Slashdot Mirror

Quake required you to hold a button to use mouselook, unless you made some tweaks. That alone would make keyboard+mouse very annoying to use.

And you are talking about the second generation. The Actius RD3D was released a year earlier. So, this Acer is not the first 3D laptop in the sense that it exists in 3 dimensions, it is not the first 3D laptop in the sense of having a 3D capable display, maybe there is another usage of the term 3D?

Agreed, and the ability to even use that emulation with X11 on anything besides Windows Vista with Cygwin is an unknown. With stupid reviews talking more about functions maybe 1% of the user base ever will use more than just basic 3-button and a scroll wheel functionality I wonder how much of these poor design decisions are due to a self-feedback loop of more features is better = higher reviews. The Wireless Laser Mouse Series from Microsoft for instance has a horrible time at clicking the middle mouse button so to open new tabs and close old tabs you have to map it to one of the side buttons which you will hit by mistake. It was so useless as an actual interface to the computer I just took out the laser diode assembly and played with it and plugged in my old LX3 from Logitech.

>Just fill up on pots, get a well equipped merc. At worse it may take a while, or a few deaths if you're not careful.

I wish it was that easy. Diablo was easier.
As one example:
http://discussions.hardwarecentral.com/archive/index.php/t-127713.html

And you can't afford a few deaths playing on Hardcore.

Buriza had 100% piercing. Guided Arrow changed the course of the arrow. So it went;
1. Hit boss with guided.
2. arrow pierces/passes through boss
3. guided is still active, so arrow does a 180 back to the boss
4. back to 1. up to five times.

This was later corrected in a patch.

They key positioning and size differ from normal keyboards. Just check for the differences: http://www.hardwarecentral.com/graphics/screenshots/1091048923521lome343.jpg VS http://www.freefoto.com/images/04/34/04_34_12---Computer-Keyboard_web.jpg. Now you know why you too would have to take a picture of this keyboard.

I don't have a 'normal' keyboard so yes I have to: http://www.hardwarecentral.com/graphics/screenshots/1091048923521lome343.jpg

The trickle of power used to keep its RAM warm doesn't compare to the amount of power (and cash) saved by running such an old laptop.

On a slightly lower end machine (with the 945GM video), 83 fps

With A3D, a physical model of the environment must be constructed just as with normal visual 3D models in the application. This allows for accurate 3D sounds as the sounds are essentially "rendered" in the environment according to acoustic physics. Hence, reflections off walls that are closer will sound different than reflections that occur further away. EAX, on the other hand, only simulates the effects of environments using real-time effects such as reverberations.

A3D required you to actually construct a 3D model so that the reverb, sound occlusions, etc were actually calculated for that environment. If there was a column between you and the sound source, it would be muted as in the real world. If you were just inside the mouth of a tunnel, your footsteps would reverb but someone yelling at you from outside the tunnel would not reverb since the sound traveled directly to you and not from wall reflections. Neat stuff.

With EAX, Walking into a tunnel would cause an abrupt change in sound qualities, (adding reverb, etc) at the threshold of a tunnel, because the programmer would mark that area as needing reverb. This has been masked over with newer EAX versions, (3.0 by merging the two regions, smoothing over the change) but the system is still only doing what the programmer thinks it should at that spot. Hold a watch to your ear while in the tunnel and the ticking would have reverb even though it shouldn't. There is no accurate 3D rendering of environmental sounds.

To use a visual metaphore, A3D was like Quake 3 and EAX is like Wolfenstein-3D.

EAX 4.0 is like Wolfenstein-3D with photorealistic textures.

Agreed that that's part of it. And, as we slip down that slope where there are hardware- and OS-level mechanisms determining what we can and cannot view, hear and run, let's please thank the heavens and stars for GNU, the FSF and the thousands of players who've given us the ability to circumvent these things.

I personally don't get too up in arms about "some DRM." I think, e.g., FairPlay is pretty fair for consumers. Currently.

I no longer hear (m)any rants about CPU IDs. It's not because it's no longer there - it's because - per the parent post - we're desensitized.

From my PoV, a little governing of our digital Freedoms is acceptable if it means there's incentive for entities to build and offer good services. I thank heavens for the eternal vigilance we're all provided by the likes of GNU and FSF because they're the ones who've made possible the tools that can help us decide for ourselves when others decide to clamp down too tightly (and that threshold will differ for diferent individuals).

Some people still believe this chip still has advantages over the pentium! http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/rep orts/592/2/.

I think you may be a bit confused. This article (which is rather old) is comparing the Cyrix to original Pentiums.

Although they still call the newest chips Pentiums, there is very little in common internally going from a Pentium to a Pentium Pro (II/III), and less still going to a Pentium IV.

This type of news, especially in the chip business reminds me of "Cyrix" - the chip, in the mid/late 90s! In the chip business, it must be tough to be a newcomer. Texas Instruments manufactured some of these, IBM did too and a host of other companies. Some people still believe this chip still has advantages over the pentium! http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/rep orts/592/2/. But who is buying that? No wonder, Transmeta may be forced to see the real world. I wish them luck though. All in all, the chip biz must be tough.

And multicore CPUs. These can help speed things up without having to worry about that pesky speed of light (or general propogation of electromagnetic fields) which is WHY smaller chips are better. And then from multicore CPUs we'll move to Massively Multicore CPUs and so on.

But if you're naive about the net and you go online maybe once a month...then you're a raw piece of meat in a pool full of sharks.

I am one of those naive that really don't have a clue what hardware review sites to trust. My comfort is that I am probably far from alone, in this matter.

To assist me and other naives(sp?), please join this silly poll and review the following sites (regarding credibility) with a scale ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 is "No credibility at all" and 10 is "Perfect credibility, these guys wouldn't post a biased review for world domination":

About PC Hardware Reviews
Ace's Hardware
Anandtech
Ars Technica
Beyond 3D
Cnet Reviews
Dan's Data
Dev Hardware
Extremetech
Firingsquad
[H]ard|OCP
Hardware Analysis
Hardwarecentral
Hardwarezone
IT Reviews
OcPrices
Overclockers.com
ProCooling.com
The Tech Report
The Tech Zone
Tom's Hardware
TrustedReviews
Viperlair
Xtreme Resources

If you know only a few of them, give your opinion on those.

Maybe someone with the right facilities could set up an independent poll?

...was the original Logitech MouseMan+, with the rubber on the sides and the buttons that extended to the edge of the mouse. Looked weird (ugly, even), but it's "the" mouse for (right-handed) people with big hands.

Then they completely screwed it up when they made the optical model, by reducing the size of the buttons (original on the right, optical models on the left and centre).

Currently, the best compromise is probably the "MX" series, also from Logitech (a company I don't like much, but they do manage to get it right now and then), especially the MX-500 and above. The main buttons are very well designed, and the side buttons are reasonable. The scroll wheel and the other buttons are too far back on the mouse, though; to reach them you have to either bend your fingers or move your hand back so it actually rests off the mouse.

And, of course, Logitech's mouse drivers are crap (can't even turn acceleration off completely). Stick to the default OS drivers and you'll be fine.

I tested this poor shielding theory on a much higher class Stereo/Reciever and a diff stereo of a slightly more recent vintage, but with a much more compact design. Both barely gave off a hum.

Update: I really do think it involves poor shielding. I just waved it around my speakers and it's loudest in front of the 'sub' port hole and even on the sides where the plastic is thinner. All that said, you still think my phone is pumping out too much energy?

For outdoor use on a laptop screen, you want a transflective display. I'm quite sure I saw a transmeta laptop with a transflective (rather than backlit) display at one point...

Ah, here it is.

But what about those who play Playstation 2 you insensitive clod!

The best, most comfortable mouse I have ever owned was a Logitech Mouseman Wheel. It's secret is twofold: first, it slopes very much downward to the right, following the natural shape of your hand. Second, it's very long. Check some pictures here and here, and a review here. I unfortunately had to give up my original wired ball model, since I need cordless capability. Logitech made a wired ball version, a wireless ball version, and a wired optical version... but never followed it up with a wireless optical version, opting instead for more "stylish" mice which are much shittier. (They did technically make a wireless optical version, but in trackball form: if you look at this, it has the great ergonomic shape, but with a trackball grafted to the side.)

I look on eBay all the time to try to pick one up, but always end up getting outbid... these mice are highly desirable. I suppose one day I'll save up and just bid $100 for the cordless one, they are that good.

The best, most comfortable mouse I have ever owned was a Logitech Mouseman Wheel. It's secret is twofold: first, it slopes very much downward to the right, following the natural shape of your hand. Second, it's very long. Check some pictures here and here, and a review here. I unfortunately had to give up my original wired ball model, since I need cordless capability. Logitech made a wired ball version, a wireless ball version, and a wired optical version... but never followed it up with a wireless optical version, opting instead for more "stylish" mice which are much shittier. (They did technically make a wireless optical version, but in trackball form: if you look at this, it has the great ergonomic shape, but with a trackball grafted to the side.)

I look on eBay all the time to try to pick one up, but always end up getting outbid... these mice are highly desirable. I suppose one day I'll save up and just bid $100 for the cordless one, they are that good.

The best, most comfortable mouse I have ever owned was a Logitech Mouseman Wheel. It's secret is twofold: first, it slopes very much downward to the right, following the natural shape of your hand. Second, it's very long. Check some pictures here and here, and a review here. I unfortunately had to give up my original wired ball model, since I need cordless capability. Logitech made a wired ball version, a wireless ball version, and a wired optical version... but never followed it up with a wireless optical version, opting instead for more "stylish" mice which are much shittier. (They did technically make a wireless optical version, but in trackball form: if you look at this, it has the great ergonomic shape, but with a trackball grafted to the side.)

I look on eBay all the time to try to pick one up, but always end up getting outbid... these mice are highly desirable. I suppose one day I'll save up and just bid $100 for the cordless one, they are that good.

Like the PIII Coppermine CPUs that wouldn't even boot sometimes.

Or the randomly rebooting PII Xeons.

Or the voltage problems with certain PIII Xeons.

Or the memory request system hang bug in the PIII/Xeon.

Or the PIII's SSE bug whose 'fix' killed i810 compatability.

Or the MTH bug in the PIII CPUs that forced Intel customers to replace boards and RAM.

Or the recalled, that's right, recalled PIII chips at 1.13GHz.

Or the recalled (there's that word again) Xeon SERVER chips at 800 and 900MHz.

Or the recalled (that word, AGAIN?!) cc820 "cape cod" Intel motherboards.

Or the data overwriting bug in the P4 CPUs.

Or the P4 chipset bug that killed video performance.

Or the Sun/Oracle P4 bug.

Or the Itanium bug that was severe enough to make Compaq halt Itanium shipments.

Or the Itanium 2 bug that "can cause systems to behave unpredictably or shut down".

Or the numerous other P4/Xeon/XeonMP bugs that have been hanging around.

Yes, I did consider the possibility that there might just be some basis for the belief that Intel's products are superior. Having considered that, in light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary, I shall now proceed to laugh at you.

Ha ha ha.

Now go away, or I shall mock you again.

You know what's worse than a shamless plug? A shameless plug with no clickable hyperlink!

http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/edi torials/5139/1/

A digital camera with 5x or better optical zoom is a nice thing, too.

The Logitech Pocket Digital (~$100USD) is a nifty, tiny toy (the H/W size of a business card and 1/4" thick). Just don't expect good photo results unless you shoot outside on a bright day or in really good indoor light. The one I bought at a rock-bottom price is the older version - apparently the new one incorporates a flash. It's small enough to take everywhere, and is easily added to your daily loadout.

There have been many projects based on the GPLed code of Quake 1, like Quake Tenebrae which adds graphical capabilities that surpass Quake 3 and are nearly on par with Doom 3.

Ahahahahah!

Quake Tenebrae
Quake III
Doom 3

Yeah, right...

Here is the press release, pretty much says they bought the technology, nothing about further support.

And we have this interview with Brian Burke, employee of Nvidia. Heres a little quote:

GD: What does this mean for future driver support for current Voodoo card owners?

Brian: Under the terms of this agreement, 3dfx will still be responsible for driver support.

Nvidia has no benefit by buying a competing companies technology, and having to dedicate people, computers, and many other things necessary to do driver development and still have it compete with thier own products, it makes no sense. It was really up to what was left of 3dfx to support your hardware, but instead they shipped out the Voodoo 4/5 and now everyones screwed who bought one and wants to use a fairly current OS (including me). I blame 3dfx for this not Nvidia.

So, yes, many former 3dfx users have good reason to dislike nVidia and refuse to use their products.

I think that many former 3dfx users should have many more reasons to dislike 3dfx instead of the way you put it. They really didn't do much for the graphics market after the voodoo 3 (and the voodoo 3 wasn't anything new, as someone stated before it was pretty much 2 voodoo 2's SLI'd, the technology was basically the same). Then they came out with this marketing buzz about motion blur supported on thier new cards, boy that really took off =). So I would say move on with the whole 3dfx deal, nvidia came along and created a superior product and they couldn't compete. Just think of the kinds of things that Nvidia has brought along though. Im not saying they invented any of this stuff, but it was their products I first saw them on.. Hardware T&L, which led to programmable pixel and vertex shaders, which is going to bring us some pretty high quality real time animation on a pc. I am not saying they are perfect by any means but they have made some impressive hardware. It looks like ATI is doing good as well, and if nvidia doesn't keep up they will go the way of 3dfx.

Interestingly he thinks it'll be specialized hardware that will do ray-tracing, etc.

http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/rev iews/1721/1/

"Is there a future for radiosity lighting in 3D hardware? Ray-tracing? When would it become available?

Gary: Yes, but probably just in specialized hardware as it's a very different problem. Ray-tracing is nasty because of it's non-locality, so fast localized hacks will probably prevail as long as people are clever. Especially for real-time rendering on low-cost hardware. It's interesting that RenderMan has managed to do amazing CGI without ray-tracing. That's an existence proof that a hack in the hand, is worth ray-tracing in the bush.

Oh... and for people who haven't seen it before, here's a cool detailed paper about how the pipeline of a traditional 3d accellerators can be tweaked used to do ray tracing...

http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/rtongfx/rtongf x.pdf

Reading that shows how programming a graphics pipeline is quite different (more interesting? more complicated?) than programming a general purpose CPU.

Here's a picture of it in the 'clock mode'. Kind of dissapointing, they should have used much larger fonts. (And the mouse is horrible IMO). It's a nice idea, but If they want to sell a PC based on its design they should take care of those small details.

Uneven platter surfaces on hard disks running at faster speeds with heads closer to the surface are more apt to lead to head crashes. For this reason many drive makers began several years ago to look at alternatives to aluminum, such as glass, glass composites, and magnesium alloys . . . One obvious disadvantage of glass compared to aluminum is fragility, particularly when made very thin. For this reason some companies are experimenting with glass/ceramic composites. One of these is a Dow Corning product called MemCor, which is a glass made with ceramic inserts to reduce the likelihood of cracking.

Another early example (early 90s) was the Intel 486 chip series. The 486SX was the cheap alternative to the 486DX because it supposedly contained no math coprocessor. Ah, but it *did* contain a coprocessor - not that you could use it.

486s were all built with a coprocessor, but the SX coprocessor was disabled.

Check out this article at Hardware Central.

How many modules does this assume? As I said, "Similarly to a series electrical circuit, versus a parallel circuit, the data being requested from an RDRAM RIMM must pass through each and every one of a RIMM's chips. Likewise, when a second RIMM is added, the signal must pass not only through the first RIMM, but through each chip on the second RIMM as well. " Anyway, your quote does not conflict with mine in that it is likely assuming a single module. THink about it--Rambust IS a SERIAL technology. By definition, it cannot access in parallel, and each transaction must go through the same serial bus--hence--each chip. Quoting one website with information that actually agrees with my conclusion (but for different reasons) is not grounds to say that my statement is BS, particularly when it is not. As your sig says, a little knowledge is dangerous.

The problem here is that the chipmakers realized that instead of selling chips that were ridiculously overclockable (Celeron 300A, anyone?) and letting the consumer overclock them, they could overclock the chips themselves, because all Joe Six Pack knows is that 1.5 is greater than 1.3, so the new chip must be better.

If you've been paying attention, you've seen this coming. The current cooling configuration of a modern system looks like an overclocker's wet dream a few years ago. But working this overheat protection into the chip itself just proves that this is a chip not capable of running at 1.5GHz except under extreme cooling conditions. It was a really cheap way for AMD and Intel to keep Moore's law alive without innovation (unless you think "more fans" is innovation.)

Take a look at this page from the Hardware Central article by Vince Freeman. In particular check out this graph (which is curiously not hosted on the Hardware Central website).

Now look at the Sharky article by Chris Angelini and Ben Hirsch. Compare their graph.

The second pages of both articles are also very similar in structure, both discussing (in the same order) the fact that it's the same core, the cache, the bus, and then the chipsets. The comments are different though. Are these two sites getting the same person to do the benchmarking?

What does the former East Germany have to do with RAM?

Nothing to my knowledge, but I can see how you'd think that (Deutsch Democratic(sic) Republic). This is what all that alphabet soup really means:

• RAM: Random Access Memory
• DRAM: Dynamic RAM (information contained in one capacitor as opposed to several transistors, but each row of the memory matrix must be refreshed a couple hundred times a second)
• EDO: Extended Data Out (accesses are pipelined to an extent; one can start as another is finishing)
• SDRAM: Synchronous DRAM (uses a clocked protocol to expand on EDO)
• DDR: Double Data Rate (the internal bus is twice as wide, and the external bus is multiplexed so as to send a word both on the rising and falling edge of the clock)
• DRDRAM: Direct Rambus® DRAM. According to this Hardware Central report, "Its goal is to get rid of the latency." I don't think it has achieved that goal in the slightest.

I hope this clarifies what "DDR" means. Of course, I could be talking out of my proverbial ass.

Hardware central SDRAM vs RDRAM
[SDRAM vs RDRAM, Facts and Fantasy @harwarecentral.com]
"We think it is about time to step away from the endless price/performance discussion and open our eyes to the potential Rambus Direct RDRAM has to offer. We're not saying you shouldn't keep an eye on good value, but due to all the negative press Rambus and Intel have gotten for adapting this new memory architecture, the focus hasn't been on the performance potential of Rambus, but on the price and supposedly poorer performance of Rambus modules.
Given the technological advantages Rambus Direct RDRAM offers over current and upcoming memory technologies and its scalability we're confident that once prices start dropping and the technology becomes more commonplace we'll value its performance, bandwidth, robustness, and above all its scalability. " (See link)
So: No you're wrong, RDRAM's time will come! :-)

My PC already has instant on (or "OnNow"), all ATX power supplies produce an ancillary current even when the PC is off (soft-off). I have a Gigabyte motherboard, they use this current to keep the DIMM banks powered when the box is off, and therefore the data is retained (this is different from 'standby' btw, the machine is 'off'). When I power back on, it takes about 2-3 seconds then I'm right back into the OS. (This is all in the ACPI spec)

Instant on PC's is not the purpose of MRAM, basically because it's too costly to use as system memory and unnecessary especially when ATX can just keep cheap SDRAM powered. It's great for handheld computers though and devices that have low power constraints and need fast data access, writing to flash memory is relatively low (compared to SDRAM) and it requires a decent amount of power, it's also expensive to produce, MRAM hopes to solve these problems.

Here they are linked:

http://www.gamesdomain.com/news/3036.html

http://video.gamespot.co.uk/ects2000/

http://www.diabloii.net/expansi on/ects-2000-1.shtml

http://www.stomped.com/publ ished/jcal968167198_1_1.html

http://www.gamecenter.com/Ne ws/Item/0,3,0-4710,00.html

http://www.mgon.com/article s.phtml?id=31931&language=en

http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardwarecentral/rev iews/2272/1/

click :)

I didn't follow them for accuracy. I just linked them.

The Williamette is a LOT faster than an Athlon.

Can we agree on the fact that the Wiliamette doesn't exist yet?

First, it take full advantage of SSE (which is 128bit) to be able to multiply 4 floats in one operation.

Unfortunately, the software it's running doesn't. Look how much ISSE/3D-NOW! software is out there right now. And as you point out later...

Willamette is faster per clock for SIMD, slightly slower for regular FP, but the clock ticks twice as often.

The "clock ticks twice as often" part refers to the core "integer unit" only, not the fp unit. The "ALU" literally is the integer processing unit. The fp unit is what will get the most press, though, and may well be slower than in the Athlon. The "integer" and SIMD performance will both be excellent, I agree. But the fp performance will sell any new chip, since we already have more than enough integer performance and SIMD only has limited support. Unfortunately, Williamette seems to fall down in that particular area. But who knows for sure, right? What I really want to know is how the Williamette deals with its 20-stage pipeline. Williamette seems to be designed for high clock speeds, which is the #1 selling feature for CPUs. But there's got to be a major penalty for mispredicted branches with a pipeline that long!

Speaking of overclocking AMD chips... Check this thread out: http://discussions. hardwarecentral.com/Forum11/HTML/008273.html :)

If I am not mistaken, RDRAM will be the more expensive of the two technologies. RDRAM can be incredibly fast, much faster than SDRAM but suffers from latency problems in some circumstances due the the use of a 16-bit bus for RDRAM as opposed to a 64-bit bus for SDRAM. Hardware Central has a nice comparison of the pros and cons of each. The link is The Future of RAM RDRAM vs. DDR Explained

If you would like to know why intel chose Rambus instead of DDR-SDRAM, check out this article
and this one.

If you like Tom Pabst better, look at his new review of GeForce2 GTS cards and note what platform he used for the comparison: Intel OR840 motherboard with RDRAM.

If you like Anandtech better, look at his "Dream System": Intel OR840 + SMP CuMine + RDRAM.

(btw, for 1/2 of the $11,000 price he quotes, you could get a Dell Precision Workstation 420 with a better (Nvidia Quadro) video card, and faster processors (866Mhz vs. 733MHz).

So sure, blame Intel for stepping on it's crank multiple times in the past 6 months. But try to understand the technology too.

Look at their
It shows, that PIII-1000 is 1.5 times faster than dual Xeon-667 on both CPU tests (CPU/FPU and multimedia), but looses on the memory speed test because of Rambu$.

Are you referring to the PIII erratum that caused multiple PIII systems to have potential conflicts when accessing memory simultaneously? A BIOS update to fix that came out middle of 1999. Issue resolved, old news, not a problem anymore.

To recap, the article has 6 pages on modifying the Iwill Slocket IIs (albiet with graphics).

I like the item mentioned in the conclusion better: "a new revision of the Slocket II is currently in the works that will support FCPGA SMP out of the box, making the configuration of a dual CPU system a matter of plugging the CPUs in the slockets, no soldering required."

Hardware Centrals Review

Here's a HardwareCentral review of the Celeron 2 (today must be the day NDAs were lifted; look for other butt-kicking sites like Thresh's and Sharky's to maybe have something on it later today.

Here's BP6.com, an excellent reference for those of you with that funky Abit board. Check out the video preview of the Powerleap FC-PGA adapters - basically they plug into Coppermines and allow two of them (new stepping ONLY) to run in SMP mode. Of course, your BP6 would be running at 100MHz FSB by default - and overclocking well past 100MHz (which is what is required to unlock the true potential of Coppermines) is flaky on any BX board.

Coppermines seem, for me, an excellent buy. I have a 500E running at 733Mhz (147MHz FSB) on an MSI MS-6309 Apollo Pro 133A board. Excellent performance, and super stable.

The 66MHz FSB for these new Celerons is a double-edged sword. It's good that the 66MHz+ gap is open, which is really what made the original Celerons such good overclockers; but besides the performance hit (naturally), the lower FSB means a higher multiplier. The internal multiplier (locked by Intel) for the 600MHZ Celeron 2 is 9.0x. That's ass-high, people. I don't think many motherboards currently support that. At the very least I think a BIOS upgrade is in order, unless you're absoluely sure the board can handle that high a multiplier - but getting back to the performance hit, not only is your memory, etc. running at only 66MHz, but with the high multiplier your chip is running 9 times faster than your system. That's a low of waiting on its part.

My advice? Get a 500E or 550E (both can be had for around $200, if you know where to look) and overclock them beyond insanity. 150MHz FSB is not out of the question for these chips, especially the ones with the new core stepping. I'll be going for a 600E (FC-PGA) as soon as school lets out for me for the Summer.

For a truly bent journalistic look at the Coppermines, check out this piece I wrote for the fantastic Overclockers.com over Winter Break.

Here.

This was done a few months ago with 2 P3 500s by Hardwarecentral. They said it wasn't terribly stable at 1055 Mhz (1.055 GHz), but it DID go over 1 GHz. In fact, they did it with DUAL CPUs.

Results.

(Yes, their CPUs were unlocked, they modified the CPU for the cooling, but it does count)

Here.

This was done a few months ago with 2 P3 500s by Hardwarecentral. They said it wasn't terribly stable at 1055 Mhz (1.055 GHz), but it DID go over 1 GHz. In fact, they did it with DUAL CPUs.

Results.

(Yes, their CPUs were unlocked, they modified the CPU for the cooling, but it does count)

Results


Full text