Slashdot Mirror

"Do you have numbers that indicate the orginal iPhone was actually a "flop" in Europe (the ONLY placed outside the US it was sold)?"

Sure have a look here:

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=1433&blogid=4

http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04/18/europe.low.iphone.sales/

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/19/iphone-european-fire-sales-spreading-to-france/

http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=11303

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/04/lackluster-iphone-sales-in-europe.ars

http://techwag.com/index.php/2007/11/11/apples-european-iphone-debut-a-royal-flop/

Really? I've found them to be fairly close in benchmarks I've read, with the Nvidia cards generally holding the edge. (Primarily comparing gtx 260 vs 4870) Can you show me any benchmarks within the last month or so that would possibly change my mind?

Techgage - GTX 260-216 vs 4870
Hexus - GTX 260-216 vs 4870

The GTX 295 looks like it will dominate the 4870x2 once it's released (supposedly in January)

xtreview - GTX 295 vs 4870x2
Fudzilla - GTX 295 vs 4870x2

Given that the Nehalem is reaching the same speeds or higher on air-cooling, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel could match 6 GHz under liquid nitrogen cooled conditions.

Here is an example of Core i7 at 5.2 GHz on LN2

I'm surprised Google isn't using water cooling and either dumping the heat via an underground reservoir or using it to heat the company swimming pool. Water's ability to extract heat exceeds that of air by 4 to 1 so you don't need to do as much work to cool the chips.

This guy buried a water tank to cool his Athlon 1400 which ran very hot. It was a bit extreme but it more than met his cooling requirements. A properly engineered design could do the same thing for a large datacenter. The only cost associated with cooling is overcoming the friction losses in the plumbing. Of course, if your data center is next to a river or ocean, you can just dump the heat in the river/ocean instead. San Onofre powerplant in southern california does that but before the heated water goes out to sea, they used to run it over a lobster pen. The lobsters grew to table size much faster than they do in the wild.

Probably, O2 have already disabled access to email for non-contract users.

I tried to post this on /. the other day but hasn't been accepted; being as anyone on O2 is probably reading this article, I'll post it here. "It's been reported in a number of places that UK Mobile Phone company, O2 are blocking some internet ports for some customers.

It appears that although Contract customers on the mobile network are fully able to access email and SSH via their mobile phone, yet customers subscribed through 'Pay as you Go' (PAYG; a non-subscription service, paid up in front as credit), are only given WAP access, which only provides very basic HTTP access.

Essentially this means that anyone with a pay-in-front service agreement won't be able to access their email or use anything apart from basic HTTP, even though O2 are now selling and advertising the new Apple iPhone on PAYG and stating it will support "all the same features as contract customers".

It's been reported that on contacting O2, they state its a technical problem and one that can't be resolved, yet it's also been mentioned that their own O2 POP3 mail service does work, but access to any other service doesn't.

Are O2 right to restrict access for customers not on a fixed contract? Does your mobile phone company do the same thing? And are O2 advertising unfairly?"

More information here.

Check out the last pic on this page. There is a crossfire connector on the top right edge of the card, much like the 3870x2 which can crossfire 2 boards.

You can say whatever you want on XBox Live voicechat. Just make sure you don't use your real name.

Nah. For example there are no ways to do proper 3-dimensional cores yet. I should find out but I think you cannot put transistors on top of each other with the current manufacturing technologies.

And a surprisingly big area of that chip space is in fact cache ram. "Empty" area on the left is 4MB cache. Nobody asked to standardize on a 4-register design for petes sake. Yes, I know, modern 64bit processors more or less emulate the x86 assembler and do the things completely differently internally. But I daresay the PPC 64-register architechture would do fine with an order of magnitude less cache ram.

You're really limited by heat and frequency and actually making things smaller helps on both. But still, note how the trend has gone away from megahurz wars to number of cores. I'd hazard that in the long run that's actually a good thing and should make CPU usage more energy efficient etc because you have most of the cores idling when not needed.. Now if we just get the damn games written to be multicore-friendly!

Let's put this in a language we can all understand.

Money.

According to one of these links, a press release, on Google, ID thieving alone "costs more than $56 billion, or $6383 per victim, annually". That's US, obviously.

Social hacks (phishing) can be done to anyone clever enough to hold a conversation but stupid enough not to be even slightly cynical when strangers start asking certain questions. But many phishing techniques ask the hapless victim to download an attachment, or get access to the victim's computer using online foot-in-the-door tricks like eCards that are more than they appear.

What's the level of Mac penetration? 5%? 8%? Let's say it's the lowest number. Five percent of $56 billion is still $2.8 billion a year. If anyone manages to write malware that could spread in the way PC malware can multiply, especially with the average Mac user's attitude ("virus protection? Why should I save a PC user's arse when I send them Word documents? My iBook's fine..."), imagine the draw for crime syndicates. A guaranteed first shot at nearly three billion EVERY YEAR.

And yet it hasn't happened. An illegal industry that pays better than drugs, without the inherent violence on the streets, and Mac users steadfastly refuse to get fleeced.

Which means either the criminals either aren't really that hungry for this potential sector, or there's an easier way to get the money.

Just having the standard feature in a Mac that asks for your password for any new program being installed means you're put on guard. "Hey, I went to see this funny ReindeerYourself card and it's asking for my passowrd? No way..." and the keylogger software remains off your computer. It wouldn't matter if Mac penetration was 12%, 15%. If it's so much easier to hack the PC system for financial gain, it's not financially viable for anyone to write the keylogger software and then wait for enough Mac owners to be stupid enough to install the software to recopu their costs. Just let Windows users visit the page you mass-maile and enough will click the link with high speed connections. Ker-ching.

So this is finally put-up-or-shut-up for the Windows fanboyz. If the US Army puts its weight behind it, this shifts the whole landscape for writing malware. You see: before this announcement, any jihadist that wanted death to America would just do what all the other fanboys did: learn Visual Basic and send away. But now? Now they'll need to try and sneak through the Mac architecture. And unlike the Russian Mafia, cost isn't an issue. The 'enemy' will throw everything they have to bring the Army system down. Cost isn't an issue if money is not what you're after.

So if it turns out that a world full of hate-filled terrorists that care nowt for money can't hack their way in, what then for the Apple bashers?

No.
That means nothing. It's an outreach site to the community to hype up support. Guess what, sluggo? EVERYBODY DOES THAT.

Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/communities/default.mspx
Sony: http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7461
Nintendo: http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/e vents-marketing-trade-shows/3876092-1.html
Adobe: http://www.acrobatusers.com/

XFX do a passively cooled 7950GT. Including an overpriced factory overclocked one.

Hopefully we'll see this for the higher end GeForce 8's before long.

a reminder

another reminder

yet another reminder

I used to be a huge Sony fanboy, but between the pricing, the trainwreck release, the lack of decent titles, and their constant lying about things.... I'm fed up with them.

Not only that, but in my experience the fraps hook can have huge impact on your framerate.

I doubt the overhead of FRAPS is all that significant these days. Most games aren't heavily multithreaded to the point that they can stress two cores, so there's plenty of horespower leftover in all these multicore CPUs to power FRAPS.

And even if the FRAPS overhead is significant, you do realize that this will actually hurt the lower-end CPUs more in a comparison like this, right?

If you're worried about variances caused by FRAPS, the FRAPS-captured tests (all two of them!) were the average of five runs, which pretty much removes this issue.

On top of that the motherboards are running different chipsets, simple stuff like drivers for onboard sound cards can have a huge impact on the processing power if they are written poorly.

The motherboards chosen are the best you can get on their respective platforms, and are priced at about the same. You really think using the best motherboards available to both camps is going to negatively affect the results of this review?

The platforms are exactly the same within Intel models and within AMD models. Even the FX-series has the same sound chip and driver as the rest of the Athlon 64s.

Now, they could have gone to the trouble to get matching sound chips, but it ultimately doesn't matter. The benchmarks they published are very close to those I've seen on other websites, making your arguement moot.

There are also only two tests that could be affected by the sound chip used: the two game tests at the start. Ever other test uses ZERO sound.

They really aren't testing anything when they don't have a uniform rig to do so.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to conjure me a motherboard that takes both AMD and Intel processors, all without stupid hacks like entire motherboards on an expansion card. Until you have that, there's obviously NO WAY we can compare these two chip lines in any way.

Today sees the official launch of AMD's latest mid-range graphics cards. The Radeon HD 2600 and 2400 family aim to dethrone NVIDIA's GeForce 8600/8500/8400 by offering a greater feature-set, better performance and a lower comparative street price. It all seems too good to be true from a company that has made late introductions something of a mission statement of late. After all, its exceedingly late to market Radeon HD 2900 XT could only compete against NVIDIA's G80 by having a hacksaw taken to its original pricing. With all this in mind, let's now see if the DX10-compatible HD 2000-series can make AMD some decent money - it needs it.

A word or two first about testing. AMD, in its infinite wisdom, provided HEXUS with Radeon HD 2600 XT and Radeon HD 2400 XT cards last Sunday night. The time between grabbing the hardware and publishing this review has been spent in pulling out what hair (collectively) we have left. Short-notice, poor drivers and re-testing of copious amounts of hardware together mean that this should be considered more of an architectural-look and a performance-preview than a comprehensive, non-time-dependent appraisal of AMD's mid-range graphics technology. Excuses out of the way! AMD Radeon HD 2600 and HD 2400 series in detail Today sees AMD fill out the mid-range and low-end with its DX10-supporting GPUs. Jumping straight into the proposed line-up with ye olde table, here's how they stack up against select NVIDIA SKUs.

(Table- see here)

That's a lot of numbers to digest, so let's reference them against some architectural discussion.

(Image)

The following discussion assumes a basic understanding of unified shading architecture. Should that not be the case, head on over to here to learn more. Thinking about it some, the Radeon HD 2600's architecture is, for all intents and purposes, a shrunken version of the Radeon HD 2900 XT - and in more ways than one. The obvious chops are to the stream-processors - which offer unified shading - down from 320 to 120. Unlike NVIDIA's boosted shader clocks, AMD's operate at core speed, which is 800MHz for both Radeon HD 2600 XT models. Simple maths tells us that 120 SPs, capable of 2 FLOPs per clock cycle, operating at 800MHz, push out 192 GFLOPs. That's true for vertex, pixel and geometry shading, of course, although each constituent shares its shading resource with the others. Radeon HD 2600 XT is endowed with only four ROPs and eight texture-filter (FP32) units. The programmable tesellator, which allows for almost 'free' geometry production and other useful gubbins, survives intact from R600 and that's good news. But the devil is in the details that you don't see on the above overview. The Radeon HD 2600 is based on a 65nm manufacturing process (65G+) and interfaces with its local memory via a 128-bit interface. The table shows that there will be three SKUs based on Radeon HD 2600 (RV630). The XT will be offered in variants with GDDR3 memory or GDDR4, with the latter operating at faster speeds and providing greater bandwidth. Other than the difference in DRAM used, the two XTs are architecturally identical. The GDDR4 model will carry a ~£20 price premium over its GDDR3 counterpart. Further differentiating the line is the Radeon HD 2600 PRO. This runs with a lower core speed - 600MHz - and slower (DDR2) memory. Again, variation in speed is the only difference. It still packs in 120 SPs, a 128-bit memory interface and a 256MiB framebuffer. Price is reduced accordingly, with retail examples reckoned to be available for around £60. Have an architecture that's cut down compared to the R600 brings down the transistor count to around 390M. Models in the Radeon HD 2600 series, obviously, are designed to compete with NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 range. A quick look at the comparative specs tells us that the HD 2600 should do well in titles where shading is called to the fore, thanks to its higher pure FLOP rate, but will suffer in scenarios

This looks like a complete architectural misfire. I mean ATI's own X1650XT (to say nothing of the 1950pro destroying it) is kicking the crap out of it. Is that an early 2006 midrange card?

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9187&pa ge=7

Usually when I read these reviews, the first page that I read is the conclusions. I typically don't have the attention span to read through the whole thing, so this lets me get the drift of the article without sucking up too much time.

The link to the conclusion page: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=9187&pa ge=12

I found it humorous that the first line on that page is "Congratulations on getting this far, folks.".

I doubt that he'll have a serious problem finding employment. There are a few editorial sites that atleast seem to be unbiased. http://www.hexus.net/ springs to mind, as I recall their editors blasted a vendor after a fight ensued over a negative product review. I also doubt that he has any serious need for corporate employment after 16 years at IDG. Also, his credentials will afford him the opportunity to have an independent blog and make some money from it. If anything I'm more likely to go read his material now than I ever was before. Kudos for ethics, regardless of how unpopular they may be. As for who reads tech magazines: my boss does, unfortunately he doesn't bother to ever accomplish any work because thats all he ever does. Personally, if all computer magazines were destroyed my life might be a little easier!

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=4 02
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM zNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2979
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8593

Here are some links to other interesting reviews of these products:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=3 92 tested under Vista 64-bit and shows the 8600 GTS behind the aging ATI X1950 Pro
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM yNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== tested under XP and shows better performance on the 8600 GTS
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8409 tested under XP but not a lot of newer games

This article:

http://dansdata.com/gz060.htm

points to this thing(Thecus N5200):

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6181&pa ge=2

but only you can decide if it is cheap and quiet. It does do usb of some kind, something it calls client mode, but I'm not sure that means it shows up as a disk.

"There's no reason why they couldn't ditch 60 percent of the transistors on the chip, most of which are for legacy modes."

I think 50% of the transistors on a modern cpu are cache, you could call that legacy stuff. But the 60% figure makes no sense. For the real, seldom used, legacy instructions, less time is spend on optimizing them in Microcode. And the microcode does not take THAT much space on a cpu.

Some sources:
Cpu die picture, est 50% = cache
P6 takes ~ 40% for compatibility reasons. And as the total grows, the percentage should DECREASE, not INCREASE. If the amount grows it is for performance reasons, not compatibility reasons.

However when you count the source "XenSource Chief Technology officler" it is not surprising that backwards compatibility gets that much attention. A main reason virtualization exists is to run older platforms so they are compatible.

Sounds like you didn't manage your own expectations very well. Lacking the time or inclination to design a passively-cooled Nehemiah system, I bought one (See http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=606&pag e=3). It's an elegant, silent and reliable living-room PC.

It's not just the UI. The quest-heavy gameplay (as opposed to the Everquest/FFXI grind), the way the classes are balanced, etc. All that stuff is lifted from WoW, and certainly is not dictated by the "original" lore. I should also mention that it *should* have been lifted (although the UI is a bit much). World of Warcraft got it right - LoTRO absolutely should mimic a great deal of what makes World of Warcraft good if they want to appeal to the same large market.

But don't try to tell me that the LoTRO is the "original". That only applies to the setting.

ASUS has just put out an external video card. Maybe keeping those toasters outside the box is easier: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7610

Hey, at least they didn't pull an Alienware by stating in writing that they only send systems to reviewers who give favorable reviews.

S3 is still producing new 3d processors, just not terribly great ones.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5648

After the Gears of War lies: http://img.hexus.net/v2/gaming/screenshots/x360/ge ars_x360_large_1.jpg and the sad reality of what the game actually looks like for real, I hope Bungie is intentionally lowering expectations for the game. Epic's lies about GoW graphics(try to find a REAL direct feed screenshot for the game anywhere) must have put Bungie in a serious ethical bind. Put out bullshit marketing shots or take the honest route and come clean with how the game will actually look. At E3 it looked like they were going with the Epic style high rez bullshit, but the recent much lower quality images look like they are trying to be honest.

So how do the Hexus guys really behave?

If you read the emails without the Bob Crabtree introduction IMO things look totally different.

Alienware never asked to see the review before publication, asked for any changes in the review. Basically after a system was panned based on too high a cost in comparison, Hexus goes back the Alienware and in essence asks for the same system back but with a different graphics card. Alenware refuses, and at the same time makes the statement that based on the last review they will not be sending any more systems for Review. Later in an email Alienware alters this position, but the question is Is this a case of corruption as Bob Crabtree and Paul Dutton state quite forcibly. I think not, basically Hexus was a well respected enthusiast site, where based on the various posts, the regular visitors are quite technically competent, and are likely to build their own systems, or buy from a specialized reseller. It is clear that this is NOT Alienware's target market. They offer a high priced solution, based on a brand. How much value you give to the brand is subject to perspective. It could be argued that if Hexus really does have the large reach it claims it is possible that the alternative solutions they propose are not available in those markets, or not well supported. It also could be argued that the true cost of a system is what you paid for it LESS what you can sell it for when you want to get rid of it. Would the Alienware system have a higher resale value? That is a judgment call, but possibly backed by a company the size of Dell it might. In addition Alienware's target audience is more likely the well healed gamer who simply does not want to spend the money or time to put together a system on their own and are willing to pay a significant premium for that opportunity.

So basically does it make sense for Alienware to focus on a review site like Hexus, where to a certain degree their system being reviewed is used as an example of just how much value for money you can get with either build your own or one of the smaller companies. It is interesting to see that configuration wise there certainly was quite a bit of similarity. It is not unusual for some private system builders to say, look at the Alienware system and I can build you one just like for a lot less.

So is Alienware obligated to support these sites? If they decide that a review that basically dings them based on cost, and it is obvious that they are not going to dramatically reduce prices, is not helpful for marketing, and so they decide to support sites that are more orientated to people buying more "brand name" systems, is that really corruption??

I thought that the comments from Paul Dutton were totally unprofessional. I think the allegations being put on the site could certainly be considered Libelous, especially in light of Alienware providing a professional letter explaining exactly their intent. A blogger at Wired, than takes a position in opposition to Hexus and Crabtree then moves on accusing Wired of influenced reviews.

It is clear that Hexus is taking what could be called a holier than thou position. So just how holier are there.

Did they for instance point out Paul Dutton's relationship with Mesh? http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=39995

While visiting the various forums on the Hexus site, I decided to look at the DVdoctor site, which appears to have both Paul and Bob as partners. There is a rather telling interchange when one of the other Partners John Ferrick takes issue with an article that Crabtree wrote http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7075
Titled:
Microsoft Vista EULA spits in the eye of self-builders worldwide. On DVDoctor Ferrick posts an alternate view http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=39995

What is amazing is to see how quickl

Alienware's official response to this is as follows: "In response to a recent report concerning Alienware's system review process, Alienware would like to take the opportunity to clarify that process. As a matter of long standing policy, Alienware makes no distinctions on who receives a system for review. Alienware offers an equal opportunity to all publications for system reviews. In addition to offering review units to publications, Alienware offers reviewers a unique guidance approach that is available at any point during the review process. The objective of this approach is designed to answer any questions on features, hardware, software benchmarking or any other issues during the course of the evaluation. Furthermore, Alienware does not have access to the review until after publication, but during the review process, Alienware strives to ensure that, if the system is to be compared to another brand, the two systems contain similar hardware specifications - creating an "apples to apples" comparison. Though every effort is made to observe these policies and practices, on occasion, it may be difficult to accommodate the requests of certain publications due to supply limitations or other situations beyond Alienware's control. Alienware has a long standing reputation of excellence in product reviews and we strive to meet those requests when at all possible so that we continue to deliver an unparalleled product reviews experience for our colleagues in the media and, in return, we expect that all media publications exercise fairness and accuracy when reviewing Alienware products." Also, please check out Alienware's response on Hexus, where this all began: http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7113&pa ge=5&search=alienware

Here is a link to the response sent by Brian Joyce, Senior VP of Alienware EMEA, concerning this matter. Hopefully it clears up any misunderstandings generated by this incident.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7113&pa ge=5

Thank you,

Steve Lopez
Support Forums Administrator
Alienware Corporation

The nvidia driver bug still exists... so you need to hack the install to get some nvidia cards to work. Microsoft - do you even test this crap? http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=85252

It really is entirely dependant on the laptop. In their particular test-bed, they saw roughly a 8-9% decrease in battery performance per clock, but other manufacturers:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6547

Claim 7 hours using the Core 2 Duo. Remember there's also a screen, a high-end video-card and other power sucking elements. The Merom runs at 34W idle, while the Core Duo runs 31W idle. There's your difference in a nutshell; anything else is purely laptop design limitations. If that's one of your major selling points, just make it one of your buying criteria, and I'm sure you'll find something that suits. Maybe not the 7-hour laptop from Pegasus, but that should give you some idea of the range available.

And here's the most important thing from the article -- what it looks like:
http://img.hexus.net/v2/systems/Alienware/A517500/ FrontB.jpg

Personally I would wait. We have review board coming in from Abit, the AW9D Max http://www.abit-usa.com/products/mb/products.php?c ategories=1&model=326/ which looks to be a good board that I will be testing out shortly here. Between that and the upcoming Nvidia 590, and ATI's r600 chipsets, if you don't absolutely need a upgrade wait it out a bit longer. DFI's 590 board is looking promising. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5939/

- http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=482
- http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articl eid=861&cid=1
- http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6538
- http://www.mvktech.net/content/view/3357/48/
- http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=287
- http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=33872
- http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/23/review_ati _radeon_x1950_xtx/
- http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/X1950XTX
- http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=954
- http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/radeon-x1950x tx/index.x?pg=1
- http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2007324 ,00.asp
- http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/23/ati_releases_rad eon_x1950/
- http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/375/
- http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/131
- http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2 020&cid=3&pg=1
- http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x19 50_xtx_performance/
- http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/X1950XTXreview /

up to date list: http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/showthread.php?s=& threadid=26526

Here's HEXUS's review.

Loads more reviews out there too. Anyone feel like making a list?

There's no release date for where I am, the UK, and I suspect it'll be the same for most countries not called USA or China. We always have the same thing happen with gadgets, get 'em while they're old. Yet another link to a preview as well.

Here is a review of the eVGA "Black Pearl" watercooled setup. http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6412&pa ge=1

Is that the comic book guy on the bottom-left side of the photo?

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6184

I hadn't been to the site, hadn't heard of it before, but I'm already irritated. First page- Eight ads, seven of which are the motion heavy "Oh god please look at me!" ads. In addition, they've got the moneyword type ads. The days of simply being able to read a review are apparently over. We have to be inundated with copious amounts of "buy me or suffer a seizure." I didn't get past the first two sentences before closing the page in disgust.

The headline states that "Even a $180 Intel CPU can beat an Athlon FX-62 in a number of tests" but if you read the article, the $182 Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.83 GHz) chip wasn't tested. All of the performance data relates to the $224 Core 2 Duo E6400 and pricier chips. The results are impressive, but I think the "$180 chip beats Athlon FX-62" deception should be pointed out to anyone who didn't pick that detail up from RTFA.

There seems to have been a problem with the database.
Please try again by clicking the Refresh button in your web browser.

An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, whom you can also contact if the problem persists.

We apologise for any inconvenience.

Oops does that mean when I pushed refresh 1000 times they'll get 1000 emails?

Heheheh.

*clickclickclickclick*

And now for Conroe vs. AMD's Athlon FX-62 (and presler).

Yes, the FX-62 does lose... badly in several cases..

Processor does not determine whether system supports SLI - chipset and GPU video configuration does so you could use Yonah without using the default Intel chipset. For instance, several vendor have Nvidia SLI validated solutions for Intel procesors. Can't think of any Core Duo ones yet, but frankly it will make more sense to do this with it's 64-bit big brother Core 2 Duo (Merom) this summer. Dell has Intel SLI desktops planned for the 'Conroe' dekstop version this summer so there's really no reason they can't do a laptop - probably will. This will be so much faster than the wimpy Turion chip it won't be funny. Since Conroe is faster than the fastest single socket cpu AMD has It's abundantly clear that Conroe will be the fastest CPU in town when it hits in a few weeks' time. It pulverises all present CPUs in the majority of CPU-based benchmarks.

Intel? Don'tcha just love 'em? Conroe is wiping the floor with AMD's aging Athlon 64 Chips right now at 2.6Ghz. Intel will really put the MEGAHURTS (Geddit?) on AMD with the 3Ghz Core Extreme. And Woodcrest and Merom should be 20% faster.

Intel? Don'tcha just hate them. Faced with the failure of the Netburst, they've dug out the aging Pentium 3, and revamped it a bit. Now they're releasing benchmarks for unreleased chips, claiming they'll be faster than a high end AMD64. Doesn't anyone remember Intel leaking outrageously exaggerated benchmarks long before a chip release to limit sales of a competitor's faster chip that's actually available now.

Apparently you didnt know that Intel released Conroe's to be benchmarked, nice and convienent that they did it on AMD's release day no? :) Good marketting if you ask me..kill all the hype about AMD's release day and make it about Intel... http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5692 And this is with a gimped Intel board running at 677mhz instead of 800, and only 1Gig of ram not 2 Gigs like the FX62...

Hexus Review.

Not entirely on topic, but it is interesting.

Yea, Cornroe is a total joke. Check out the Hexus Review. Or maybe not.