My thread reguarding amd cpus and win2k vs. winxp

Alot of people say windows xp is just as fast as win2k with amd cpus. I beg to differ. I am starting a new thread because ive been told to do so and not go off topic in existing threads. Below is what I had said in another thread but im putting it here. I already beat him by 4.9fps in car high when we were both at identical cpu clocks, this shows that winxp is slower and the gap grows with higher cpu and gpu clocks. at 262x9=2.36GHz I beat his 260x10=2.6GHz by nearly 100 marks. Feel free to prove or disprove it, anyone may!


3DMark Score
(3D marks) 18832 <------my score
18792 <------his score

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail
(FPS) 271.6
273.8

Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail
(FPS) 92.6 <-------I got him in car high by 4.9fps which is cpu bound
87.7

Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail
(FPS) 321.1
329.7

Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail
(FPS) 174.8
179.8

Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail
(FPS) 273.6
263.4

Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail
(FPS) 125.7
120.9

Game 4 - Nature
(FPS) 115.4
117.8 <------hes got me by 2.4fps in nature which is gpu bound.

I will let the numbers I compared mine against yours speak. I really wonder how your getting 117.8fps nature now when you had 115.7fps before(your old link is below)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8380641

also both of your dragons have gone up. care to share?


on another tangent, have you concluded your ondie controller cant do over 220fsb? what happens at say 240fsb? what did you use to test its limits? I used superPI and 3dmark. oh by the way, try overvolting your tccd to 2.7 or even 2.8 this seems to have gotten me a couple MHz higher cause the volts also go to the ondie controller. I can complete 3dmark 2001 nearly every time at 262 and superPI sometimes crashes, sometimes completes at 262. at 255 I tried superPI 5 times and it completed 5 times in a row.





http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8383361

This is at 2.36GHz and it beats your 2.6GHz score by almost 100 I am about to do a 200x9 run, will be back soon. I will enjoy my lead over you till you go venice. I remember I used to beat you with a ti4200 till you went newcastle then I got a 9500np and beat you. you then got 22k and I got a winchester to beat you again


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8383523

Not far behind you but the gap grows when we both overclock everything. I already beat your 2.6GHz score with my cpu at 2.36GHz id like to see you run 200x9 now like I did, youd trail me by 500+ marks. If you still deny that winxp is slower, then I give up. I dont want to hear excuses either. I beat you and that is that. I have 23100 at 240MHz lower cpu clocks than you. Youll beat me of course with a venice but when I get mine, ill probably beat you with 300MHz lower venice clocks with everything else being equal. edit: This was with my first run too. I did rerun car low but scored less the 2nd time so I gave up. I didnt do re runs on anything else


edit: I just noticed my 18.8k score at 200x9 stock cpu and gpu was with LDT at 3x. I am gonna try LDT at 5x and see if this helps, I doubt it will but ill try anyway. at 200fsb, my mobo supports LDT of 5x stock, but I always left it at 3x cause I overclock all the time and thought there was no performance differences, there might be

Could I ask who the other tester is? Also when comparing the 2 what updates are you using? Do you have everythign exactly the same between the 2 computers, not just cpu speed. Are you both using the exactly the same vid card and same ram with the same timings? I think to do a proper test you need use the same rig and do all the tests with xp. Then format the HD and install 2k. Then do all the tests again and then compare. It seems like yuo are using 2 diffrent machiens and there are many things that could change preformance between the 2 to cause diffrent score on things even though they have the same processor speed.

I peronally think 2k is faster but hey thats just me and I havent ever done benchmarks to prove it. If you use the same mahcine I would love to see those results and then finally know that 2k beats pros but.

shuiends said:

Could I ask who the other tester is? Also when comparing the 2 what updates are you using? Do you have everythign exactly the same between the 2 computers, not just cpu speed. Are you both using the exactly the same vid card and same ram with the same timings? I think to do a proper test you need use the same rig and do all the tests with xp. Then format the HD and install 2k. Then do all the tests again and then compare. It seems like yuo are using 2 diffrent machiens and there are many things that could change preformance between the 2 to cause diffrent score on things even though they have the same processor speed.

I peronally think 2k is faster but hey thats just me and I havent ever done benchmarks to prove it. If you use the same mahcine I would love to see those results and then finally know that 2k beats pros but.

Click to expand...

LOL.

Course there not using the same drivers mate, this is OC550 were talking about here.

LOL 550, you never seece to amaze me.

Why are you so obsesed with 3dmark 01? 5frames per second on the odd test mean **** all.

You haven't even compared with the same dam drivers, lol and seeing as your's is a 9500 modded, it's not the dam same.

I also doubt you have the same memory, mobo, and everything else.

So just delete the thread and so yourself a favour.

The other tester might wish not to reveal himself. If he does, he is free to post here. I leave the decision up to him if he wants to participate in this thread. we have equal hardware in everyway, same TCCD ram, same gpu(mines a 9500 but softmodded) same winchester, doesnt matter that stock is, it can be under or overclocked. we may have different mobos but this is a negleciable difference. I do not have winxp nor will I ever have it, its just garbage to me, see my sig for quote.

Overclocker550 said:

The other tester might wish not to reveal himself. If he does, he is free to post here. I leave the decision up to him if he wants to participate in this thread. we have equal hardware in everyway, same TCCD ram, same gpu(mines a 9500 but softmodded) same winchester, doesnt matter that stock is, it can be under or overclocked. we may have different mobos but this is a negleciable difference. I do not have winxp nor will I ever have it, its just garbage to me, see my sig for quote.

Click to expand...

LMAO.

Great bed for testing then man.

Sure 2000 is a few frames faster, who cares about that. Maybe people like you who only have there hardware to run 3dmark 01, but most of us do other things with our PC's.

Compare XP with 2000 with both being a fresh install then yeah, XP will obviously get pwned but it's designed to be friendly for teh n00bs. Now, seeing as this is a overclocking forum then I guess most people aren't unknown to tweaking their Windows. Spend an hour or so going over everything (disabling many services, visual themes etc) in XP and then you can compare it against 2000. I use XP which I have tweaked quite a bit and it runs amply fast. That and it looks a LOT nicer, especially as many programs now have UIs to complement the XP theme and nearly all windows software is programmed to be optimised for XP anyway. That and do like 300 or whatever 3DMarks really matter?? Oh and try comparing 3DMark 03/05 scores like from where people were actually using XP......

I was using the exact same gpu drivers he was when I broke 23k at 2.4GHz. He is free to use the 5.1s which I now use, but I personally saw no performance difference between that and the older 4.12s except stability. the difference may be 5fps at stock but like I said, it becomes alot more when were both overclocked. I compared my score vs. Grov's and I am pratically tied in car high and barely behind both lobbies despite the fact im almost 200MHz slower cpu clocks, half the cache and worse ram timings than him too. Of course this means nothing or does it?


23100

30297




Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail
(FPS) 333.8

400.0


Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail
(FPS) 125.4

125.8


Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail
(FPS) 378.0

591.0


Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail
(FPS) 212.7

285.6


Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail
(FPS) 339.9

357.5


Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail
(FPS) 158.2

161.2


Game 4 - Nature
(FPS) 132.9

267.9


edit, by the way, my hardware isnt crappy, not cpu wise, I match you in cpu power and I dont care that my gpus slower but im not gonna go over this again

How exactly do your 2.3ghz winchster equal a 255HTT Clawhammer at 2.55ghz.

Anyways, im past caring. I haven't tweaked XP at all, i leave everything running in the background, i don't really care. It's just a bit of fun, of which goes, when reading your crap.

Yes XP is slower than 2000. Do most people care? No, cause XP is better.

Pretty much everyday I check OCForums to see a post about how 2000 is sooo much better than XP, and om6 anyone that uses xp is some kind of n00b or something. Or a thread about how we HAVE to use 3DMark 2001 for EVERYTHING.

I don't care either. You can stick to 2000 if you like it and that's good for you, and I'll stick to XP. It's tiresome to see the Windows 2000 issue brought up on an almost daily basis. I think this thread should be closed, it just seems to be somewhere for a flame war, and (I hope) that we are above that.

"Yes XP is slower than 2000. Do most people care? No, cause XP is better."


Thats what I wanted to hear. you finally admit xp is slower! saying xp is better is an opinion so I am not even gonna argue, but its slower than thats a fact! no my cpu is not better than yours IF and only IF both cpus have optimial configurations but your OS holds you back so your extra cpu power is needed just to be equal to my slightly slower cpu.

Overclocker550 said:

"Yes XP is slower than 2000. Do most people care? No, cause XP is better."


Thats what I wanted to hear. you finally admit xp is slower! saying xp is better is an opinion so I am not even gonna argue, but its slower than thats a fact! no my cpu is not better than yours IF and only IF both cpus have optimial configurations but your OS holds you back so your extra cpu power is needed just to be equal to my slightly slower cpu.

Click to expand...

When have i ever said XP isn't slower than 2000.

Who cares. It's so small it's pathetic, XP is the better OS for most people. People only use 2000 to bench on to get those extra few points.

My OS holds me back and i need the extra cpu power to be equal?

*big grin* to that statement.

Anyone else wanna laugh at him?

Personally I would consider Windows 2000 and XP to be exceptionally slow and bloated, obviously this statement is not a blanket one as we all use our systems to do different things in a different manner.
However in terms of gaming I find that my SuSE Linux 9.2 system running WineX not only displays clearly what a sluggish operating system Window2000 is but just how good Linux is..
Im getting some pretty good benchmarks out of it... Not that I personally believe them

Overclocker550 said:

I compared my score vs. Grov's and I am pratically tied in car high and barely behind both lobbies despite the fact im almost 200MHz slower cpu clocks, half the cache and worse ram timings than him too. Of course this means nothing or does it?

Click to expand...

It is quite meaningless. Unless you're demonstrating how bad of an idea it is to use 3dmark. Then you make an excellent point. It's a benchmark that is past its usefulness. If you just want to build a case for using windows 2000. There are other avenues you can take. Speed, is not a very good one. I have yet to see meaningful benchmarks demonstrating windows 2000's speed superiority to windows XP.

grov ur one hateful mug. why are u so hate ful to 550 if u dont care dont post. very simple right.

How about some sandra, superpi, and pcmark score's?

AMD900 said:

grov ur one hateful mug. why are u so hate ful to 550 if u dont care dont post. very simple right.

Click to expand...

Indeed, he is so anyoing with his bull ****.

Overclocker550

Alot of people say windows xp is just as fast as win2k with amd cpus. I beg to differ. I am starting a new thread because ive been told to do so and not go off topic in existing threads. Below is what I had said in another thread but im putting it here. I already beat him by 4.9fps in car high when we were both at identical cpu clocks, this shows that winxp is slower and the gap grows with higher cpu and gpu clocks. at 262x9=2.36GHz I beat his 260x10=2.6GHz by nearly 100 marks. Feel free to prove or disprove it, anyone may!

Click to expand...

1. Your CPU overclocks are different, the comparison is meaningless and unfair.

2. Your video card is softmodified, the comparison is meaningless and unfair.

3. 100 3DMarks is well within the margin of error, the comparison is meaningless and unfair.

4. You didn't run the benchmark at least 10 times to try and eliminate the margin of error, the comparison is meaningless and unfair.

5. 3DMark2001 is a very old (4+ years!) benchmark, that has become highly CPU-dependant. On the topic of CPU-dependant benchmarks, and again why you have failed to produce anything even remotely meaningful or fair, refer to #1. The comparison is meaningless and unfair.


I do not know how to say this politely .

You have posted a biased, meaningless, and unfair comparison. It is of absolutely no value or worth, whatsoever.

It is, of course, your right to try and defend the comparison that you have posted.

If you wish to do so, please adress each point that I have made, individually.

Grov

Anyone else wanna laugh at him?

Click to expand...

How is that anything but inflammatory? Nobody else here wants to laugh at anyone; that hurts feelings.

AMD900

grov ur one hateful mug. why are u so hate ful to 550 if u dont care dont post. very simple right.

Click to expand...

If nobody posted to argue against OC550's innacurate comparison, it would be accepted by quite a few people as meaningful and accurate. Nobody here wants erroneous information passed around, labelled as valid.

However, I do agree with you to an extent.

What many, many people here on the ocforums seem to be forgetting, is that it is possible to carry on a good discussion without resorting to inflammatory comments, and petty insults, as a means to back up your personal opinion or perspective.


I for one will stand right up and say, that if I do not see an improvement in the general atmosphere here on the ocforums, I will be leaving it for good. There are other forums out there, where people are far more polite and civil in their discussions. I have been flamed, or seen flames/inflammatory postings, almost daily throughout the last few weeks. I do not like this, and would much prefer to participate, and take my opinions and knowledge to a forum where people are respectful of others, and polite in their discussion.

Indeed, he is so anyoing with his bull ****.

Click to expand...

hatefull and funny . lol

i wonder what things will look like when M$ releases XP-64 bit?

From what I see there, you have a .212 difference between your 3dmark scores... This is WELL within the margin of error of just about any test I have ever seen. From a statistical standpoint, your scores are IDENTICAL.

Not to mention, the only valid way to implement the test would be to install Windows XP fresh on your machine, run a few simple tweaks, and run the tests... using the same software, the same drivers, everything the same.

Otherwise it is pointless and an illegitimate comparison.

The differences are going to be very hard to find. If you have both operating systems configured right, Windows XP or 2000 will only be using <1% of the computer's resources when idle.

Considering the OS's are practically identical, without any extraneous processes running, the performance of the benchmark will be extremely close.