games

[Strider]

I run Windows XP Home, Pro and 2000 pro versions, never really go into benchmarking personally. I wouldn't switch, for there really isn't that big of a difference that really calls for it. Just my .02 cents.

[sleepypost]

there are a lot of easier options for seeing improvement in games. Try a quick graphics card upgrade (cheaper than switching OS's), overclocking or a memory upgrade (2700?). :)

[crjdriver]

I used to have a dual boot setup [win2k sp3 and xp pro sp1] the benchmarks were within a few points of each other. I would use either one you like best.

[warhorse9000]

I would hardly say that spending another 300 bucks on a new graphics card is easier then spending an hour installing a new OS. However it seemed that the benchmark I did was an anomaly. I did a few more and found that there wasn't really much difference between the 2. Given the superior support of XP and thinking of the future of Gaming, it would be best to stick with XP

Now we just wait for Longhorn..lol

Case Closed

[crjdriver]

As far as fps, ut2003 was the same on both win2k and xp. Run on the same resolution [1024x768] both were approximately 80-90 fps. I would not invest the money in another os.

[sleepypost]

A $180.00 graphics card upgrade is cheaper than a $200.00 WindowsXP install. (that depends on your current card of course) Plus there are the other two options i mentioned. :)

[warhorse9000]

Well not to beat a dead horse here if you will um.. pardon the pun but I already have both versions of windows so it doesnt cost me anything to switch between them. I agree that the FPS was about the same as I had mentioned in the previous post but on a side note I did notice an increase in system navigation speed in 2000 as it is a lot lighter on the specs and isnt bogged down with visual styles. I do turn mine off in XP anyway.

I get about 80 FPS in UT2003 and for some reason 25-30 FPs in splinter cell at 1024X768 32 bit medium settings.

Anyway thanks for the posts guys I do appreciate your help


WARHORSE

[Blakhart]

From someone who worked at M$ on acpi matters, the driver model in xp is 3 to 10% faster than that in 2k...

[sleepypost]

Lol, well, if you have them both. :)

[Nuclear Krusader]

Originally posted by warhorse9000
Well the compatibility wizard is available with SP3 for windows 2000 and also I have just done a clean instal of Win2K to figure this thing out for myself.

Where is it? I cannot find it. :( :confused:

[warhorse9000]

Yeah I have them both.. in fact I have all of the OS's including MAC OS's

Im kind of a weird collector..lol


Anyway you mentioned a Memory upgrade to PC 2700

Would that boost FPS in games??

Cause that could be the bottleneck i have been looking to find for a while now

[warhorse9000]

Actually I was wrong in the sense that there is a built in compatibility wizard for windows 2000 because there is none that I know of.

There are however some 3rd party utilities that basically do the same job and require the SP3 to work correctly

Sorry for the confusion man,

[Nuclear Krusader]

NP. I thought that maybe I hadn't installed it. Thanks!