qrazi

Because several devices in the computer, including the videocard memory, are reserved in 32-bit OS's, starting at 4GB downwards, Windows XP, or Vista, or basically any Linux 32-bit flavour, will not show the complete 4GB as being available. Usually 3.x is recognized, depending on the exact hardware. That is not to say it's not advisable to install 4GB. Most 3GB configurations are not Dual-channel, and the ones which are (2x 512MB + 2x 1GB) mostly have higher latencies because there are 4 sticks, and not the same size either. The edit you are referring to is I think the /PAE switch when booting windows: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791485.aspx Windows XP 32-bit can give one application maximum 2GB memory. So having more then 2GB memory means that Windows can assign the full 2GB to the main app running, whilst having enough memory left for the processes in the background. Because of WoW (Windows on Windows, not World of Warcraft), almost any 32-bit software will run on the 64-bit versions of Windows, and the performance reported across the net differs from ~ -3% to 5% compared to native 32-bit. The biggest problem in practice with the 64-bit versions is the initial installation. Things like drivers, and IIRC virusscanners, need to be native 64-bit.

AMD wanted to buy nVidia, nVidia didn't want that. So AMD went ahead and bought ATi...

I don't think that an EU military alliance would make NATO redundant. The EU really isn't a union of states or anything. A EU defense force will most likely be an addition to current situation. Hopefully it will allow for quicker and more flexible deployments, but they will have to work hard on that, as can be seen from the Eufor Chad mission with all its delays and ineffective deployment.

I assume this is about the Matrox TripleHead2Go? You need 3 monitors setup for a resolution of 1280 x 1024. Practically only 17" and 19" have this. Bigger screens can be set to lower resolutions ofcourse, but then lose their sharpness. Matrox does a good job at explaining what this product can do, and what is needed, on their website: http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/gxm/products/th2go/home.php

Newer cards did not only add support for DirectX 9/10, also in terms of raw performance they do significantly better. If the step from FX5200 to 7600GS did not give you better FPS in LOMAC, then you simply did not have a bottlenecked videocard in LOMAC. Perhaps LOMAC is bottlenecked at the amount of RAM, of speed of your CPU. Or perhaps it is a driver issue. Going back to your point: The Radeon 9700Pro, one of the first DirectX9 cards, was a lot faster then the Geforce Ti4600, which is probably the fastest pre-DirectX9 card. This I mean offcourse in DirectX 8 applications, since there where almost no DirectX9 applications available at the time. Another example: The Athlon64 is a lot faster in 32-bit applications then its Athlon XP siblings, when compared even at the same clockspeed. That is because not only did AMD add x86-64 instructions, but also improved the general x86 performance by better FPU and integrated memory controller among other things.

The thing is, with the same kind of CPU, you would see very little performance improvement if you would switch to a dual core. In your case you would have to get a Pentium D at 3.6 GHz (non existent afaik). An Athlon64 4000+ is a single core CPU too, and would be noticeable faster then your current P4. But, if you'd go out and buy something new, go for an AMD X2 (>4800+) or Intel Core 2. Both will be faster then your current CPU, wether single threaded or multithreaded applications. The reason for this is that AMD and Intel did't just go dualcore, but they actually improved the architecture. The IPC (instructions per clockcycle) is just so much higher then with the P4. Example: Intel celeron 3.3 GHz is way slower then P4 3.2GHz. Mostly because: slower FSB, less cache, less bandwith of cache. So altough the speed (GHz) is roughly the same, the P4 will be able to handle more instructions per GHz/MHz/clockcycle. Hopefully this gives you the insight you were looking for.

I have not seen any benchmarks yet, but I guess it will indeed improve performance compared to current AMD line-up. The performance compared to current Intel CPU's at the moment is only based on speculation, although I ofcourse hope the will perform better then current Core 2 Duo/Quad as well. Don't forget however that Barcelona will be released at max. 2.3GHz to start with, and Intel is likely to introduce Penryn even this year. Penryn is basically a 45nm version of Core 2 series, but latest news indicates also perfomance increase, by extra cache and others. Also the FSB is probably going up again, and also maximum clockspeeds will increase. I cannot wait to see Barcelona, but I'm afraid AMD will not rule the CPU perfomance field as much or long as in the Netburst era.

Intel will soon introduce new Core 2 CPU's which support 1333MHz FSB. At that time, Intel will also lower prices on its whole range of CPU's, including it's quad cores. This will happen expected in around may/june. As for the 8800GTS 320MB, especially at higher resolutions it seems to be significant slower then its 640MB brother. My advice, try and get the 640MB if Intel indeed lowers the prices as expected. (and who knows, maybe AM/ATi will have a better alternative in two months)

I do not believe AMD is actually putting Reverse Hyper Threading in its core logic. The core pictures of socket 939 and am2 just don´t diver enough to contain reverse hyper threading stuff. Besides that, with the current, and actually very quick, move to dual/multiple cores, software developers are already adapting their software to parallel processing. AMD did release a little piece of software to fix some issues that some games have with dual core CPU´s.

I agree with Horax. Right now the only reason to wait for AMD AM2 is to be able upgrade in the future, or get the Athlon FX62 instead of the Athlon FX60. Definitly try to wait a month or so, and get the extreme edition Core 2. At that time, it will probably be the fastest you can get your hands on, without being the most expensive or hottest you can get your hands on. As far as memory goes: Athlon64 loves low latency. So if you buy memory, go for the low latency stuff. Intels netburst (pentium4) loves big bandwidth, but i dont know yet which will benefit the Core series most. As for the videocard, geforce 7900GTX or Radeon 1900XTX will both be powerfull enough, but the Geforce 7900GTX runs cooler, which is why i'd prefer that card. Perhaps you can choose to run a stripping set of WD Raptors 150GB hdd's, if the above isnt expensive enough....

well, the slow downs occur when going through smoke. then the obvious question is; what the smoke? is it a shader being rendered by the videocard, or is it an effect being rendered by the cpu. if you put the resolution one notch down, it means that weight is being shifted from the videocard to the cpu. that is also why cpu reviews ussually dont run game benchmarks at high resolution. if i understand the rendering part of lockon sufficient, the TS will benefit mostly from upgrading his videocard. The pentium4 3GHz isnt the most powerfull cpu out there anymore, but i think that the slow downs are mostly caused by the videocard which doesnt have enough power to render the close up effects. when i went from my athlon xp 1600+ to my athlon xp-m 3200+, i saw a big increase in maximum FPS. However. i'm still running 800x600 at low to medium details, because else the minimum Fps gets to low. So basicly, my 9800se@pro/XT speeds/pipelines still isnt powerfull enough. best buys: geforce 6800gs/gt agp version radeon x800xl best performance: geforce 7800GS agp.

It is a good CPU, but Lockon doesnt really benefit from dualcore. Besides that to run it stable at 4GHz, it consumes >200Watt and you need something more than a Zalman 9500 to cool the cpu. Intels real punch will come with the new Core 2 cpu's. Even if the benchmarks up till now favor Intel, it will still be really hard for AMD to have any edge. Interesting times are coming.

With a 6800GS you will see improvement, but as pointed out my some others here, you will then be cpu limited. And because you will just have bought an AGP card, you will have to buy a new videocard when upgrading to a new CPU. So unless you plan to buy a new system all together, i would advise to buy a new cpu/mobo/videocard combo instead of just the videocard...

moores law doesnt say anything about the speed. what it says is that the number of transistors will aproximately double every 18 months..... and with the introduction of dualcore, and bigger caches, this will stay valid for a few more years.... and the all those new features, 64-bit, dualcore, etc, they will be used in future software, just like it took some time to get directX X (7,8,9), SSE ,2,3 , hyperthreading, commonly used.

we are going up! tenth place right now... :)

i support LO-MAC by running a repeated playlist of LO-MAC movies in the computer store where i work.... most people just like the pretty pictures and action, but some people actually come to me to ask questions. oh, and my collegues plan to by the game as well now... :)