To know if the nvidia driver 81.xx can really support the dual core architecture, why didn't he do the test with Doom3 and Quake4.
As Quake4 is based on the Doom3 engine (and also improved):
-if the dual core is better than the single core for D3 and Q4, then the Nvidia driver can improve the performance of the dual core architecture.
-if it's better for Q4 and not for D3, then the nvidia driver is totally useless.

I have the following system configuration:P4 prescot 3GH,intel 915GAV.Ati x700pro Sapphire 128MB DDR3,1Gb Ram ddr1 2,5CL,80Gb seagate 8MB cache 7200rpm SATA,400watts.I had a little 'contest' with my friend who has the following system:AMD Athlon 64 3000+(veniche),MSI platinum(Nforce4 SLI),6800LE Assus 256MB DDR1,1GB RAM CL3,160GB SATAII 16MB,460Watts cache in the following games DOOM3,HL2 and the follwing benchmarking programms PCMARK2004,SiSoft sandra 2005,3D mark2005 cpu test .In the games we used the resolution 640x480 to minimize the role of GPU and the results are:DOOM3 105,5fps(me) - 106,1(him), HL2 124,6(me) - 124,1(him).In Sisoft Sandra i don't remember exactly the numbers but my system was much MUCH better and in PCMARK 2004 he was better ONLY in HD tests and half of the GPU tests,as for 3DMark 2005... 4180(me) ,3810(him)!We both used the latest BIOS and Drivers editions!..So as it is obvious i don't believe your bencmark results...I know this is not polite, but i would like to be honest with you.I would also like to add that i study computer architecture, so i understand a few things about CPUs.I don't like Intel, but i bought it only because of the PCI express slot last year.I have made a mistake, but i want to be honest and not because i like AMD to believe things that are not true.As you will agree ,my friends system configuration is better than mine,at least..it should be, but it is not according the numbersin tests!..
Maybe you will say that the both of our systems are much different than the system you use in this test,but even if i believe what you write then you will have to admit that your numbers are a matter of the system hole and not the prossesors only.Two days before i changed my graffic card and i boyght Ati X1600XT with ddr2 VRAM(that means 4124 points in 3DMARK2005 instead of 3034 with X700pro)and the results are even higher!So i would like to add that there are some parameters almost nobody can't see,such as hardware combatibily or bad parameters in registry ,or bad mainboard drivers,bad bios valiables etc.(P.S.Excuse me if i made some mistakes, but english is not my mother language)

Superb article - and very good individual testing.

How did you remove the 90 FPS barrier in Battlefield 2? Thanks

As always - great inforamtion. I really like the "real world appication" summary you indicated in the conclusion!

Right On the money. built two gamers last month.

hi!
i'm luc i would like to download serious sam but i dont know wer i have to go!
so plz could u tell me wer to go ?????

os athlon dizimbokam!!

I personally think the Intel processors will never match up with a AMD processors except when there are these new dual core processing XPS systems that are overclocking and have this superior 1 TB of memory, I just think intell should give up and face the fact that AMD is the best, P.S.
I cant run Quake 3 or Halo on this dell with this Celeron D processor( A warning to anyone who is thinking of buying any Intel based machine)

thanks for this review this helped me very much

Actually, I was looking for the same kind of articles in french websites. My conclusion is that your website will now be my reference for my IT choices.

Thanks for your help.

Great article

fair enough that in all the tests conducted gives a result that AMD performs better than intel, however, most forums disregard that a lot of the users does not only use the computer for gaming, and many are not so great with computer parts, therefore, it's some how misleading, makes many users think that "wow, amd is faster' without realising they also need to use the pc for multitaksing and the long term effects of picking either cpu. personally, i believe that in the long term, it's better to get an Intel, as old AMDs are simply too slow. for say a computer that would run for 2-3 years*an average user, not gamers that change parts every6-10 months, an AMD will 'die' earlier than Intel, and also, beside gaming, AMDs runs nothing like Intel, i believe that, just to be fair, tester should also run test results based on older computers, and also, other processing power of the CPU rather than just gamming. from personal experience, AMD64 S939 3200+ is slower than s478 P4 2.8Ghz in video decoding, which is pretty rediculus that a new cpu would be out-run by a technology that is 2 years old.

PORFAVOR, NECESITO SABER CUALES SON LAS 5 PARTES MAS IMPORTANTES DEL CPU

I have P4 dual core 2.8 GHz, 1Gb RAM, GeForce 7300GT 256 Mb and still I can not run Quake 4 on maximum performance! Why?

vujacic_davor@yahoo.com

Very informative, without being hard to understand for those less capable with comptuter lingo.
Clear results and well written.

10/10

Good Work.

hi rate list of amd processor

patel_chintan1985@yahoo.co.in