AMD hit 3 gig SKT F / L1 cpu on sale

Vista wont run properly on my machine it refuses to output widescreen 1680 :1050 and just givers me 1028 by to small

The motherboard manual does make it look like they will run singularly? maybe a couple of us could chip in for a pair and split em lol

[handyman]

Do you use a analogue or digital cable zing?

That gfx card you sold me automatically sets my res at the 12XX x 768 my widescreen monitor loves.

my screen dont have dvi I bought a cheap one as I tested a dearer one prior and saw no difference between the 2 ive tried everything I could new drivers tried to force the screens drivers 32 bit 64 bit ultimates 32 bit business no intel drivers and with intel drivers all with the same results poor res

[keithwalton]

These chips are just opeterons with a gamers tag applied to them.
I'd much rather have some Xeon 5300's.
What graphics chip are you using Zing ? Try powerstrip, thats good for forcing res out of things

cool ill give it a go .x1900xt

[keithwalton]

The x1900xt should be able to handle the res nicely. It is a pain with non standard resolutions as i've had to force mine to do 1366x768 for my lcd tv. You just create a new custom resolution and it should save it so you dont need to run powerstrip anymore

Cool I will give that a go next time I mess

Was thinking about upgrading to core2duo e6600...but am soon put off by the fact its gonna cost £950. And that's with trying to use cheaper options, out of my price range

what were you intending to use?

[Deathmaker]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

No because as well you know high frequency no longer means faster cpus.

I'm sure I've just misunderstood, but how can higher clocks not equal more performance? OK, comparing the clock speeds of differing CPU architectures is like apples to oranges, but saying that higher clock frequencies on the same architecture doesn't equate to a faster CPU is just wrong. That or everyone that overclocks their hardware is living under a fallacy.

I would have liked to see higher speeds before more cores, at least until the majority of software is truly multithreaded.

BTW, Moore's Law (in layman's terms) only says that the number of transistors on an IC will double every 24 months, nothing about clock speeds.

where did I mention anything about it being on the same platform I didnt obviously the faster speeds on the same cpu. However it was relevent when the Prescott was trying for higher speeds and massively more so than AMDs 64 bit cpus but AMD was well ahead so its not just wrong at all. Intels C2D clock speeds are hugely lower than the prescots but the c2d is massively faster so again its not just wrong at all in the big picture its quite correct. I would imagine the E6600 at 2.4 will be faster than the fx 70 @2.6 gig so I didnt say lower speeds same platform cpus are slower than faster ones but did I really need to???

I concede my Moores law paoint but I doubt ill be wrong there in the long run anyway

[dilli-theclaw]

My (admittedly small) brain hurts after listening to that lot

[Deathmaker]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

where did I mention anything about it being on the same platform

It was in reference to:

Originally Posted by CrC-3rr0r

Yeh but so called performance machine will be an average users machine in a couple of years time and hence would joe bloggs be able to use a quad core efficiently or maybe would it be more beneficial for him to have a dual core with twice the cpu frequency - this is really my point and moreover I personally would like to see increases in cpu frequency rather than releases of 4 cores and 8 cores which would be more suited to server applications.

Originally Posted by Deathmaker

It was in reference to:

yes but you cut the quote short. In a couple of years time apps will be properly multithreaded so 4 cores at 2 gig per core would need a single cored 8ghz to compete with it

[Deathmaker]

Yeah, but imagine 4 cores at 8GHz.