Slashdot Mirror

1. 17MB/sec. http://www.bigbruin.com/reviews05/review.php?item= oczrally&file=1
2. 60 MB/sec. http://www.usb-2-0.com/what-is-usb-2-0.html#2.%20H ow%20fast%20is%20USB%202.0
3. 60 MB/sec. http://www.storagereview.com/articles/200511/HDS72 5050KLA360_2.html
4. 11 MB/sec. http://www.tomshardware.com/storage/20050520/usb_f lash_drives-09.html
5. 35 MB/sec. http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2515

It's 1.5 times as fast as your average flash, and only half as slow as your typical USB hard drive.

AnandTech has a more comprehensive review of many flash drives, and the OCZ is far from being the fastest.

Although it could be considered the cheapest fast drive in a way...

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=254 9

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=26 11
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=26 11

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=26 11
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=26 11

These sites might be of assistance:

www.anandtech.com

www.sharkyextreme.com

www.lostcircuits.com

I forgot to say that Anandtech has a good review on the reference board and the asrock board with that chipset. Here's the url: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2524&p= 8 . The performance seems very good and if stability is the same of the old ali drivers then probably your lcds blue pixels will be safe since you will probably never see a BSOD. I can't wait to put my hands on one of the non-asrocks (I hate asrock bioses) mbs that will come out with that chipset! Oh my i'm so excited! (eeek!)

A real possbility. Each X-box 360 has 22 #12 Torx Screws (14 silver and 8 Black.) (see http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=26 10&p=3)

Yup... Here's the link showing the XBox processor.

First of all, the two parts of this sentence, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with each other. Secondly, that's debatable? Really? So you think some people would argue that the same scene, with the same FPS, the same models, lighting, textures, etc, would look just as good at 640x480 as it would in 1600x1200. I can't imagine anyone arguing that.

The two parts of the sentence are related because a computer generated DVD movie looks far better than Doom 3, Half Life 2, Fear, etc. even when those games have outrageous resolutions (for example 1920x1280). On the second point, the reality is that you don't get the same performance from a game at 640x480 as you do from 1600x1200; as you mention later there is a trade-off. Would you rather have higher-resolution texture maps, more complicated shaders, higher-detail models better lighting and shadows or a higher resolution? This is the reality! Most console games (on next generation consoles) would look better if they stayed with lower resolutions (480p with digital output), and focused on matching DVD output rather than jump to HDTV. Look at FEAR:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=4
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=6

You get nearly 3X the framerate (without AA+AF) at 800x600 compared to 1600x1200, with AA+AF or Soft-Shadows you ~3.5X the framerate (I suspect that if they did both Soft-Shadows and AA+AF you would have over 4x the framerate). So basically, you have the choice of running Fear (max details) with Soft Shadows, 4xAA and 4xAF at 800x600 OR running it at 1600x1200; which do you choose?

First of all, the two parts of this sentence, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with each other. Secondly, that's debatable? Really? So you think some people would argue that the same scene, with the same FPS, the same models, lighting, textures, etc, would look just as good at 640x480 as it would in 1600x1200. I can't imagine anyone arguing that.

The two parts of the sentence are related because a computer generated DVD movie looks far better than Doom 3, Half Life 2, Fear, etc. even when those games have outrageous resolutions (for example 1920x1280). On the second point, the reality is that you don't get the same performance from a game at 640x480 as you do from 1600x1200; as you mention later there is a trade-off. Would you rather have higher-resolution texture maps, more complicated shaders, higher-detail models better lighting and shadows or a higher resolution? This is the reality! Most console games (on next generation consoles) would look better if they stayed with lower resolutions (480p with digital output), and focused on matching DVD output rather than jump to HDTV. Look at FEAR:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=4
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=6

You get nearly 3X the framerate (without AA+AF) at 800x600 compared to 1600x1200, with AA+AF or Soft-Shadows you ~3.5X the framerate (I suspect that if they did both Soft-Shadows and AA+AF you would have over 4x the framerate). So basically, you have the choice of running Fear (max details) with Soft Shadows, 4xAA and 4xAF at 800x600 OR running it at 1600x1200; which do you choose?

First of all, the two parts of this sentence, as far as I can tell, have nothing to do with each other. Secondly, that's debatable? Really? So you think some people would argue that the same scene, with the same FPS, the same models, lighting, textures, etc, would look just as good at 640x480 as it would in 1600x1200. I can't imagine anyone arguing that.

The two parts of the sentence are related because a computer generated DVD movie looks far better than Doom 3, Half Life 2, Fear, etc. even when those games have outrageous resolutions (for example 1920x1280). On the second point, the reality is that you don't get the same performance from a game at 640x480 as you do from 1600x1200; as you mention later there is a trade-off. Would you rather have higher-resolution texture maps, more complicated shaders, higher-detail models better lighting and shadows or a higher resolution? This is the reality! Most console games (on next generation consoles) would look better if they stayed with lower resolutions (480p with digital output), and focused on matching DVD output rather than jump to HDTV. Look at FEAR:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=4
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=6

You get nearly 3X the framerate (without AA+AF) at 800x600 compared to 1600x1200, with AA+AF or Soft-Shadows you ~3.5X the framerate (I suspect that if they did both Soft-Shadows and AA+AF you would have over 4x the framerate). So basically, you have the choice of running Fear (max details) with Soft Shadows, 4xAA and 4xAF at 800x600 OR running it at 1600x1200; which do you choose?

It was a Celeron with 128KB of L2, on a 133Mhz FSB (retail Celerons at the time were on a 66Mhz FSB, the 133Mhz bus being reserved for P3's)

Coppermine P3's had 256KB of L2

You made the "most correct" comment in this thread of grossly incorrect comments. The only part you left out was that the XBox Coppermine's L2 cache was 8-way set associative (like the P3), not 4-way like the retail Celerons at the time. Anandtech estimated that this 8-way set associativity gave an additional 10% performance over the 4-way.

In summary:

• Coppermine-based Pentium III: 133MHz bus, 256K L2 cache (8-way set associative)
• Coppermine-based Celeron: 66MHz bus, 128K L2 cache (4-way set associative)
• Coppermine-based XBox CPU: 133MHz bus, 128K L2 cache (8-way set associative)

The original comment in this tread (modded 5) incorrectly claimed the CPU displayed the word "Celeron" was displayed on top of the processor. That AC is dumb. The ones that modded hir up are uninformed.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=26 10

Try here: http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=26 10

But isn't this old news? I know I've read about all of this AT LEAST a month ago...

Real Link..

The uri is here.

Correct link : here

How about this one?

AC to prevent karma whoring.

The article should point here.

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=182&type=expe rt
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODg1
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-7 800gtx-512/index.x?pg=1
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2607
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articl eid=751&cid=2
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/285/

Earlier today I was mentioning how it was understandable that Nintendo would avoid High Definition support because of the potential Performance problems; many people (some of which would probably be XBox 360/PS3 fans) claimed that it was a weak excuse because those systems had the power necessary to render anything regardless of the resolution.

By looking at the following benchmarks you can see how resolution effects performance:

FEAR:

1280x960 http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883897 ,00.asp

1600x1200 http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883898 ,00.asp

4xAA 8xAF http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=5

soft shadows http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=6

As you can see, even with the best graphics cards a person can buy a new game has difficulty maintaining a playable framerate at 1280x1024 (and is mostly unplayable at 1600x1200); at 800x600 they have frames to spare.

I'm not trying to say that higher definition is a bad thing; but it needs to be considered in its place. Higher definition is great for PC games because as performance drops you can simply upgrade your system, on a console (which is a static platform) higher resolution is not that important; eventually when we have the performance to spare it will be a good time to produce games at 1080p or what not.

Earlier today I was mentioning how it was understandable that Nintendo would avoid High Definition support because of the potential Performance problems; many people (some of which would probably be XBox 360/PS3 fans) claimed that it was a weak excuse because those systems had the power necessary to render anything regardless of the resolution.

By looking at the following benchmarks you can see how resolution effects performance:

FEAR:

1280x960 http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883897 ,00.asp

1600x1200 http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883898 ,00.asp

4xAA 8xAF http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=5

soft shadows http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=6

As you can see, even with the best graphics cards a person can buy a new game has difficulty maintaining a playable framerate at 1280x1024 (and is mostly unplayable at 1600x1200); at 800x600 they have frames to spare.

I'm not trying to say that higher definition is a bad thing; but it needs to be considered in its place. Higher definition is great for PC games because as performance drops you can simply upgrade your system, on a console (which is a static platform) higher resolution is not that important; eventually when we have the performance to spare it will be a good time to produce games at 1080p or what not.

I'm sure everyone here must remember that Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) publicly endorsed malicious software to protect copyrights:

http://anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=19802

"If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines"

I guess Sony must have felt they got the green light from Mr. Hatch when they put this genius plot together... A Holes

Hatch 4 President!

Have you ever really compared the difference between a WMVHD file at 1080p with a DVD movie at 480p?

For those that haven't what you will notice is that the 1080p image is crisper but nothing to really get too excited about; 480p to 1080i or 720p is barely noticable on most displays. Now I know what you're thinking, a real-time generated 3D image produces artifacts that make it no where near the quality of a DVD image; after all at 1600x1200 a PC game still has jaggies without AA, and the textures are blurry without AF. What you don't realize is that by increasing the resolution they may (in fact) be lowering the image quality and performing at a far worse level. The reason is simple, as shading hardware becomes more powerful, and shaders become more complex, the greater the performance hit will be from increasing the resolution by even a small ammount. If you look at most benchmarking of new games you will notice that (almost) all games have dramatically better performance at 1024x768 with 8xAA and 8xAF than they do at 1600x1200 with no image processing; at 480p I suspect that (on equal hardware) you could have 16xAA and 16xAF and have a much higher framerate than you could at 1080i or 720p.

Just look at FEAR:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575 &p=5

At 1280x1024 (a good estimate of HD resolutions) you're getting between 20-40 FPS on most new hardware [in this test]; using the same cards at 640x480 (a good estimate of 480p) you're getting between 50-100 fps. I'm willing to bet money that the main reason the XBox 360 looks like "the XBox at high resolutions" is that it is highly difficult for a developer to produce a game, use high quality shaders / textures and models and maintain a decent framerate.

This makes it impossible to compare processors across different brands. A Celeron-D 560 is not going to necessarily be as fast as a Pentium-D 320, but you'd never know by the numbers.

The different Intel brands are clearly grouped according to their suggested market. The entry-level Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the mainstream Pentium 4 brand (500's and 600's). The dual-core Pentium D brand has even higher model numbers (800's).

However, within the brands, the numbering system is confusing to non-techies. A Celeron D 326 is a 64-bit CPU while a Celeron D 350 is a 32-bit CPU.

AMD, on the other hand, uses a P-number which is directly comparable across processor lines and uses an established standard of a 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird = P1000. Everything else is relative to that. So you know right off the bat that an Athlon64 3000+ is only marginally faster than a Sempron 2800+, you don't have to play games like with Intel.

The 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird standard was only used for that first generation of Athlon XP processors. Note:

• Athlon XP 2800+: Barton core, 2083MHz, 512K L2 cache, 333MHz FSB
• Sempron 2800+ (Socket A): Thoroughbred core, 2000MHz, 256K L2 cache, 333MHz FSB

Therefore, it's easier to compare Intel CPUs across brands because the budget Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the high end Pentium D brand (800's).

However, across AMD brands, a budget Thoroughbred-based AMD Sempron 2800+ is way slower and has far less features than a high end AMD Athlon 64 2800+ (Anandtech benchamarks here).

Within brands, the AMD system is much clearer.

This makes it impossible to compare processors across different brands. A Celeron-D 560 is not going to necessarily be as fast as a Pentium-D 320, but you'd never know by the numbers.

The different Intel brands are clearly grouped according to their suggested market. The entry-level Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the mainstream Pentium 4 brand (500's and 600's). The dual-core Pentium D brand has even higher model numbers (800's).

However, within the brands, the numbering system is confusing to non-techies. A Celeron D 326 is a 64-bit CPU while a Celeron D 350 is a 32-bit CPU.

AMD, on the other hand, uses a P-number which is directly comparable across processor lines and uses an established standard of a 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird = P1000. Everything else is relative to that. So you know right off the bat that an Athlon64 3000+ is only marginally faster than a Sempron 2800+, you don't have to play games like with Intel.

The 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird standard was only used for that first generation of Athlon XP processors. Note:

• Athlon XP 2800+: Barton core, 2083MHz, 512K L2 cache, 333MHz FSB
• Sempron 2800+ (Socket A): Thoroughbred core, 2000MHz, 256K L2 cache, 333MHz FSB

Therefore, it's easier to compare Intel CPUs across brands because the budget Celeron brand has lower model numbers (300's) than the high end Pentium D brand (800's).

However, across AMD brands, a budget Thoroughbred-based AMD Sempron 2800+ is way slower and has far less features than a high end AMD Athlon 64 2800+ (Anandtech benchamarks here).

Within brands, the AMD system is much clearer.

Try a real site if you want to look into something like that. Anandtech is pretty famous for those things and roadmaps:
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=yonah&site=at web_collection&client=atweb_collection&proxystyles heet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=pentium+m&res trict=&btnG=Search&client=atweb_collection&proxyst ylesheet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&site=a tweb_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=dothan&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=banias&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection

HJ

Try a real site if you want to look into something like that. Anandtech is pretty famous for those things and roadmaps:
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=yonah&site=at web_collection&client=atweb_collection&proxystyles heet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=pentium+m&res trict=&btnG=Search&client=atweb_collection&proxyst ylesheet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&site=a tweb_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=dothan&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=banias&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection

HJ

Try a real site if you want to look into something like that. Anandtech is pretty famous for those things and roadmaps:
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=yonah&site=at web_collection&client=atweb_collection&proxystyles heet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=pentium+m&res trict=&btnG=Search&client=atweb_collection&proxyst ylesheet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&site=a tweb_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=dothan&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=banias&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection

HJ

Try a real site if you want to look into something like that. Anandtech is pretty famous for those things and roadmaps:
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=yonah&site=at web_collection&client=atweb_collection&proxystyles heet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=pentium+m&res trict=&btnG=Search&client=atweb_collection&proxyst ylesheet=atweb_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&site=a tweb_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=dothan&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection
http://search.anandtech.com/search?q=banias&restri ct=&btnG=Search&site=atweb_collection&output=xml_n o_dtd&client=atweb_collection&proxystylesheet=atwe b_collection

HJ

Interestingly, Anandtech just published a decent article on the Itanium reinforcing some of these ideas.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=25 98

Given the SPECmarks for Itanium I'd say it does very well with its minimal pipeline, far better than any x86 design. Code density is a bit of a downside, but a bigger instruction cache would mostly fix that.

Voltage regulator on-package

Its multithreading performance is appalling, and has always been appalling, right since the first release. Sure, you may think this is unimportant on the desktop--for now. But wait till multicore processors start shipping big-time...

I beg to differ.

Dude, that chart is terrible. You forget that the GPU is least important piece of hardware, and their are other components utilizing the power supply. Using 200 of 300 watts is decent, but it isn't going to cut it. What about the CPU, case fans, and the cdrom that now ALL games require. How about they rework the way the GPU functions - something similar to what intel did to make the Pentium M.

Look at this website to get another look at power consumption.

Listed alphabetically.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2593
http://www.avault.com/hardware/getreview.asp?revie w=evga6800gs
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafik karten/2005/test_nvidia_geforce_6800_gs/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/X16_GS/index.h tm
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/278/
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODgy
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articl eid=747&cid=2
http://www.noticias3d.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo= 541
http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce_6800_gs/ind ex.shtml
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-6800g s/index.x?pg=1

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2593 http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODgy Looks like the 6800 GT and the Ultra are going to be abandoned...

Shame you didn't wait for the ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe motherboard!

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2589

OTOH it probably costs a scary amount for a motherboard ... by today's standards.

Um There is no good reason to buy intel over amd.

Opteron(server):
"
The choice today is clear. In 2-way configurations, the Opteron is a much more powerful and capable web server than Intel?s Xeon. "
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p= 10

"In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server."
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p= 10

Athlon 64/FX/X2 (Home/workstation):

"The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment."

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=13

"There may be some corporation or individual who absolutely must have single core performance at all costs. In that situation, the FX-57 is the fastest option and the best fit."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2456&p=9

AMD Turion 64 (mobile)

"In most categories, the Turion meets or exceeds Pentium M?s performance at a lower price point"
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/1 /1/

Whoa? What's that? EVIDENCE that shows it's not worth buying intel on the basis of performance ever. INTEL does not have the performance crown. AMD processors do perform better, at a lower price point, and do consume less power and thus cost less to own over time (important for the server space).

Intel desktop processors cost more money, are slower, and use more heat.
right now AMD > INTEL

Um There is no good reason to buy intel over amd.

Opteron(server):
"
The choice today is clear. In 2-way configurations, the Opteron is a much more powerful and capable web server than Intel?s Xeon. "
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p= 10

"In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server."
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p= 10

Athlon 64/FX/X2 (Home/workstation):

"The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment."

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=13

"There may be some corporation or individual who absolutely must have single core performance at all costs. In that situation, the FX-57 is the fastest option and the best fit."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2456&p=9

AMD Turion 64 (mobile)

"In most categories, the Turion meets or exceeds Pentium M?s performance at a lower price point"
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/1 /1/

Whoa? What's that? EVIDENCE that shows it's not worth buying intel on the basis of performance ever. INTEL does not have the performance crown. AMD processors do perform better, at a lower price point, and do consume less power and thus cost less to own over time (important for the server space).

Intel desktop processors cost more money, are slower, and use more heat.
right now AMD > INTEL

Um There is no good reason to buy intel over amd.

Opteron(server):
"
The choice today is clear. In 2-way configurations, the Opteron is a much more powerful and capable web server than Intel?s Xeon. "
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p= 10

"In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server."
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p= 10

Athlon 64/FX/X2 (Home/workstation):

"The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment."

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=13

"There may be some corporation or individual who absolutely must have single core performance at all costs. In that situation, the FX-57 is the fastest option and the best fit."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2456&p=9

AMD Turion 64 (mobile)

"In most categories, the Turion meets or exceeds Pentium M?s performance at a lower price point"
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/1 /1/

Whoa? What's that? EVIDENCE that shows it's not worth buying intel on the basis of performance ever. INTEL does not have the performance crown. AMD processors do perform better, at a lower price point, and do consume less power and thus cost less to own over time (important for the server space).

Intel desktop processors cost more money, are slower, and use more heat.
right now AMD > INTEL

Um There is no good reason to buy intel over amd.

Opteron(server):
"
The choice today is clear. In 2-way configurations, the Opteron is a much more powerful and capable web server than Intel?s Xeon. "
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1935&p= 10

"In a 4-way configuration AMD's Opteron cannot be beat, and thus it is our choice for the basis for our new Forums database server."
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=1982&p= 10

Athlon 64/FX/X2 (Home/workstation):

"The choice is clear - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is better in every way than the Pentium D 830. For Intel's sake in the enthusiast community, Conroe had better be very competitive next year - because ever since Prescott, the Pentium 4 has been an utter disappointment."

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2484&p=13

"There may be some corporation or individual who absolutely must have single core performance at all costs. In that situation, the FX-57 is the fastest option and the best fit."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2456&p=9

AMD Turion 64 (mobile)

"In most categories, the Turion meets or exceeds Pentium M?s performance at a lower price point"
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/1 /1/

Whoa? What's that? EVIDENCE that shows it's not worth buying intel on the basis of performance ever. INTEL does not have the performance crown. AMD processors do perform better, at a lower price point, and do consume less power and thus cost less to own over time (important for the server space).

Intel desktop processors cost more money, are slower, and use more heat.
right now AMD > INTEL

What's weird is Radeon X1800 beats GF7800 in Quake 4 according to this benchmark though X1800 still loses to GF 7800 in other games. So, surprisingly ATI is doing better (than nVidia) in OpenGL in the X1000 series?

Regarding the Avivo, according to this article: ATI's Avivo vs. NVIDIA's PureVideo: De-Interlacing Quality Compared, Avivo is still behind nVidia's PureVideo in terms of de-interlacing quality.

An in-depth article on Avivo for those who might be interested: http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/ati/avivo/

Also, see this thread from the Anandtech forums.

http://anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2392

You'll basically find that the performance of value memory is very on par with the high end stuff. You basically pay for the ability to overclock on a more consistent basis.

Yeah, right. I guess you aren't talking about petty little things like performance. Linux easily
outperforms Mac OS X on Apple hardware.

I don't think you understand what Valve's HDR does (which isn't a shock considering the quality of the linked article). Take a look at Anandtech's article for a decent explanation: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2545 .

HDR has been around for a longer while than you think. It has been used in games before, it has been demoed before. Some of you may recognize HDR in the form of light blooms, especially from the earlier screenshots of the Unreal 3 Engine, as seen here:
HDR Glow in Unreal 3

Although some say light blooms are NOT high-dynamic range (which is true for the case where you just make something radiate light in a way that washes out details of objects around it - see here), light blooms can be done with high-dynamic range color, which is what the Unreal 3 Engine page mentions in a brief caption for the above picture.

Anyways, there are other games that ALREADY do HDR, such as Far Cry (with patch 1.3 or above). The best place to get a good view of it is ON a beach in Far Cry that is directly in the sun. It is funny that Far Cry has been ignored as the first of its kind in many things, but it really did do a lot of stuff that Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc. did, except earlier. It was also virutally bugless, compared to for example, the stuttering bug common in Half Life 2. Most are misinformed in crediting games such as HL2 or D3 in bringing in the generation of shader-heavy games (aka 'next gen' games).

That being said, if you don't know what HDR is, the Anandtech Article on HL2:TLC is a good read.

Personally, I liked AnandTech's review from a month ago better. If you're interested, its available here.

Hardware..... $$ Component
Processor.... 75 Sempron 64 (754) 3000+ - 128KB 1.80 GHz Palermo
Motherboard.. 77 DFI Infinity nF4X
Memory....... 95 OCZ Premier 2x512MB
Video Card.. 138 eVGA GeForce 6600GT 128MB
Hard Drive... 81 Hitachi 3.0Gbps 160GB 7200RPM 8MB Deskstar T7K250
Optical Drive 46 BenQ DW1640 Black (OEM)
Case / Power. 82 Foxconn TPS544-S350 plus 350W PSU
Display..... 169 Envision EFT920 19" CRT
Speakers..... 47 Labtec ARENA 685 5.1 Speakers
KB/Mouse..... 23 Logitech Internet Pro Desktop
 
Bottom Line: 833