Slashdot Mirror

Possibly... AnandTech has some interesting benchmarks for server based stuff running Linux (64-bit Gentoo) here that show Woodcrest doing pretty well. I think most of the nitpicking (DDR2 vs. DDR and the like) is just living in denial. AM2 has shown to be a non-issue for anything except the most memory bandwidth intensive benchmarks, and most of those are synthetics, which are pointless. There are a few HPC benches that show decent gains for AM2 but how many people run particle physics simulations and airflow solvers out there? Most just want more frames in F.E.A.R. or some other game. There have been *lots* of benchmarks of all kinds posted all over the place for Core2 and they are all consistent, even when using DDR2-667, which has both higher latency and only marginal bandwidth gains over DDR400 (basically equivalent).

Throw in the panic induced flailing about that is called 4x4 and you have a recipe that says AMD is sweating bullets, and they should be. I have four Athlon64s (one is an X2) and three AthlonXPs and right now, my next machines are looking very much like they are going to be Core2 based.

Actually, the performance benefit of DDR2 with Athlons is far less than 60%. Less than 6% in most cases. Check out this little comparison.

I'm not an Intel fanboy or anything. I just think people need to be more objective. Intel won this round. Maybe AMD can make it up with K8L? Until then, however, I'm going to be buying myself a Core2 system.

Actually, if you were to do some research, you would realize AM2 processors have, at most, a couple of percentage points gain over their Socket 939 counterparts. Athlons simply don't benefit realistically from DDR2 yet. K8L may improve that, but for the moment using a 939 Athlon FX against a Conroe is just fine for benchmarking.

But don't take my word for it. Check out what Anandtech has to say.

Well, Anandtechs tests of a 4 core Woodcrest server against a Sun Niagara and 4 core Opteron sure seems to suggest otherwise: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772

Granted you may be after 8-way or higher, but that is an interesting enough test. The Woodcrest makes an extremely good showing there.

From independent equpiment:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=27 71

You're right, these show lower numbers, more like 20% in gaming and still over 15% elsewhere.

The RSX on the PS3 has a 128-bit bus, so real performance will be somewhere between a 7600 GT and a 7900 GT. The 7600 GT can be had for $160, and the 7900 GT can be had for $270.

As for a PhysX card, unless you like massive slowdowns, I would say that technology is too early to call "necessary."

If Ageia is not up to the task of providing multi-threaded physics acceleration on hardware THEY designed, I seriously doubt any of the other major vendors are up to the task. For example, Oblivion employs the Havok physics engine, but even though it supports multiple threads, the benefit is tiny, both on the X360 and dual-core PCs. Point is that NOBODY has proven that game designers will be able to construct incredible multi-threaded physics engines that actually take advantage of 7 SPEs anytime soon, so making that assumption is foolhardy.

Sure, in 5 years, the PS3 may have an excellent, optimized physics engine available...but so will quad-core K8L and Conroe PCs, with dedicated 100-pipe GPUs featuring physics acceleration. The point is, RIGHT NOW you can buy a midrange PC and actually get the most out of it, then sell it in a couple years and upgrade.

That's the point of all this rambling: If you buy a PS3 on release day, I guarantee a game fully utilizing the specs will not appear for 2-3 years. In that time, the high-end PC market will improve to FAR beyond what a PS3 is capable of, and even the midrange market will be able to match the best PS3 games. This is the benefit of constant upgrade cycle. Don't diss it with completely untrue fabrications just because you don't like it. I spend about $500 (net) on an upgrade every two years, and my sstem has rarely been less powerful than [insert console here].

Here is a review: Anand Tech

They are very much in sight.

What is with all the misinformation about Intel?

Begun these Price Wars have.

Really? Then perhaps you can explain the actual real-world benchmarks in how gaming with the PhysX PPU actually lowers scores and framerates in many games, and at best offers no improvement in performance?

I know you're just flaming a troll, but the very next page of the article you linked explains that the benchmarks are questionable.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2759 &p=3

I think the only trustworthy benchmark is going to be one where the same calculations are performed using the PhysX SDK and a different SDK or hand written CPU/GPU code. The SDK from the hardware vendor will probably always be faster with the hardware, even if they cheat to make it so.

Since then, I haven't bought a Intel and been using AMD because I can get similiar performance for around a hundred-two hundred dollars less than an Intel. I always read the reviews, and watch the performance charts, then decide which is the better product for the $.

Really? Then perhaps you can explain the actual real-world benchmarks in how gaming with the PhysX PPU actually lowers scores and framerates in many games, and at best offers no improvement in performance?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2759 &p=2

AMD's technology preview day (Anandtech's report is at http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2768) said a lot that made me wonder about the future competitivenes of AMD. I'm neutral but the kind of stuff they were talking about made me doubt my conviction that Intel are guaranteed to pwn, but I am certain that the consumer is the winner in the upcoming battle for the best desktop CPU chips (and that's already been noted in the drop in prices between the two http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/06/02/drop_in_a verage_processor_pricing/).

The notion of being able to put extra specialised hardware next to the CPU radically alters the way that PC's are going to be laid out and is a good lateral step along the road toward multi-threaded, multi-cored and multiple processing elements in computing. The K8L architecture and beyond are seeking to increase IPC throughput for AMD's chips as Intel has done for the Core architecture. I think that this throughput increase is the greatest asset to the Core's performance both for performance per cycle (==IPC) and performance per watt.

May or not be the same thing...but a month or so ago, Anandtech sported a review of the new Apple Intel Core Duo and ran benchmarks on "BootCamp" (native XP with Apple hardware drivers) vs. using a virtual PC technology from Parallel and Parallel or MS-Generic Drivers.

Tests showed the Virtual PC ran consistently faster than "BootCamp" except on a disk-heavy Multimedia benchmark and even there, the virtual PC was only about 2% slower.

So tell me, how does a Virtual machine run faster than Native?

It looked like the "BootCamp" hardware drivers were stealing cycles from compute-bound tasks, making native performance run slower than virtualized performance. The virtual emulated disk, however, was too much of a performance hit to be compensated for by Apple's lower-performance drivers.

Just a guestimate, but it looks like Apple's HW drivers degrade performance by about
10-15% versus "normal" drivers.

On this page, the numbers show the iMac Core Due@ 2GHz performing ~15% slower than a 1.86GHz, Generic-PC Core Duo.

It's better than the 3-5X performance hit the Apple G5 had on server tasks versus Linux 2.6.

Even having the advantage of running on the same hardware as on the iMac, Apple OS
needs some signifcant tuning.

The performance "dehanced" drivers under "BootCamp" appear to be a deliberate attempt by Apple to cover for their OS's deficiencies.

-l

May or not be the same thing...but a month or so ago, Anandtech sported a review of the new Apple Intel Core Duo and ran benchmarks on "BootCamp" (native XP with Apple hardware drivers) vs. using a virtual PC technology from Parallel and Parallel or MS-Generic Drivers.

Tests showed the Virtual PC ran consistently faster than "BootCamp" except on a disk-heavy Multimedia benchmark and even there, the virtual PC was only about 2% slower.

So tell me, how does a Virtual machine run faster than Native?

It looked like the "BootCamp" hardware drivers were stealing cycles from compute-bound tasks, making native performance run slower than virtualized performance. The virtual emulated disk, however, was too much of a performance hit to be compensated for by Apple's lower-performance drivers.

Just a guestimate, but it looks like Apple's HW drivers degrade performance by about
10-15% versus "normal" drivers.

On this page, the numbers show the iMac Core Due@ 2GHz performing ~15% slower than a 1.86GHz, Generic-PC Core Duo.

It's better than the 3-5X performance hit the Apple G5 had on server tasks versus Linux 2.6.

Even having the advantage of running on the same hardware as on the iMac, Apple OS
needs some signifcant tuning.

The performance "dehanced" drivers under "BootCamp" appear to be a deliberate attempt by Apple to cover for their OS's deficiencies.

-l

May or not be the same thing...but a month or so ago, Anandtech sported a review of the new Apple Intel Core Duo and ran benchmarks on "BootCamp" (native XP with Apple hardware drivers) vs. using a virtual PC technology from Parallel and Parallel or MS-Generic Drivers.

Tests showed the Virtual PC ran consistently faster than "BootCamp" except on a disk-heavy Multimedia benchmark and even there, the virtual PC was only about 2% slower.

So tell me, how does a Virtual machine run faster than Native?

It looked like the "BootCamp" hardware drivers were stealing cycles from compute-bound tasks, making native performance run slower than virtualized performance. The virtual emulated disk, however, was too much of a performance hit to be compensated for by Apple's lower-performance drivers.

Just a guestimate, but it looks like Apple's HW drivers degrade performance by about
10-15% versus "normal" drivers.

On this page, the numbers show the iMac Core Due@ 2GHz performing ~15% slower than a 1.86GHz, Generic-PC Core Duo.

It's better than the 3-5X performance hit the Apple G5 had on server tasks versus Linux 2.6.

Even having the advantage of running on the same hardware as on the iMac, Apple OS
needs some signifcant tuning.

The performance "dehanced" drivers under "BootCamp" appear to be a deliberate attempt by Apple to cover for their OS's deficiencies.

-l

You're kidding right? An intergrated Intel graphic chip and a 4200 RPM hard drive? A friend of mine complained about how slow the Mini is running DJ apps. The only thing a Mac mini might take on is a Nintendo hand held in terms of games.

The mini's actually have a 5400 RPM drive. And yes, the integrated graphics won't win any awards, but even with these defecencies the Mini makes a lot better home media center than a PS3 or XBox 360. It should be able to run slightly older 3d first person shooters acceptably (30 fps in UT 2004). Maybe Apple is planning on dropping the lower mini back down to 499 and offer a 599 or 699 mini with better graphics.

And I'm pretty sure a mini blows away a DS or PSP in terms of graphical power... :-) The GMA 950 looks like it could keep up with the PS2/GameCube/Xbox graphics if you're running it at 640X480 like those machines.

Anyway, it's all pure conjecture at this point, although I personally would spend $599 on a mini before $599 on a PS3!

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=27 62&p=11

The FX-62 taking the same power (at the wall) as the P4 EE under load.

Very sad for AMD. They've resorted to performance though power-sucking, the same thing everyone crapped on Intel for with P4.

Here's the hothardware link:

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articl eid=822&cid=1&page=21

Look at the graphs at the bottom, the increase in power when the CPU is loaded is presumably due to the CPU. The EE adds 80W when going to peak power, the AMDs add almost 90W. Make of it what you will. To me it looks like the AMD is a hog. I say this because I know the EE is a hog.

I dunno why you list 130W as AMDs TDP. Are you considering that a good thing? That's an assload! My entire system doesn't take that, counting inefficiencies. (and I have an Athlon X2).

Clock-for-clock, Intel is beating AMD with Core Duo. In performance per Watt, they are KILLING them. AMD does win out on the top end, because Intel doesn't have high-end chips out yet. This will probably change when Core 2 Duo comes out.

See link:

http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750

The Intel chip beats the AMD in every test that measures CPU performance. It only falls to even or a bit worse in tests which test primarily the speed of peripherals.

If you are looking at an Athlon X2 4400+ or below and you don't need 64-bit, you're making a big mistake buying an AMD. The Intel is superior. That's why I say "clock-for-clock". If you need a processor in the speed range that Intel covers with Core Duo, the Core Duo is the winner. They just top out at 2.16GHz (almost the same speed as my Athlon X2 4200+), so if you want more performance than that, you have to go to AMD (because going to P4 makes zero sense).

If what we hear about Core 2 Duo is correct, AMD won't have much left to crow about next week. Intel will have 64-bit in Core 2 Duo. AMD willl be beat on performance/Watt. They'll be beat on performance/MHz. They'll be beat on performance in multiprocessing situations. They'll be beat on performance "at any cost" (max performance). If they're lucky, AMD will keep the performance/dollar measure. That's a pretty big fall for a company that had a clear edge just a few months ago.

I don't have anything against AMD. My primary machine is an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and I love it. And it was exactly the right thing to buy at the time. But that's changed for the mainstream today, and it look like it'll change for the top end too next week.

I wish AMD the best. I hope they have something up their sleeve to top Intel again. But AM2 isn't it. I really hope they can get to 65nm (and presumably competitiveness on power) sooner than the December they state.

Currently, the biggest difference you can make comes from the CPU. Go with a P4, and you might as well abandon power consumption as a design constraint. On the opposite end of that spectrum, if you don't need a lot of horsepower, the Via Epia boards... For my "real" machines, I currently have Athlon64s... A Pentium-M would give more bang-per-watt, but they cost a hell of a lot more. And as I mentioned, the next-gen Core Duos look very promising.

Note that Core 2 Duo (Merom) is supposedly compatible with the current Core Duo chipset and socket. However, it might be worth waiting 2-3 months for the really good Core 2 Duo CPU/motherboards.

I haven't seen any reasonable-priced full-ATX motherboards announced for Core Duo. It seems like there should be more Core Duo desktop motherboards since Intel makes a desktop chipset specifically for low-power Core Duo desktops (945GT).

I could have sworn I linked correctly.

Here is the correct link:

Anandtech's Real-Time Pricing Engine

We're comparing the latest from each competitor. That's completely fair. If AMD doesn't want to look bad in comparison, they need to catch up on technology.

From what I understand, AMD will not have 65nm chips until December. That means they won't be catching up soon.

When we compare apples to apples (the P4 line to the K8 line) Intel actually uses more power, generates more heat, runs slower, and is more expensive.

Apples to Apples will change next week when Core 2 Duo comes out. And already, if you compare Core Duo to AMD's chips at the same clock speed, the Core Duo is faster and uses less power.

(comparison against Socket 940)
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750

But here's the sick part. Read hothardware's review. They include a Pentium Extreme Edition 3.73GHz in their tests. It runs neck and neck in the tests (except in gaming where it gets shellacked). But the final test is power consumption. At the wall socket at least, the AM2 CPU appears to use more power than the Pentium EE 3.73GHz.

If you can't do better on power consumption than the most power-hungry P4 out there, you should go to the back of the line.

It's clear AMD is behind Intel at the moment. I really hope they catch up and pass them. We've benefited from the competition and I don't want to see it end.

I've recommended AntiVir to a number of family and friends. The usability increases with each iteration, and gives you options to schedule automatic updates. The only downside is during updates, it sends up a single advertisement for thier full-featured product. So far, I've installed it for my girlfriend, sister, mother, and grandmother. No one has yet had a virus breakout - of course, the promotion of Firefox to Default Browser(TM) and a little user education goes a long way.

As a sidenote, check out the Anandtech Consolidated Security Thread for great commentary on a slew of security products. As of version 6, (now version 7) AntiVir is rated at a 84.5% detection rate.

As for myself, I just use good ol' common sense and a router.

Actually, this is just a late review. The T2600 came out at the beginning of this year, http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=266 3&p=6 - you could buy it in Japan late last year.

http://memory4less.com/memory/m4l_ddr.asp

Looks the same to me. Within a dollar. High performance DDR (above PC3200) costs more than DDR2, actually.

That's great AMD is making slightly more efficient systems soon. This is likely because DDR2 uses less power (1.8V instead 2.4V). But AMD is so far behind, they won't come near catching up until they get to 65nm.

It bugs me to see so many people in denial about Intel vs. AMD right now. When people moved to AMD, I thought it was because they were doing the smart thing, and paying attention to relative performance and excellence. But if that was the case, I those same people wouldn't be making excuses for AMD right now.

Intel is beating them at the moment in all but the highest performance systems. And when Core 2 Duo (awful name) comes out, Intel will have that too.

I currently own an Athlon X2 4200+ and I love it. But I'm not a fanboy, I know AMD is in 2nd place right now.

Please AMD, keep the pressure on, pass up Intel again.

When these two companies compete, we all win.

Here's another bonus link of a Core Duo beating out an Opteron 175 (AMD dual) clock for clock.

http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750

http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&p=1

This review is weeks old.

Core Duo beats Opteron 175 clock-for-clock in nearly every test (including all that measure primarily CPU performance and bandwidth). Yes, the Core Duo was massively overclocked, it wins clock-for-clock, but if you want the highest performance right now with no overclocking, it's still AMD. But you'll pay a big power/heat price for it.

Anandtech has a review of two fairly high end cards, that are both passively cooled - a 7600 GS and a 7800 GT

The PPE in the Cell is essentially IBM's "G5" PowerPC 970 core, complete with Altivec/VMX.

Not really. The PPE is much simpler; for example it's an in-order processor, as opposed to the 970's deep OOOE. It does have SMT, but can only dispatch 2 instructions at once. From discussions among people who know much more than me, the suggested rule of thumb was that a PPE at N GHz is roughly equivalent to 2 G4s each at N/2 Hz.

The SPE's are the really interesting parts though.

Right. I think how easy it is to use the SPEs will largely determine how successful Cell is. I wouldn't be suprised if Apple offers Cell coprocessor cards for high-end Macs; it seems like a good fit for offloading image and video tasks.

I may be wrong, but it appears that benchmark was deliberately chosen out of a bias. The UT04 benchmark seems to run better on AMDs. When making comparisons of dissimilar architectures, no single test, nor any single type of test is suitable. While the AMD is faster at most of the other tests, most of them don't have nearly so much of a disparity.

I totally agree, testing just one game isn't right.

Here are some benchmarks for Half Life 2, just to be fair.

Results: Higher frame rate with AMD chips.

Lets try Quake 4:
AMD FX vs Intel EE chips
AMD dual cores vs Intel dual cores
Mainstream Athlon64 vs Pentium4

Results: Higher frame rate with AMD chips.

Lets try F.E.A.R:
AMD FX vs Intel EE chips
AMD dual core vs Intel dual core
Mainstream Athlon64 vs Pentium4

Results: Higher frame rate with AMD chips.

The closest to real numbers that I know of is a black box test that Anandtech did a little while ago. The chip they had was supposedly the high end but not extreme Core 2.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2751

"The added realism and immersion of playing Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter with hardware physics is a huge success in this gamer's opinion. Granted, the improved visuals aren't the holy grail of game physics, but this is an excellent first step. In a fast fire fight with bullets streaming by, helicopters raining destruction from the heavens, and grenades tearing up the streets, the experience is just that much more hair raising with a PPU plugged in."

Anandtech posted these video sequences to show what you see with and without the card.

The Anandtech article states that the physics hardware slows down the framerates which Aegis can't possibly be happy about.

Anandtech posted these video sequences to show what you see with and without the card.

The Anandtech article states that the physics hardware slows down the framerates which Aegis can't possibly be happy about.

Reposted link for those who missed the AC post:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2751

There's an excellent review up at AT.

The link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2751

Short summary: Great for synthetic benchmarks, probably not real-world ready.

1. Seriously, I doubt gcc 4.0 gives any serious performance improvements for mySQL. I could be wrong of course, so perhaps you could back-up that statement?

2. Link to patch maybe? Proof that it does improve the situation? Besides, it looks like it is slow at that level. http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p =7

3. See previous.

4. I think you are thinking of a different set of tests, they don't bench Oracle in that link.

Performance was fixed partly through a series of hacks, and partly through raw horsepower.

O RLY

I can't speak about the 30" displays, but I can tell you that I'm the owner of a Dell 2005FPW 20" widescreen display, attached to my PowerMac sitting beside my 17" Apple Studio Display. I've toyed with the 20" Cinema Displays at the Apple Store and they look great (ascetically even more so) but the Dell looks just as good, and AmandTech seems to agree; they both use the same panel, though different electronics beyond that.

The Dell has multiple inputs (DVI, VGA, Composite, and S-Video) switchable from the front panel, a three-year warranty, along with picture in picture capabilities and was only $369 after some coupons were applied compared to Apple's $799 price ($699 with educational pricing) and one year warranty. Yeah, it looks kind of ugly -- but I saved $300 and can attach my Mac Mini to VGA input while my PowerMac uses DVI.

Not usually a fan of Dell at all but they win this one in my opinion. As far as brightness is concerned this display is too bright for me . . .

http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2751

Not much more needs to be said -- they tested and analysed it.

ATI already did this with the release of their Catalysts 5.7 driverset last year. Those drivers enabled HyperMemory for all ATI cards.

The benefits were fairly good on 128MB cards, especially those with slower 128-bit memory. There were few benefits on cards with 256MB ram and faster-clocked memory, and there was even a sloght performance loss on the high-end.

While it is not a bad idea, HyperMemory and Turbo Cache will eventually go the way of AGP texturing (DiME). Just like AGP texturing, fast, large, cheap memory will eventually make HM and TC obsolete, even with the huge bandwidth increase dual-channel main memory plus PCIe offers.

Your lips keep moving, but I can't hear what you say.

Intel has such a long way to go at the highest end. They need to move away from their silly, old fashioned CPU <-> Northbridge <-> RAM architecture. I think it's telling that Otellini blamed "chipset" shortages for some of their market share loss, whatever the hell that really means. Intel is going to eventually have to sacrifice its chipset business to stay competitive. Nothing will change that. The memory controller has to be moved on-die. HyperTransport is here to stay and it will wipe the floor at the high end.

It's not just getting rid of NetBurst-- high IPC is great --but the more you have cores and sockets contending for memory access, the worse it will get for a shared FSB. Get your head out your butt Intel and fix the design.

Just a FYI as you might be interested, Anandtech today did another Opteron vs. Xeon test, this time with 8 cores per machine, 4 sockets.

The 2.6GHz Opterons stomped on the 3.0GHz Xeon MPs by around 30-40%.

Article

Woodcrest (Conroe based server part) will have the same bandwidth restrictions that hurt Xeon in the above test. Expect to see the usual suspects test four socket Woodcrest with cache intensive benchmarks.

However they're not a large part of the market really.

AM2 uses DDR2 memory. It is expected to become cheaper and more available than DDR when most companies move their production to make it. I don't want to fob you off with a cheap RTFM, but there is no easy alternative to reading what Tom's Hardware / AnandTech / Ars Technica have to say about the matter.

Sure, the upgrade path of socket 939 may be limited, but reports suggest (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx ?i=2741) that performance of AM2 and S939 CPUs will be very similar. Assuming that the new range of processors for socket AM2 is priced higher than the current Socket 939 range, those buying a Socket 939 x2 now will actually get a better price-to-performance deal than if they waited for an AM2, albeit at the expense of limited futureproofing.

AM2 has been shown to perform at the same speeds or slower than those of s939 using common DDR2-533. It takes enthusiast DDR2 to get better performance out of AM2. Socket AM2 is a joke. Conroe will murder it with glee, and this is coming from a long-time AMD buyer. Don't believe me? Check this out.

Its not trolling. Its true. Intel proved this at IDF. Furthermore, AM2 really is all promise without delivery http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2741

I'd rather see FB-DIMMs

A maximum of 192 GB of RAM... Is that enough for windows Vista?
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2741&p=9/

This article examines the question in depth. Hope that helps.

Why bootcamp when you can run in a VM (aside from games)? Anandtech has a nice review of the macbook, and running windows in a window, as well as dual booting. Seems performance is quite good, even with the beta!

Myself and 30 others tried over 200 different DVD players and found that DVD-R is more compatable. Even higher compatability can be achived if the DVD is authored correctly as well as using a older version 1.2 DVD file format standard. Typically any DVD authoring program that is easy to use will not create a compatable DVD. DVD lab and other pro-level dvd authoring programs will ..DVD-IT and the ither junk sold to the public in the $39.95->$139.95 software bin is complete and utter garbage and those work best on a DVD+R compatable player.

Older DVD players are DVD-R compatable as well as all high end DVd players. newer cheap players use a PC drive and can read almost anything. but you can not rule out the rich guy with a $6500.00 Denon Dvd player or the person with a 13 year old dvd player.

Feel free to check online for others that found the same to be true. Most DVD authoring and copying sites mirror our results and also show that DVD-R is the highest in compatability.

for example... videohelp.com dvd compatability article
  another one

there are gobs more that support my and lumpy's findings. DVD-R is more compatable overall.

While that may be true, let's not forget that the CoreDuo is still intended as a mobile processor. The fact that it is even competitive with the X2s is impressive. The real test will come when the Conroe comes out. Early reviews (granted, on intel supplied hardware) show Conroes kicking the crap out of even the fastest AMD processors (overclocked even) in everything from gaming to media encoding and synthetic benchmarks. They are cooler and more efficient to boot. Unless AMD pulls some magic out of its hat, my next rig will be Intel based. See here: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=219&type=expe rt&pid=1 here: http://techreport.com/etc/2006q1/conroe/index.x?pg =1 here: http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i =2713 and here: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4843