I had the PC just incredibly fast. That thing was so fast, I couldn't keep up at all. I'd start opening programs, and they would already have been opened. Man, it was cool. I could start up any game and play it at max graphics. I got the card for Christmas, so I was one of the first to have it. That was an awesome present.

I think the PC first started slowing down when I installed Zone Alarm Security Suite, but I'm not entirely sure. 1337ssei has a Q6600, and it'* really good even in Vista. He also has 2GB of memory, but it'* DDR1066. We've benchmarked with AIDA32, SiSoft Sandra, and (I know it'* not right for gamers) even real applications just timed. The memory speed actually seems to affect loading time. Is it that the 965 chipset'* bandwidth limit is 12.8? 1337ssei has the R.O.G. Asus board, so it'* a 965 as well.

And finally, I realize the board is at least a little crappy because the first 1 I got was dead. I worked at Fry'* Electronics, so I got it for less. Well... I liked it because it'* a P965 chipset with 10 SATA ports. The problem I'm having with the board is that the gigabit port on the back is an IRQ hog. If that'* disabled, it'* stable.

HA! Remember the days when programs took FOREVER to start, Games were played at
640X480 on voodoo cards(if you shelled out the money for them), and Ram was a buck a meg?
I remember thinking "Wholly jebus! they hit 1 Gigahertz!". At the time i was running a dual processor system consisting of 2 466Mhz Celerons (and they say it couldn't be done!)
My first true dual core system! I miss it now

Now i don't know anything about or have ever used Zone Alarm Security Suite but i can tell ya that the 965P chipset has a bandwidth of 12.8 because it was made to natively support DDR 800 despite the fact that the processor of the time was at 8.5. It was to future proof the chipset. This allowed them to release the 1333 and 1600(?) FSB processors of the future that they haven't finished creating yet. They don't want to release new tech that they are very close to finishing, and then tell people to buy new stuff to support it.

Now i have the 975x chipset and when i got the box (last year) it said "FSB 1333 ready!". I didn't even know they were making a 1333 processor. But seeing how cheap they are becoming i might get one and put my old one (which is actually a 6420-sorry bout that) into a new mobo and make a smaller system. Quad core would be interesting, but i don't like Intel'* setup and i haven't paid much attention to the AMD 4X4. And i don't really need that much power anyway. my 6420 isn't starving my 7900GS, so i'm good for now.....until i get an 8800 GTS 640 and even then it should be good....enough

Rubix

P.*. 10 SATA ports! wholly crap dude! You planning on becoming a off site
back-up storage site for NASA? i'd like to see 10 - 1Terabyte drives in one case
Break the board and catch on fire, But the transfer rates....WOOO!

Would it be freaky if I knew that the day AMD released their 1GHz processor was May 6th, 2001? I didn't look that up, so I hope I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'm just a PC nutcase.

The way AMD is going with their 4x4 is not necessarily as they had described it initially. The memory controller on the AMD processors is better for handling multiple cores, but the multiple cores aren't that good.

Then again, have a look at those benchmarks! Man, they're really good. The reason these CPUs are so "bad" is that the Intels rock so much! So even with the poor memory controllers by which each core has to queue a bit before it can access on-die cache and the system memory, there'* just that much more speed to beat out the pure full throttle of all the AMD cores working at once. Also, Intel seems to shut off parts of the cache to conserve power! There'* a reportedly unnoticeable delay in powering up that cache for use, and even with this millions of times a second, the Intels pull so much ahead. It'* like Intel'* a Bonneville, and AMD is a bucket. At least it'* the common understanding among us all.

But you can still slow down an Intel, and my PC is proof of this. It took about 5 seconds after clicking on an icon on the desktop to have it highlight, but the PC booted up to the welcome screen in no time flat. That'* some monstrous corruption, and it was before overclocking!

I know how to optimize PCs and let them run freakishly fast. I ran a computer company for both repairs and setting up people with lifetime tech support and years of free labor. I have worked in IT to set up websites, manage servers, for some reason do PR, and then obviously put together "office" PCs. The owner of the company just loved spending money on awesome PCs and was a Microsoft partner, so that was fun while it lasted. Never drink alcohol and own a business. :? And then of course there'* the hobby stuff like organizing LAN parties. Man, 1337ssei at his old house had most of the upper floor for himself! He had a special LAN room with 60A outlets every 2 feet and a counter on 3 of the 4 walls. Amazing place. The new house has a basement, so they opted out of that special stuff.

But even with this experience and more goods, I just can't figure out what my PC was doing. I'm going to throw in some Celeron, back up the files, and start over fresh. So much with experimenting with antivirus programs and some shareware image editing software... So the general consensus here is to go the way of the quad core for Adobe, Corel, and Gimp? The graphic artist at the old business had a 7GB Mac with dual 1.8GHz G5 processors. I don't really know how this is substantial information anymore. Skim through and let me know what else I should blurt out.