|
Home > Archive > Windows 2000 track general > April 2002 > amd athlons and xp
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
amd athlons and xp
|
|
| merav21 2002-03-29, 5:51 pm |
| Hi, does anyone know if there are any issues I should know when it comes to running xp on an older AMD processor? It is a 1.2 ghz athlon. I am running windows 2000 on the first 30 gig partition, and I set aside 10 GB to install XP on a second partition. So I did, and now everytime I try to boot into XP I get a stop error. The error is either stop: Systemroot\System32\Ntdll.dll
or Unmountable boot volume. It is a brand new Western Digital 7200 rmp HDD and have run diags. on it just to be sure it was ok and it was. I tried to do a repair install, but it didn't do anything. I also reimaged the second partition and re-installed it without any luck. Any ideas? | |
|
| As you are using a higher throughput device (HDD) have you checked to make sure that you are using an 80 pin cable? If not, get one. | |
| wbafrank 2002-03-29, 6:19 pm |
| If using higher throughput ATA disks and controllers, those capable of data transfer rates above 33.3 megabytes per second, replace the standard 40-pin cable with an 80-pin cable. Using an 80-pin cable is optional for transfer rates up to and including 33.3 megabytes per second, but is mandatory for higher transfer rates. The additional grounded pins are required to avoid data loss. | |
|
| Trust me...I've had the same problem | |
| merav21 2002-03-30, 5:42 pm |
| thanks for the replies, I wasn't aware of the issue with the cables, I will have to go out and get an 80 pin cable asap. | |
|
| to answer the original question, I don't see any issue with using the type of CPU you mentioned.
This being said, on production servers, I only use Intel chips. Microsoft writes for Intel chips. If they start writing for AMD, I will buy AMDs  | |
| Deja-vue 2002-04-01, 9:29 pm |
| I only use Intel chips. Microsoft writes for Intel chips. If they start writing for AMD, I will buy AMDs
I used to think like that....until i ran some real life Tests and found that AMD beats Intel across the Line.
If i can get a faster CPU running stable at about 1/3 of the Price,then it is Time to switch.
I did,and am glad i did.
Since i moved "over" to the AMD-Camp,i build about 300 Machines,never had any Problems with the CPU's.
No,i am not saying,everyone now should go AMD,but hey,it works for me.
One Exception:
Some Servers,i build,used Dual Proc's,back then there was nothing available from AMD.
Now,however we have the Athlon MP;and i cant wait to get my Hands on a pair of those Baby's.
Hmmmm...let me think...Quake 3 on a Dual Athlon MP 1800+,1,5 gigs of Ram,G-Force4...
just couldn't resist ....would be nice! | |
| DivxGuy 2002-04-02, 11:38 pm |
| quote:
This being said, on production servers, I only use Intel chips. Microsoft writes for Intel chips. If they start writing for AMD, I will buy AMDs
That's definitely going to be a tough nut for AMD to crack, production servers.
RD | |
| Teck Shark 2002-04-03, 1:44 pm |
| quote:
I used to think like that....until i ran some real life Tests and found that AMD beats Intel across the Line.
What real life tests did you run??? Just curious... I've been rolling out both CPU's in our building and the latest Intel "Northwood" processors knock the socks off of the AMD XP's. All I can say is don't believe everything those benchamrking programs say. They are far from real-life!!!
Personally I like both chips, especially AMD's price!!!! Can't beat it! I can definitely say however if it wasn't for my job, and getting the chance to run AMD XP 2000+'s & Intel P4 2.2's head-to head on similar grueling tasks, I would have thought AMD's XP chips were just as good. But I can tell you there is a world of difference!!! The AMD's overheat, lockup 3 times as much (even with more RAM), and greatly lag behind the Intel chips. Only on rare occasions to they run as well. Just my .02 cents from the professional side.
I personally run both at home, AMD mostly because it is a quality CPU at a much cheaper price! My latest machine is an AMD XP 2000+, GeForce 4, 1GB DDR RAM....etc. and it runs circles around my wife's P4 1.8! Keep in mind she only has a Geforce 2 video card! But we mostly surf the web, play games, etc. Not the high end tasks one would do at work. If I was recommending a chip I would say AMD, unless you have about $500-$1000 more to throw down on the latest 2.4 Northwood from Intel! | |
| Deja-vue 2002-04-04, 10:20 am |
| I ran Sisoft Sandra 2000, 3 D Mark 2001 and let Quake III run for 24 Hours in the Demo-Mode.
My Athlons outran the Pentiums.
We all agree (hopefully) that Hardware has outrun Software by far.
Who really needs a 2,2 Gig Processor with 1 Gig of Ram?
Even though Photoshop 6 (i use it all the Time) gobbels up as much Ram as you can throw at it,it really is not nessesary to upgrade from 512 megs of Ram to 1 Gig.The Performance Gain is very small.
Same with Premiere 6,which really runs best with really fast Harddrives,BTW,runs fine on a P III 700,no need for a P4 2Gig.
I have build some Video-Servers,and Processor-Speed is not always the Issue,more that you have fast Harddrives,such as U2W-SCSI or Raid.
Show me ANY Software,that has written on the Box: Minimum Requirement= P 4 2.0 Gig !!!
Just my 10 Cents. | |
| Teck Shark 2002-04-04, 12:04 pm |
| No doubt that Hardware has greatly outrun what software requires... Most software titles play it pretty slim on requirements though.
Also, you could theoretically run pretty much anything on a P3 or Athalon 750MHZ-1GHZ. So why would you need to go any higher?? It's not a question of what has minimum requirements of a P4 or AMD XP now, but what will in the next year or 2. Do you really think it's gonna take software that long to catch up. Come on!
Besides, I'm talking from the business side... Maybe you don't need a P4 2.2, with 1 GB of RAM at home. but it sure helps in a business environment. For most of the tasks we do here, it requires 1GB or more RAM, and the best processor you can find. I'm not just talking Photoshop, CAD, or Office Apps... I'm talking (for example) running, processing, or generating reports...100's at a time sometimes, through Acrobat, Access, Excel, SQL... etc. Basically good old daily reports, and don't even get me going on good old Month End reports! Yuck! High end processes require high end machines, and unfortunately we've had no luck with AMD running more high end tasks. I wish they ran better because I'd like to save some $$$$!!!
Just me adding another .10 cents to the pot! | |
|
|
| Deja-vue 2002-04-04, 5:56 pm |
| Tech Shark...
So...we basically agree.
| |
|
|
| chodan 2002-04-05, 7:35 pm |
| I could have used a 2.2 gig proc with a gig of ram today.
I was helping one of our A/V guys using my lap top to proccess a 2.19 gigabyte avi file.
My dell inspiron 8100 really bogged down.
It is a 1.13 gigahertz with 256 Megabytes ram and a 32 meg geforce2Go.
It took 5 minutes to render the one minute fifteen second file.
Any extra horse power would help | |
| KScheler 2002-04-09, 10:50 am |
| To reply to merav21's original question, I run an Athlon 1.3Ghz at home with XP Pro and have not had any problems whatsoever. I even put XP on an old AMD K6 300 with 128MB SDRAM. It ran it without problems, slow as H**L, but it ran.
As far as the other's reply's, I also prefer Intel for production servers. Just my 2 cents worth.......... |
|
|
|
|