Win 2k and processor speeds?

Dan Kaplan · 03-08-2000, 06:57 AM

From http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/2000.../amd_chip.html

Quote:

The chip makers also note that current software will run faster. For example, the recently released Windows 2000 business operating system would require about 250 more megahertz of power to deliver the same level of processing performance as current desktops, they say.

250 mhz is a hefty chunk! Those of you that have used Windows 2000, does this seem like an accurate figure or a marketing sales pitch?

Divet

Justin · 03-08-2000, 10:47 AM

No way... that would mean my PIII would perform the same as my 233 did with Win98 - which is definately not true. So far I've found 2000 to be extrememly stable and fast - yes it is a bit heavier than 98 was, but not by much at all... In fact some programs do run faster than they did before, as Win2k manages the CPU and memory a lot better than previously.

It does take longer to boot up though...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

tedloh · 03-08-2000, 11:52 AM

I read that somewhere too - but I'm not in the greatest position to say as I now have dual CPUs...

The number 1 bottleneck will absolutely positively be MEMORY. If you have plenty of memory I would venture that Win2000 could actually get FASTER.

On the whole, seeing as I have not been overclocked today (way too hot), I actually think that there is minimal difference in speed, and my last machine was running a single Celeron at 504 with Win98. Even when I was in single processor mode W2K didn't seem slow to me, except upon booting on occasion.

BTW, Justin, if the boot seems slow (it's supposed to be faster), go check Control Panel/Administrative Tools/Event Log and see if anything unusual like your IDE ports are acting up - mine did until I stopped overclocking, so I have little to no net loss in overall speed.
------------------
Ted (Chief Do-It-All)
Tygre Systems Co Ltd
Bangkok, Thailand, Land of Smiles

http://www.tygresystems.com (work currently on hold)
ted@tygresystems.com

Justin · 03-08-2000, 01:21 PM

From what I've seen - RAM prices are pretty low right now...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

Justin · 03-08-2000, 01:33 PM

Hm - after actually reading the above article and reading the line you quoted in context, what I believe they are saying is that since Win2000 is a "business" OS (eg, it is NT), the typical use of it would require more power than the typical '98 machine... Like web servers/network servers, and things like that...

On a side note - I would recommend staying away from AMD's 1 GHz chips for a while. From what I've seen, the Athlon 800's overheat and shut down. If you do get one you will definately need some serious cooling (and AMD recommends a 300 watt power supply for any Athlon system).

My feeling is that they released this chip just so they could beat Intel to releasing a gigahertz... And since (I'm not positive but I'm pretty sure) the Athlons are still on a .25 micron process, they use more power and dissipate a *lot* more heat. At the computer store yesterday we overheated an Athlon 800 just playing Unreal for about 20 minutes... Allegedly the 1 GHz chips are the same chip, just clocked higher...

Personally I have seen that Intels chips can take more abuse, run cooler and on less power, and their standards (for clock speed measurement) are stricter. An Intel chip will run at its rated speed in a sealed case, with stock fan and only one other fan in the system (power supply) for years. Put more fans in, and you can clock them much higher. AMDs, OTOH, aren't nearly as overclockable, and don't always run at their rated speed reliably. This of course was not always true, and it seems to have only started recently with the Athlons (my K6-2 runs very cool) - and I think they are sweating over the PIII's and the recent announcement of Intel's 1 GHz chip and they jumped the gun...

Anyway, that's just my opinion, and is way off topic, and has nothing to do with Windows 2000...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

Dan Kaplan · 03-08-2000, 01:59 PM

I tend to agree with your opinions. Actually, I generally feel it's best to avoid the latest processor (or two) regardless of brand, as the marginal performance gain is easily outweighed in my mind by the huge cost increase and lack of equally competent hardware/software.

Good thing the Athlon I ordered is a 550 mhz.

As far as the RAM prices, the reason I asked is that Ted mentioned in a post last month that prices were dropping rapidly but were expected to increase after February due to W2K demand. Just curious is this is still the outlook or not?

I must say, I have a hard time getting overly excited about processor speeds. Most systems are so stinkin' fast that RAM, internet connection, stability (hopefully no longer an issue...), and monitor quality are all far bigger issues. You're only as strong as your weakest link...

DRAM

Justin · 03-08-2000, 03:24 PM

A faster processor only means it will more quickly reach the point of locking up

I agree about the price issue though - there's no sense buying the latest processor. I'm usually always about half of whatever is top of the line at the moment. When I got the 233, PII 450's were fast. Now I have the PIII 450, clocked to 558, 1 GHz's are the new thing... I do try to stay on top of everything else (video, sound, etc) but only to the extent that its necessary... no sense getting the latest stuff if I'm not going to use it...

Athlons up to and including the 700 are very stable from what I've heard - but the 800's need more cooling than any PC manufacture usually provides, and I simply wouldn't trust the 1 GHz in anything more than a gamer's box (in which case I say go for it

) with of course lots of cooling. And people think I'm nuts with 7 fans in my mid tower (with my new 300 watt power supply)

For my main system, stability rules. Win2k solved my stability issues - and the other box is the AMD, not overclocked, running Linux - also as stable as could be.

On a side note - they say RAM prices were supposed to go up but they seemed to have gone down - I wonder something... Are they yet planning to put more outlets in new houses? You know, like 8 to 10 in a row where a PC (or stereo system) would go? Maybe with its own breaker box and transformer... I've already caused some problems and had to rewire an outlet (lucky thing for the UPS) in my room. Just seems like homes are not meant to have 4 of those 6 outlet strips ("surge supressors" - ha!) running on one circuit...

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support

tedloh · 03-08-2000, 10:41 PM

quick reply:

RAM prices have turned the corner as of late last week, they are heading UP now. Now is a very GOOD time to buy - April will NOT be the same.
------------------
Ted (Chief Do-It-All)
Tygre Systems Co Ltd
Bangkok, Thailand, Land of Smiles

http://www.tygresystems.com (work currently on hold)
ted@tygresystems.com

Shalazar · 03-09-2000, 12:25 AM

The reason for cooling of the AMD 800+s is that the voltage has been bumped up a notch on their new chips, as well as a minor decrease in L2 cache speed, to alleviate the need for -40C cryo-cooling. This voltage increase is up a tenth of a volt over the 800s if i recall correctly to 1.80V. And the new Athlons, including the gigahertz, all run on an 18-micron core, and under air-cooling.

Because its running at true 1GHz heat and yield are going to be a concern for any user. But AMD 1GHz chips are shipped with a noticably larger and more efficient heatsink, which actually makes contact with the L2 cache modules.

But I'd wait for their Thunderbird chip architecture to come out in the near future before buying into bigahertz AMD chips...

Justin · 03-09-2000, 12:42 AM

My bootup is slower only because in Win98 I tweaked my registry quite a bit, removing the automatic registry backup and many other things that happen on bootup. I don't think my boot time is really slow with Win2k, just not as fast as it was with 98...

I only have 128 megs of RAM, and yet 2000 seems to handle the memory better than 98 did. Plus of course when a program decides to stay in memory after exiting (typical of Netscape, Paint Shop Pro, and Adobe Acrobat reader) I can kill the process - something 98 wouldn't even tell you was happening, which is why 98 would get slower and slower as the days go on until you finally reboot.

Win98's memory management was fine until you hit more than 64 megs - at which point the disk caching would get out of hand - it would cache far too much of the disk, thus running out of memory, and causing Windows to use a swap file - so your RAM was on disk, and disk was in memory

This is easily remedied in 98 by editing system.ini to limit your vcache - but 2000 seems to handle it just find on its own

All around I am pleased with 2000 (though it could have been just a bit more forgiving about my CDRom not being "compatible" (yet Linux accepts the Acer CD-RW drive just fine))... My overclocked PIII is as stable as I could imagine btw - when I was running '98 I had serious problems with it locking up after less than 24 hours run time, and I thought maybe I had some bad hardware... but it turns out it was a software problem, as 2000 has not yet had an improper shut down

------------------
Justin Nelson
FutureQuest Support