PCA Forums

Alright, basically...I'm going to be installing windows XP, I'm going to have 512 mg of DDR RAM a 32 DDR Radeon...I do play a lot of games, so a nice machine is what I'm looking for. Now, to support my RAM (which I already have) I need to get a motherboard and processor. Basically, I'm just wondering if I should go ahead and get a dual processor mobo or just stick to the usual one processor. I want to know how much more the potential cost would be to go dual processors (just on the mobo) and if their are any problems I would encounter having a dual processor setup.

dont upgrade to xp stick to win2k its better and more stable than xp. plus xp is incompatible with some hardware and software

I personally vote for Win2K as well, although XP is fine as long as you're aware up front that some of your old apps and hardware may not work on it.

Go here and check for compatibility problems: http://www.ntcompatible.com

Many manufacturers have not yet written XP drivers for their hardware, and for some older hardware the manufacturer may never release a driver.

Most games don't make use of dual processors, and those that do don't give you THAT much more performance (don't assume double the performance - realistically it's more like 25% tops).

I really don't see the value of dual processing for the average user.

I say go for XP I love it. It has been every bit as stable as Win2k was for me at least. As for the dual processor, if you don't have a specific need for it I would stay with one CPU. One has more than enough horse power for playing games and most everything else.

I think the money would be better spent on SCSI or something What apps do you run that would even take advantage of duel processors? Q3 is about all I can imagine. Considering Wolfenstein and MOH is on the q3 engine, those might also. But where duel processors really come in handy are video editing apps like Adobe Premire, I believe and other big visual/audio editing programs. And since you don't really do any of that (maybe you will in the future, who knows?) then I would spend that extra $100 or so on a SCSI controller