Thunderbolt 2864

Well, I finally got my new computer parts today, I was fed up of waiting for my AMD GA-M750SLI-DS4 motherboard to arrive so I decided to switch to Intel. Here are my new specs: XFX NForce 780i motherboard - It was the only good SLI motherboard I could get, would have got a 750i instead but apparently Australian stores don't have them in stock... WTF 4GB DDR2 6500 800Mhz Cosair RAM - I wanted the 8500/1066Mhz but the motherboard I'm using doesn't support it Intel Duo Core 2 E8500 at 3.16 Mhz - Wanted to get a E8400 but they ran of out stock Coolermaster Centurion V Costed me like almost $1000 to get these high end hardware. The onboard video sucks, and I plan on doing some gaming so I need a good graphics card. The 280 GTX doesn't look to good at the moment, I may as well wait for the GT200b or just get a 9800 GX2 instead.

I'm planning to get these PC parts soon: Gigabyte GA-M750SLI-DS4 4GB 8500 DDR2 RAM at 1066 Mhz GeForce 280 GTX or wait for the GT200b video card Coolermaster case

Apparently somebody said these are the official specs for the upcoming NVIDIA GeForce card. Sources say it will be 50% faster than the 9800 GX2 (Hope thats true). Too me a 512 bit memory bus looks pretty good, just curious about the clock speeds though. I wonder how this card will fare against ATI's upcoming 4800 series. I never believed that the 9800 series was going to be the true successor of the 8800 series, comparing how bad the 9800 GTX was. I assume this card will finally be the true successor and dominate the graphics market, I guess.

Does SP3 include IE7 or an updated WMP? Sorry if this has been asked before.

I personally have nothing against Uwe Boll but I kinda find it hard to believe he said he would cease to make movies if the petition reached a million names.

Thanks for the replies. Most of the time I use my computer for entertainment purposes only, mainly browsing the internet, watching videos and listening to music and some part time gaming. So I guess a quad core isn't required here?

Everything looks good, though I think a 1500 watt power supply is a bit too much. Your better off with a 1000 watt. I heard the 9800 GX2 reaches its end of life when the 9900 series come out, but if you want the best card at the moment, I'll say go for it.

I'm thinking about upgrading to a quad core from a dual core processor I'm currently using. Is upgrading to a quad core will give any real advantages and any performance jump from a dual core processor? I currently own an AMD Athlon 6000 X2 dual core processor. If you guys currently own a quad core processor, please give me some of your stories. Thanks.

So can you slipstream SP3 into a CD that has SP2 on it already? Thats what I'm curious about.

A lot of people in other hardware forums are disappointed with the 9800 GTX. In my opinion, they should have called it the 8850 GTX or something similar. And this card doesn't even deserve the GTX brand if you asked me. I really hope that GT200 will make up for this disaster.

In other news, GT200 is rumored to be released in July. Here is the source: http://sg.vr-zone.com/articles/NVIDIA_GT20...In_Q3/5684.html Hopefully this is true, and the specs better be good. Hopefully its not going to be another 256 bit memory bus like the G92. If any of you cared, the 9800 GTX is finally out. With GT200 coming out, what was the point of the 9800 series.

Well, here are the benchmarks for the 9800 GTX comparing to other cards: http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?...mp;pagenumber=1 Very disappointing indeed. Even a 8800 GTX can do better. Wasn't expecting a performance jump when I saw the official specs anyway, and NVIDIA should be ashamed of themselves for releasing a card that is inferior to its predecessors. What a joke.

BSOD's, crashing, freezing and any related error is the bane of my existance in computing. I hardly encounter a BSOD while using my computer, they only happen to appear if I did something wrong or my hardware happens to be corrupt or conflicting.

I heard its going to be released next Monday, is this true? I've been waiting for this SP for some time now, Microsoft is so slow.

I like the XP one. I hate the Vista one, its just annoying that you have to scroll down and doesn't even open in a different menu, it overlaps the current one which I find annoying. As for the classic one, its alright but looks kinda plain.

Whats the power supply requirements if you want to run two 9800 GX2 on your system? I'm well aware that you need at least 1000 watts if you want to SLI two 8800's, but what about the 9800 GX2? I've heard good reviews about this card and I'm leaning towards this card, too bad my hopes were dashed when I saw the "official" specs of the 9800 GTX. But what I've heard so far that the requirements for the GX2 are very demanding. I'm also well aware that you can't run a quad SLI for the GX2 and has anti aliasing issues at the moment, due to poor driver support, but of course, we'll have to wait for NVIDIA to write better drivers in the future.

I wonder if this product is going to be a success like the 8800 series. Doubt it, and I for one isn't going to buy it. Just only a 10% increase over the 8800 GTX? Pass. Not even worth my money or time. Stupid NVIDIA, who cares about ATI. Just release a good card already and be done with it. Why did they even bother releasing this crap. They could have just waited for ATI to release their new generation, and given the 9800 GTX the GT200 core, which makes more sense to me. But no. Its all about the money. Pfft.

Ok, I'm already quite convinced that these specs are true. Stupid NVIDIA. I really hope that GT200/100 (Whatever its called) will be better. I guess NVIDIA decided to release the 9800 GTX with these lousy specs because ATI couldn't catch up to them or whatever. And if you asked me, these specs don't even deserve the "GTX" name at all.

Looking at the screenshots it still looks like IE7 which I never liked. I really do hope Microsoft changes the interface with this one, though I won't get too hyped up on that.

Yeah, I hope the 9800 series will live up to my expectations, and I pray that these specs currently being posted are not true. Its kinda unbelievable that NVIDIA would release a higher generation card that has lower specs than its predecessors. As some of you said, the 9800 GX2 should have more of a performance increase since it has 2 GPU's. But we'll wait and see when the benchmarks are published.

With those 3D Mark screenshots posted I'm already quite convinced, unless if somebody was fooling around with us and faked those results then I'll be happy. Until I see the official specs when its released I'm going to be annoyed with these poor specs - and a higher generation hardware should be more superior than its predecessors, not downgrade it.

Well, somebody posted this image: Great NVIDIA, you create a higher generation card that has lower specs than the previous generation. Really, NVIDIA, what a wrong move. I think I'll be keeping my 640MB GTS or get a 8800 GTX when its cheaper. Very disappointing indeed. I wonder if the GX2 is any good since it has dual GPU's. I'll wait for the benchmarks to be released first before making my move. But seriously, I doubt that the 9800 GTX is the card for me. All this wait and it has already been a huge disappointment. And the new ATI cards don't look to appealing either. And games being released these days are kinda demanding, and this is the best NVIDIA could do? Boo.

Well, you NVIDIA fanboys are going to be in for a huge disappointment. If this is the final specs for the 9800 series, I will not buy it. Seriously, the first 8800 series had a 320 bit memory interface, why downgrade it back to the 256 bit? Like they did for the 512 8800 GTS, which was very surprising and very disappointing. Seriously, if NVIDIA is going to release the 9800 series with a 256 bit interface, I will lose a lot of respect for them. And I was told that the 9800 was going to be a 512 bit interface. This is a whole bunch of BS, I'm telling you. All this wait for nothing and I'm going to be disappointed? Not happy.

I doubt it, competition drives prices down. A monopoly usually means higher prices! If BluRay tends to rise their prices because they eliminated the competition, they are insane. Nobody would want to buy one. About $600 for a standalone player? Nah, too expensive. Well back then it was like $1000 - which is even more expensive. With that I could buy a computer. I rather buy a PS3 close to that price, not only it plays BluRay discs and you can play games. Its like BluRay is only for millionaires, not everybody is rich.

It was apparent to me that BluRay would emerge as victorious in this format war. Just because it had higher capacity than HD-DVD was probably the main reason why they were the leading consumer and gained more support from companies. HD-DVD was pretty much fighting a losing battle all along I guess. Now that this format war has ended, hopefully BluRay might slash their prices on their products.