well i was supposed to type PC3200 obviously, 3700+ is out too, but its a lot more cash for not much more.

The hardware firewall is kind like one in a router just a bit more comprehensive. You use your browser to configure and add rules and all that jaz, and as its hardware, doesn't use cpu time. I use a router one, but the nvidia one is running two, not had any problems with it though. Its more transparent than sygate and all that jazz, since its just a bios on your nic card. You should be able to use it as a replacement for sygate.

As for dualcore chips, aren't they exceptionally expensive? like ?500? I think the cheapest is 3800+ X2 and that's like ?300+

i think ill be not getting a dual core then

Yeah, they're expensive all right, but the things are damn fast.

if only i had that kinda money to spend then id consider it but i dont so i wont

i still cant decide what to get mobo & processor wise

i thought dual core had compatability issues to get their full potentional, and for example, windowsxp doesn't support dual core operating like multiprocessing.

Infact, i'm pretty sure in benchmarks, dualcore operating on one core is about even to a single core top end cpu.

Thats one of the reasons microsoft are really getting slated on the xbox2 being debateable how powerful it actually is, its not as good as it sounds (although its still awesome). When everythings optimised, that being a 64bit and a dual core OS, which a 64bit and a dual core application then it slaughters things, but they are pretty rare.

Might be wrong about the dual core support though, but i remember reading not much takes full advantage of it. Of course the single core mode is very good too.

Kind of like the whole SLI debarkal, but SLI is kind of taking off now.

god i hate upgrading lol

i only hate it when either the price of a component drops immediately after i buy it or a newer technology comes out, and that's unfortunately always. There was no mass produced dual core processors even out when i upgraded

XP Pro is needed for mulitple CPU's, even HT. This is a marketing thing rather than a technical thing though. Otherwise support is fine.



Yes. Even as a single core they're on a par with a 3500 or thereabouts.



XBox 360 is a fairly mangled design using three different CPU's.



The peformance varies greatly if the program running is single or multithreaded. Worst case is single threaded where it's just fast. Ideal case is multithreaded where it's very fast. I run distributed computing stuff a lot, so I get the full use of both cores, so single threaded verssus multithread isn't a problem. Sadly though almost all games are singlethreaded. Despite that it's still a nice 60 FPS on Battlefield 2, with everything maxed at 1280x1024.

Max, even if you can't make the price of a dual core now, you can just get a Venice or San Diego core 3500+ and just swap it out for one later.

yeah, i just wanted to point out its not really perfect yet and ?500 is very steep unless you really do some critical app usage.

I'll be getting one when i next upgrade in a year but now, imo far too much money for not much gain beyond server operations, given the choice you'll see far much more gain from a better GPU for what i think max is wanting. I mean 64bit isn't really that implemented yet, and those CPUs have been out for ages. Games especially are slow to pick up on the cpu advancements

star wars lego doesnt work on windows xp 64bit for example

i mainly want a processor for gaming, video encoding, ripping and vhs/tv capping

just get a normal 64 then, its adequet and you won't be paying for something you won't be using... well except the 64bit word length.

so there would be no point in a purchase of this then?

http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/compone ... klinx=3R2R

btw whats the deal with 64bit processor speeds? the best one i can find says its only 2.4GHz, yet werent there faster 32bit processors? or is it the speed is done differently with 64bit?

might get this one

http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/compone ... klinx=3P75

you need to do some reading on processors, GHz means sweet fuck all without a decent architecture to back it up.Read some reviews on the cpus your looking at.

Your X2 only has 512kb cache for example, whereas the 4000+ has 1mb of faster cache memory. Infact that's suprising, i didn't think x2 had anything lower than 1mb of cache memory.

There's some info here, but it only goes up to the FX chips, not the X2:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.htm ... 5&chart=26
It shows how the AMD64 4000+ is most reasonable single core processor below the FX cpus.

From those two cpus, the 4000+ is slightly better for games atm i believe, the 4200 is two 3400 cores, so it won't be faster until you do something that's multithreaded. You won't see anything improved without multithread drivers and software.

Then again, the comparative model to the 4000+ is the X2 3800:
http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/217116

I have a 4000+ in this machine.

okay, from dabs since you don't seem to be looking around, if your going to get dual core, it should be at least this one:
http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/compone ... klinx=3R2S

Anything below is probably not worth it atm for you. Its nearly ?100 extra than the 4000+

There are two X2 cores, Manchester and Toledo, with 1/2meg and 1meg of cache respectively.




All true, but bear in mind that the X2's have other revisions, such as SSE3, less heat, and a faster memory controller. Though this advantages are also present in the San Diego and Venice cores.

i have actually looked around, but dabs have been the best priced and most reliable from what ive seen hence why i keep going back

incidently in the features menu for that X2 it actually says 1meg cache so im not sure which one it is

That's got 1meg of cache per core, as it's Toledo based, same as myself, and universally regarded as the best bang-per-buck of the X2's.

ah so each core only has 512 cache and combined they have 1meg?

grrr, why cant we all just use commodore amigas instead, tehy were so much easier

No, it's 1 meg per core, for a total of 2 meg.

on the one i linked? that cant make its mind up whether its 512 or 1meg?