EvilMonkeySlayer
Member
+82|6669
Hey ya'll,

I recently bought a couple of new sata hard disks to replace my older smaller ones, as such I now have two spare 160GB hard drives.

I've been playing with ideas of what to do with these spares drives and i've had the thought of installing all three mentioned on one of the spare drives.

I'm mostly wondering what kind (if any) performance difference i'll get between them, so..

Does anybody have any suggestions on what software/demos I should run to compare them?

I was thinking of using 3d mark 2005/2006 and pcmark.

Also, stuff like Doom 3 and Quake 4.

Anyone get any other programs I could run?

I'm not wanting to benchmark BF2 because the demo recording can't duplicate the exact movement/view etc so it doesn't guarantee a consistent comparison between them.
TerrorisT²
Melbourne Shuffler
+214|6643|Gold Coast, Australia
I have XP 64bit on my PC, and i dont see any difference. So in my view, its not worth getting XP 64. because  it just means more downloading for 64bit compatible program replacements.
EvilMonkeySlayer
Member
+82|6669

TerrorisT² wrote:

I have XP 64bit on my PC, and i dont see any difference. So in my view, its not worth getting XP 64. because  it just means more downloading for 64bit compatible program replacements.
I downloaded the trial version, you can go to the MS site and download the trial of XP64.

Not played much in XP64, mostly used Vista so far.
GuestHead
Member
+2|6637

TerrorisT² wrote:

I have XP 64bit on my PC, and i dont see any difference. So in my view, its not worth getting XP 64. because  it just means more downloading for 64bit compatible program replacements.
Not to mention drivers.  HP decided people running x64 no longer need to print anything, so they never bothered to make a compatible driver.  Ati and Creative were on top of things from the start, but here's a wacky one for ya. 
MICROSOFT....yes, microsoft didn't make a general keyboard/mouse driver for this OS until it had been out well over a year.  What kind of company doesn't support their own products?

Oh, and if there is a performance difference, it's so minute that the actuall process of figuring out what it is would be a tremendous waste of time.  I wouldn't mind knowing though...
_j5689_
Dreads & Bergers
+364|6734|Riva, MD
Why do people use XP 64-bit if it doesn't really do anything different?  Is it faster or something?
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6733

_j5689_ wrote:

Why do people use XP 64-bit if it doesn't really do anything different?  Is it faster or something?
thats why no one uses it... its faster though, but there is little support for 64bit software like drivers and games
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Angel.C-sq
Member
+24|6706|Computer Chair
I use X64, (got winlogon errors with older windows) and its indeed a bit annoying to get everything to work but it can be done. Even HP printers.
slo5oh
Member
+28|6678

Angel.C-sq wrote:

I use X64, (got winlogon errors with older windows) and its indeed a bit annoying to get everything to work but it can be done. Even HP printers.
You've got your BF2 working in x64?   What did you have to do?
I've been against it for the longest time, but now that I find myself with a legit copy (the last XP pro I ordered came with a std and an x64 edition) I'm thinking of installing it to tinker around.
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6544|Portland, OR USA
I do as well, did nothing special and have no issues.  Naturally you need to find x64 specific issues, but at this point there is a wider range of support for it than many are lead to believe.  I imagine Vista x64 will have even greater support as no one really jumped on the XP x64 bandwagon.
GuestHead
Member
+2|6637
BF2 = install as normal.  I actually looked last night after I posted and HP finally has a beta driver for all of their printers..... Over a year and all we get is a damn beta that isn't even model specific. 
As far as faster goes...I haven't been able to tell the difference.  Maybe because I don't do any number crunching or extreme multitasking.  It is very stable though.  Much fewer problems with this OS than the normal 32 bit version (excluding compatibility issues).  Supposedly the most secure version of windows currently available as well. 
Bottom line: If I wasn't able to get it for $30 through my university, I wouldn't have bothered with it.
GreatNate58
Member
+0|6526|Chicago, Illinois
forgive me if im mistaken but doesnt the 64 bit versions really need 64 bit processors to really notice the difference?
AveryHawk
Member
+6|6711|Sacramento,CA
Win XP 64 will not not allow an install unless the hardware check shows a 64 bit compatible processor.
_j5689_
Dreads & Bergers
+364|6734|Riva, MD

AveryHawk wrote:

Win XP 64 will not not allow an install unless the hardware check shows a 64 bit compatible processor.
That's what I thought, your processor (among other things) has to be 64-bit to work with it.
AnarkyXtra
BF2s EU Server Admin
+67|6805|Hanging onto the UAV
I've been using x64 for a while now: no problems running anything, and no trouble finding drivers (although all the components in my machine are big-brand like Creative/nVidia etc).

All games work fine, including Need for Speed:Most Wanted, Doom 3, Quake4, BF2 and Ghost Recon: Advanced Tactical Warfighter.

As for actual speed benefits, there aren't really any to be had just yet until games/software developers start developing to take advantage of 64-bit architecture. The only reason I did it was because I bought an skt939 Athlon64 3700+ and thought I might as well install an OS which will (in the future) get the best out of the hardware.

Sig for machine spec.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard