I recoded 700 mb of avi into mpeg2 - dvd compliant (mp3 -> ac3 )

that took about 15 minutes.

point is, I ran it on X2 3800+ athlon. (chip costed approx 99 EUR )

( using linux, i have to admit )

so what is the big deal here ? ( unless my "test" is not comparable with the article's test, of course..... )

RG

There's no point in comparing your results to theirs if you have no idea what or how they converted. You'd have to have the same source, workflow, and settings for that.

I can't run a full PCmark test on my XP system unless I switch from a classic windows desktop to the mickey mouse UI of XP default theme. I also need to install windows media player 10... Er no chance.

CPU=8204

Memory = 7010

HDD = a poor 4000 (defrag phps?)

Graphics would be in the same ball park (HD3870) but without installing the drm infected media player 10 I cannot get a score.

I have been running a 1600Mhz FSB since November 2006.

E6400@3.2Ghz(Note:dual core) 400Mhz FSB which equates to 1600Mhz (Quad pumped bus) G.Skill PC6400 ram with rather loose 5-5-5-15 timings, and apparently slow Maxtors. Although they don't seem at all slow in use.

@uh?-by AC

Your test is not comparable because you are using an efficient OS. You have an unfair advantage in not using a toy operating system.

was meant tongue in cheek, adnim remark about Linux has some truth depending on the distro if for example it was compiled with this chip type in mind it would have an unfair advantage to the mass produced binary OS of XP. I don't know if there are any stats about it (or any I would trust) but I do know assembly level tweaks can have a devastating punch in some benchmarks. I am willing therefore to believe that once again the hardware is being hampered by the lag in software design which is scarcely surprising considering that most of the industry was completely caught flat footed by the newer chips. It should get better in nine or ten years time just in time for the next big leap in chip technology.