Since March I’ve proudly mentioned my 3-core box, which I built, a number of times; in both articles on this blog as well as comments on other blogs. As a quick rundown, the box uses an AMD Phenom 3-core chip on a Gigabyte GA-M720-US3 motherboard. It’s currently running Windows 7 Ultimate RC 64-bit, and I’ve fitted 8 gigabytes of DDR2 800MHz RAM.

Since I used that board in the construction of my box; which, prior to the advent of Intel Core i5 chips, was the only Gigabyte board I know of without built-in graphics capability, it appears to have risen in popularity. (The price has also dropped by around £10 GBP too.)

Since the board is becoming such a great budget-build accessory, I felt that it deserved its own little mention on this blog.

Its on the small-side of ATX-size, with an AMD socket AM2+ processor socket; which means that a Socket AM3 processor will fit nicely into the socket, but will be nevertheless restricted in operation. (Socket AM3 has one less pin than Socket AM2+, so while AM3 fits an AM2+ or even an AM2 socket, (Despite being thus unable to run at its full potential in AM2+ or AM2.) AM2 and AM2+ won’t fit an AM3 socket. – This is probably a good idea too, as AM2, and probably a lot of AM2+ chips too, may well get into difficulties when it comes to utilising DDR3 RAM.)

As far as I am aware, many Phenoms are available in a Socket AM2+ package at the time of writing, so finding a new chip to fit shouldn’t pose a problem. Whilst I run 3 cores on it, the board is capable of allowing a 4-core Phenom to run on it without any problems whatsoever.

It has an nVidia nForce 720D “chipset”: The reason why I put that word in inverted commas is because it isn’t really a chipset at all; more of a single chip. – However it does the business, although doesn’t provide any onboard graphics capability. – On that note, unless you’re using the board to build a server, (Which is a feasible suggestion, especially as time marches on and the board falls out of mainstream popularity.) which you’re only going to control remotely from another computer, then you’re going to have to fit a PCIe graphics card to the board’s single PCIe slot and output graphics from that. No worries there though: I’m currently running a Gigabyte GeForce 7200 GS card on it: 256MBs of dedicated graphics and no problems. The card cost under £25 GBP.

The “chipset” does tend to run rather hot; partially because it has no substantial cooler on it; just a small passive heat-sink. To offset this it’s best to ensure that there is a case fan attached to the box that you’re going to run this board in.

There are also 2 PCIe x 1 slots in addition to 4 PCI slots. I sometimes wonder about PCIe x 1; although a smaller and neater slot, it doesn’t appear to have much advantage to PCI, and the PCIe x 1 expansion cards seem to always be slightly more costly than their PCI counterparts. – Having said that, there’s probably a number of factors that I haven’t accounted for here. Perhaps maybe readers would like to expand on the subject?

Although I’m running 8 GB of RAM, the four memory slots can accommodate up to 16 GB of DDR2 and support the faster 1200MHz DDR2 9600 sticks.

The six SATA ports give it the ability to utilise currently up to 12GB of storage. The BIOS allows for RAID configuration also. There are also a single PATA port, and a floppy port too; should you feel the need for some retro-storage.

On the back panel there are 8 USB 2.0 ports, as well as a 4-pin and a 6-pin FireWire port. Despite there being no eSATA port, there are 2 x PS2 connectors, so the older mouse and keyboard still have their uses here. (I run it with a PS2 keyboard and a USB mouse without any problems.)

The analogue 7.1 audio outputs are from a Realtek  ALC888 codec. There are also optical and co-ax S/PDIF outputs.

A UK computer magazine is so impressed with this board that they have given it their Best Buy award even.

Have you used this board at all? If so; what do you think. Do comment. Also please comment with regards to PCIe x 1 ports too.

Gigabyte GA-M720-US3; an amazing budget-board.

As you may know, or may have gathered by now; I’m a computer builder and an AMD fan. Yes I’m aware that Intel are the market leaders in chip design and that they produce some extremely top-class processors that are pretty much unbeatable at the time they’re released. – There are 2 negatives with new top-end processor technologies, though: -

The first is that the new designs/technologies haven’t been tried, tested, and trusted. Intel geeks will ask;

“So what? If you’re truly a geek you’ll be the first to try out anything new.”

I disagree – You see if I try out any new device I want to make sure that it works well and in the way that I want it to work.

I don’t play computer games; so having the latest and fastest multi-processor chip and the biggest and hottest graphics processor would do absolutely nothing for me. – On top of that there’s the fact that anything that’s a brand new concept is going to cost a fortune, and may initially be full of bugs.

That brings me on to the second point – That being price: What is the point of trying out some new device when I have to pay thousands for it? I’d rather wait a month – If I particularly like the device, for whatever reason. – and only pay hundreds for it; by which time it might also have a new version out in which any gremlins that found their way into the first line have been ironed out. Result = better product for less. Alternatively I could wait a while longer until the product is being produced en-masse and pay even less for it.

Three months ago I built my triple-core Phenom powered box and installed Windows 7 (Beta, then RC.) on it. I could have built almost exactly the same box a year earlier for a greater financial outlay using a buggy Phenom. As it was, had I waited another month until May 2009, the processor would have cost £10 less and the motherboard would have cost me £20 less. – All in all the entire thing lost over £5 value while I was waiting for delivery of the parts and then building it! Personally I’m not into throwing £5 notes away as a rule.

You may or may not agree with my angle on it all. Your personal opinion is, of course, completely up to you, and I have no intention nor right to try to change that opinion. – The purpose of this post, however, is to alert you to some amazing deals that are currently out on some of the tried and tested technologies at this moment, in addition to a few of the newer products on today’s market in the realm of computers and computer construction: -

If, like me, you’re a computer builder and/or someone who likes to upgrade their existing box(es) from time to time, then you’ll always try to keep abreast of the current products, their latest developments, product news, and where you can get some great deals on existing and new technologies. – Both tried and tested, as well as recently released.

I’ve been browsing around lately through some of the online retailers; both my usual suppliers as well as others, and overall I think that some of the best deals available right now can be found at dabs.com.

dabs.com currently have some amazing deals on Phenom processors, in addition to which their flat-screen TV sets are going through a recession-busting price-knockdown too.

I mean things such as an LG Electronics 37LH7000 Full HD 100mhz Freeview set for under £700 inc VAT for example, some great deals on processors, Crucial RAM, even whole pre-built computers! Seeing is believing; so hurry along and see for yourself. Now is an amazing time to grab a bargain at dabs.com; but hurry while current offers last!

Click on this link and your browser will take you straight there. Happy shopping.

I still build desktop computers – and I love building desktop computers. Some people say that the desktop computer is dying out. I don’t agree. Whilst I do agree that, to a certain extent, desktops are becoming somewhat less popular, in favour of laptops and netbooks, I believe that desktops will always have their place for years to come, if not forever.

- So, to the question posed in the title; what do I think are the minimum specifications required for a desktop computer these days? That’s another multi-pronged question. You see it depends on two major factors; one with a sub-factor: -

1) Is the user intending to run a 32-bit or a 64-bit operating system on their desktop?

2)a) Is the user planning to really utilise their machine for all its intended and possible purposes, or b) is the user intending just to use it for email, instant messaging, and general office work?

With the advent of Windows 7 firmly fixed on the horizon and in full view, the need for the latest and greatest hardware in order to run the latest Microsoft operating system is somewhat negated. Windows 7 is a lot less resource-hungry than Vista, as well as being a far better-designed operating system. Nevertheless the hardware that one must by necessity use with it should be in the main Vista compatible; which means a few of the older PCs still working will not be able to run Windows 7.

(I have a friend whose husband has an old computer that I had a hand in upgrading, in that I supplied some secondhand hardware for its renovation. Nevertheless, despite now having 2GB DDR RAM, and other bits, fitted, it doesn’t like Windows 7, even though it now runs XP totally satisfactorily.)

If the user is planning to upgrade to Windows 7; or to run the Windows 7 RC up until either the RTM version appears, or until it starts to reboot every 2 hours on March 1st 2010, then the above should be taken into consideration. I do, however, suggest that anyone who buys or builds a new computer should run a 64-bit operating system on it. All modern processors produced today are 64-bit capable, and it seems a shame to waste available resources and at the same time limit the machine’s capabilities by running a 32-bit operating system.

However, that brings me to question 1 above: If I’m building a computer for a customer I give them what they want, rather than what I think they should have. Whilst it’s true that I do advise the customer; and I can be quite persuasive at times (Ex-salesperson.), at the end of the day it’s the customer’s money and the customer’s choice.

So if they are positive that they are never going to run a 64-bit operating system, despite their processor and the rest of their hardware being fully capable of doing so, then that’s a good excuse to skimp on the RAM: If ‘intending just to use it for email, instant messaging, and general office work only, with a 32-bit operating system, then 2GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM should be easily enough; whether they’re running XP or Windows 7.

If the customer insists on running Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, or Ultimate edition; whether or not it’s just to try and look “cool”, then the processor will need to have certain features: -

Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate edition have a feature called XP Mode: XP Mode requires your computer to have at least 2GB RAM, which we were intending to fit anyway, as well as to be running a processor that has Chip-Level Virtualisation built into its architecture: In other words you’ll need an AMD processor that supports AMD-V, or an Intel processor that supports Intel VT. – This will need to be taken into account.

Otherwise, just for for email, instant messaging, and general office work only, an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 would appear to be just the job as a processor in this case.

In an identical case where the user intends to run a 64-bit operating system; 4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM would be an idea; just to give it that bit extra oomph, considering the extra 2GB will only add around £20 to the price at today’s prices.

Then we come to 2)b) The user who wants to do everything possible with their PC:-

A 32-bit operating system is going to be a limitation in this case; so 64-bit is decided by default. Since it’s 64-bit; stick as much of the fastest RAM possible in as the motherboard allows why not? Use a motherboard that will take an Intel Core i7 processor running as much DDR3 as possible.

In the main, 4GB is the most that Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit uses under normal circumstances, but with the price of RAM as low as it is, and even DDR3 is dropping in price slowly, whack a good few gigs in why not? – Even if it’s just to prove that a 64-bit system can see it.

(I have a box running 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate RC with 8GB DDR2 800MHz RAM in it. I’ve only managed to get it to use 5GB under pressure as yet.)

Now to the graphics card: Graphics cards these days shouldn’t be less than 250MB in my opinion. – That’s not just because Windows 7 requires that much for the Aero Interface; it’s because of the demands made on the graphics at some point by almost everything these days. – So a 250MB card as a minimum, 500MB if you prefer, 1GB+/ quad SLI, whatever, if you or your customer are a gamer; depending on whether the machine’s for you or to sell on.

Just a minute… Wait, wait, wait: We have a minimum-spec office or OAP’s machine here, and a gamers’ box too. What if the customer/user isn’t an OAP/office worker or a gamer?

Well for me, for instance: I run a blog. I need at least 2 working computers; just in case 1 goes down. I’m doing most of my work on a dual-core AMD-powered machine with a 32-bit XP operating system and 2GB DDR2 667MHz RAM. The other box I’ve already mentioned. It has an AMD Phenom triple-cored CPU, 250MB graphics, and I’ll be using it later in the year with Windows 7 Home Premium RTM as my main box, while the XP box becomes the spare. Yes I’ll keep XP on it until 2014, and if it’s still working/not been dismantled/sold by then I’ll install Windows 7 on it and relegate it to the bedroom. I would imagine that Windows 7’s successor will at least be in beta by then.

To attempt to conclude, then: Anything from an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 upwards, depending upon discretion, is currently acceptable for a processor in my opinion. Single-cored processors are out. I will never ever use another single-cored processor if I can possibly avoid doing so. DDR2 (667MHz) upwards is OK for RAM, once again using discretion. Graphics should never be anything under 250MB.

I use that as a guide at present; although next year (2010) it might be a complete new ball-game? Who knows?

I will say again, though, as a final point, there’s no reason, unless you have a rather old computer, not to run a 64-bit version of the Windows 7 operating system. I positively encourage everyone to do so if they can. It’s time we ushered in the 64-bit computing age. 32-bit is becoming lame and is old-hat. – Maybe that would be a good name for a retro 32-bit Linux distro: Old Hat? The mind boggles…

Today I had a rather strange experience with Windows Seven: -

Before I ever powered up my Windows 7 64-bit machine today I remembered that I’d bought a new graphics card and another 4GB DDR2 RAM for it yesterday, so I thought I’d install it all today and get that out of the way.

I’ve set up a temporary guest computer; my old main computer, built on a barebones box, that I had a lot of problems with earlier in the year. – Which prompted me to build my Windows 7 box in April and substitute it for the troublesome box. I was going to give the old box away, or scrap it, but since I found a new PSU that I didn’t think I had, I fitted it to the box of trouble and it’s now working fine.

That left me with 3 computers; and I only really need 2 normally, so I decided that I’d set it up in my bedroom so that I could work on it if I was ever so ill I found it almost impossible to sit at this desk and work again, as I have been once already this year for a single day when I had the mega-cold earlier.

Just before I did so my friend used it from the test-bench one day when she dropped round. I found this rather handy, as I didn’t have to stop what I was doing, give up my swivel-chair, and lose my train of thought, while she worked on one of the comps on my desk. (Yes I have a rather large desk. It has a work-space amidst 2 computers, a VHS video recorder, digi-box, small filing unit, Fergusson stereo tuner unit from the 1970s, my old TV that died last year due to age (I use it as a shelf.), 2 monitors (1 CRT and 1 TFT.), 7 speakers, 2 telephones, a router…) Rather she just switched it on and used it without disturbing me at all. – So it’s still set up on the test bench; but It’ll have to be moved into the bedroom soon as it’s taking up space that I could do otherwise with.

- The point of telling you all this is, before I go totally off track and lose the thread, is that my guest computer needed a graphics card. It had been running the 64MB onboard graphics dealt with by the chipset, and was a bit lame on some applications picture-wise. The plan was to use the existing graphics card from the Windows 7 setup in the guest-box, as it was keeping my base score down to 3.0. It had been used in more machines than I care to remember, and was like the “I need a graphics card…I know; I’ll use…” card. – Which was exactly what happened when I built the Windows 7 box.

There was nothing wrong with it, and it would have stayed in the Windows 7 box had it not pulled the overall performance-score down: When I’m scoring 6.3 with an AMD Phenom processor, 7.1 with the RAM, and 5.7 with the primary hard-drive, it’s a let-down when the nVidia GeForce 6200LE graphics card scores 3.1 for graphics and 3.1 for gaming graphics.

I’d bought a new card with 256 MB dedicated DDR2 onboard, rather than it having to pinch it from system RAM like the old one did. It wasn’t a particularly expensive card, a GeForce 7200GS, and like the old one it had VGA, DVI, and TV outputs. The reason why I chose that card specifically was because it was cheap but better than what I had, and it bore the Gigabyte trademark, as did the motherboard. I thought that was fitting.

To cut a long story short, or should I say to cut an even longer story short, it bumped my base score up to 3.5 after I’d fitted it and got the machine back in action: Scoring 3.5 for gaming graphics and 4.0 for graphics. – It’s not brilliant but it’ll do. The only games I’ve ever played on that box are chess and solitaire anyway since I built it; so no worries.

I fitted the RAM; using up the 2 remaining RAM slots by installing 2 x 2GB DDR2 800MHz. I was a bit peeved that it wasn’t exactly the same manufacturer as the first two sticks I’d installed; but the specs were identical anyway, and it worked well alongside the existing fitted RAM too. – Eventually.

‘Reams of text and not even a single mention of the Windows 7 system recovery disk. Don’t worry; I’m coming to that: -

First, a short commercial break:

I can’t fully explain why or how this happened; but when I powered up I got the message “NTLDR is missing. Press Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart.” I did, and same message. How could NTLDR vanish from my primary hard-drive while the power was turned off? It beats me; but nevertheless it did, and as a result Windows wouldn’t boot.

So now the question at hand, and the circumstance that led me to start writing this article: -

What do you do if your installation of Windows 7 Beta (Build 7000) and/or Windows 7 RC (Build 7100) won’t start?

Answer: You use a system repair disc.

Where do I get hold of one of those?

Answer: You make one. Here’s how: -

Load a blank writable CD into your DVD-ROM drive. Click Start>Control Panel>Backup and Restore. In the sidebar on the left you’ll see “Create a system repair disk”. Click on it. Select the drive with the blank writable CD in it and click “Create disk”.

Windows 7 writes the disk; it took just over a minute on my system, and tells you how to label it. – That’s all there is to it. Keep this disk safe and undamaged, as it could be very useful later on. If you don’t have one and your Windows 7 system crashes and/or won’t boot then you could have a few nasty problems.

Fortunately I had made one earlier in good girl-guides/Blue Peter fashion; and it saved my system from a reinstall etc: -

Insert the system repair disc into the optical drive on power up and before the BIOS screen appears, select the boot order to boot from CD-ROM. (This can be done by pressing F12 as soon as possible and then selecting CD-ROM in the boot menu that appears with most not-too-ancient motherboards.) You may have to press any key to boot from CD after you select F12 and press enter. Windows takes a while to load files and to boot into repair mode.

Select language, (Default is English (United States) and keyboard input method. (I use United Kingdom for obvious reasons.)

System Recovery scans for Windows 7 installations that are already installed. You then have the option to “Use recovery tools that help fix problems starting Windows, or to “Restore your computer using a system image that you created earlier.” (Using the backup feature.)

I haven’t yet tried the second option; but if you select the first option, you’ll be presented with several system recovery options: -

1) Startup Repair. Automatically fix problems that are preventing Windows from starting. – I ran this twice, and suddenly NTLDR was back and the system booted without a problem.

This is simply amazing. I don’t know exactly what it does; I only know that it works. – Like a miracle-startup-pill.

2) System Restore. Restore Windows to an earlier point in time.

Good thinking Microsoft! System Restore is now available pre-boot.

3) System Image Recovery. Restore your computer using a system image you created earlier. (From backup- again)

More good thinking Microsoft!

4) Windows Memory Diagnostic. Check your computer for memory hardware errors.

Brilliant idea!

5) Command Prompt. Open a command prompt window.

Now why couldn’t they have made the system repair process this user-friendly in the first place?

‘Better late than never. – And this is quite awesome compared to how it used to be.

The only drawback I see is having another disk. What if your system repair disc gets lost or damaged? It won’t hurt to make two I suppose.

I wonder if it’s possible to store the data on a USB device and boot from that? Maybe someone will eventually come up with a hack.

- It’s still not perfect, but it’s vastly more user-friendly than it was with XP.

Finally then: If you’re running Windows 7 and haven’t made a system repair disc; now is the time to do so.

If you have any more information on this matter, or anything you’d like to add, then please do so by commenting. We’re all Windows 7 newbies to some extent right now (May 2009), so the more information at hand the better.

(Remember to use safe computing practices at all times; and if you can, get the 64-bit version of Windows 7 when it RTMs. Let’s lead the world into the 64-bit age. See my previous post.)

In 2003; AMD introduced the first 64-bit processor targeted at the average consumer, the single-cored Athlon 64, onto the market. Six years later, and now virtually all processors produced at the present moment are 64-bit capable. Also most processors used these days have 2 or more cores, enabling approximately 1.7 times or more of the functionality of a single-cored CPU.

Meanwhile, leaving the minority operating systems, such as Linux, and Mac osX – which only runs well on an Apple computer anyway, aside; between 2001 and almost up to the present day the market leader of operating systems, namely Microsoft Windows, has in reality been fairly stagnant. Despite the release of Windows Vista in January 2007, which in many ways went down like a lead balloon from the offing, most people have been using Windows XP since 2001. (Myself included.(Well, since January 2002 to be exact. – I stayed with Windows 98SE until I managed to afford a new computer. – Things were a bit tighter then.) Back in the days when XP was launched, everyone was using a single-cored processor that was only 32-bit capable. In those days 250 megabytes of RAM was considered a vast amount, a 60GB hard-drive had a massive amount of space on it, the Intel Pentium 4 was the latest cutting-edge CPU, (The new machine I bought in 2002 had a first-generation P4 2.8GHz processor installed.) 32MB graphics were considered the norm, and 64MB were considered leading-edge… Nobody but the extreme-geeks wanted 64-bit operating systems; and therefore most of the XP CDs sold were 32-bit. 32-bit became the norm, became known. It was taught that computers went from 4-bits in the 1960s and 70s, (Commodore Pet) to 8-bits (16-colours!) in the 1980s, to 16-bits (DOS) and then to 32-bits (Windows 95 et al.) in the 1990s. – And from there a general feeling amongst the less-computer-literate that this was the ultimate destiny, that technology had no need to progress further than that. Windows 98SE became replaced by the excuse for an operating system known as Windows ME, and shortly afterwards by Windows 2000, which combined the advances made in ME with the lessons learned from ME: The limited and insecure FAT32 file-system which Microsoft had previously hailed as the way ahead, was falling out of favour, and customers had the choice now of using either FAT32 or the far superior NTFS disk-formats. Not far down the road came XP; which built on the lessons learned from 2000, and XP and 2000 were the in-thing. Many people stuck to using 98SE and ME, in addition to those using 2000 and XP.

Support for 98SE and ME was eventually discontinued; but to this day some die-hards still use those operating systems, despite their now being a massive security-risk both in terms of the user and of the rest of the internet-community as a whole. XP became the principle operating system, even holding out extremely well against the newer Windows Vista, which flopped from launch. – This caused consternation among many of the Microsoft faithful; many of whom switched to Linux and Apple’s Mac in protest.

Despite all this; the remaining Microsoft community – which only shrank in size by a few percent due to defectors to Linux and Mac – stayed in the 32-bit frame of mind. A few took up 64-bit computing with Vista after SP1. Even fewer took up 64-bit computing with XP after SP2 and 3.

Meanwhile; Apples Mac community; its numbers swelled with Vista detractors, was already completely 64-bit. Linux distros appeared utilising the 64-bit potential of modern machines also. Microsoft people either didn’t appear to know or care about 64-bit computing: 32-bit computing appeared good enough so why change? There was and still remains a danger of getting stuck in a rut.

What’s the big deal about 64-bit computing then? Why should I want to use a 64-bit operating system as opposed to a 32-bit operating system?

Let me ask you this: (I know a question in answer to a question may be considered lame; but bear with me here.) Why would you want to use a 32-bit operating system as opposed to a 16-bit operating system? Because 32-bit has more capabilities, right? – Like 32 million colours as opposed to 256 colours…

No I’m not saying that there’s several trillion colours in 64-bit…. Well there may in fact be so; but it’s a bit pointless to use that as a reason to upgrade, as the human eye only sees just over 24 million different colours. The main thing about 64-bit operating systems is that they enable your computer to work with more memory. (RAM) – Vastly more in fact: These days applications are demanding more and more RAM and other system resources to be in use on your computer in order to run them. – But there’s a limit to how much RAM you can use per system. If you’re running a 32-bit operating system you can use up to around 3.5 gigabytes of RAM. In 2001 that must have seemed like a colossal amount of memory. These days 2 gigabytes is standard. – On a computer with a 32-bit operating system that is.

I’m typing this on a computer that I built in December 2008. This computer has 2 GB RAM, an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 dual-core 64-bit capable processor… Yet as with most such computers belonging to most people, it’s currently running a 32-bit XP Professional operating system.

The computer next to it, which I built in April 2009, has 4GB RAM – and today I bought another 4 GB RAM which I intend to fit soon. It has an AMD Phenom triple-cored 64-bit-enabled processor and is currently running Windows 7 RC 64-bit.

My point is that this year a new Windows operating system is going to be launched. – But this is no Vista: This one’s Windows 7. It works almost flawlessly and neither I nor several of my online acquaintances can find anything to complain about with regard to it. – And this is before it’s even been fully released! – OK ‘straight to the point: Which is that 32-bit is so 1990s and 2000s. Next year we’ll be entering the 2010s and, as usual, technology will be moving on at its standard fast-pace.

Windows 7 will be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions. If you have a 64-bit capable computer and buy and/or load 32-bit Windows 7 you won’t be doing yourself any favours. When Windows 95 was released it was possible to run a 16-bit operating system on a 32-bit computer designed to run Windows 95. – Try running one of today’s apps in a 16-bit environment though. It wouldn’t run. Even if it did run; the machines that were around when 16-bit was the in-thing would hardly be capable of running a single app that’s used today. (I tried running XP Home on a computer powered by a Pentium 1 processor. (1996/7 IIRC.) It was 32-bit capable so it ran: Badly and tediously slowly. It took 1/2 hour to boot…)

In a few years your 32-bit operating system won’t be capable of running the applications of the time properly and in multiples, because they’ll need more memory than is able to be utilised by a 32-bit operating system. Remember; a 32-bit operating system can only see about 3.5 gigabytes at one time. A 64-bit operating system can see and use over 16 million terabytes of RAM though. That should be all you need for a few years yet.

Do yourself a favour: When you move up to Windows 7; get a 64-bit version of the operating system (Provided that your system is 64-bit capable.(Most systems built in the last 2 years are 64-bit capable. If unsure ask your retailer or an experienced geek.)) It’s time everyone snapped out of this 32-bit mentality; it’s so yesterday. – It’s like choosing to drive a Reliant Robin in favour of a Porsche.

Let’s all break the mould and go 64-bit. I intend to do so; and it’s in everyone’s best interests to do likewise.

Do you agree?

Until now; AMD’s farcical Phenom chip has been far outshone by pretty much anything and everything produced by Intel; The first Phenoms consumed power like a fish takes in water, as well as being affected by a Translation Lookaside Buffer bug. Although I’m an AMD advocate; the Phenom story so far has been a bit of a joke.

This is AMD’s third attempt at the Phenom; and it looks like third time lucky, as the new Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition looks like something at least half-decent: It’s had a large revamp in the architectural department; notably as regards the 45nm transistors and an extra 4 MB of level 3 cache; bringing the total up to 6MB.

Using smaller transistors has greatly reduced the heat output of the new chips; with the result that they can work at a higher frequency than their predecessors. Now running at stock speeds of 3GHz, the new processors still use less power.

Another bonus is that the Phenom II is pin-compatible with the original Phenom, works with DDR2 RAM, and will directly replace its ancestor in a socket AM2+ motherboard capable of running a 125W CPU. – A BIOS update may well be required nevertheless.

This may be where the Phenom has the edge over Intel’s offerings. Upgrading to the Intel Core i7 CPU range entails buying and fitting not just a new processor; but also a new motherboard, cooler, and new, more expensive DDR3 memory too.

AMD are  launching the 3GHz 940 Black Edition along with the 2.8GHz Phenom II X4 920.

Maybe AMD are at last catching up with Intel? What’s your take on it?

When AMD have setbacks then it’s usually not a good sign for the chipmaker that’s currently struggling to stay anywhere near Intel and not lose any more ground to them. The news today is that AMD appear to have a setback, in that they’ve shelved development of the 45nm-based Fusion processor, putting its release date back to 2011, if they actually do develop it at all, from the original release schedule of 2010.

There are several ways of looking at this: The main one being ‘better late and working than early and a fiasco’, a fiasco as occurred with the initial release of the Phenom, which subsequently allowed Intel to surge ahead and lengthen their lead.

Right now, AMD are seemingly the underdogs by a huge margin: Intel are rolling in money and surging ahead, while AMD are in debt and still playing catchup after their Phenom farce: A development marketed with best intentions using a new core architecture technology that emptied their coffers whilst on development and when the release date came there was just that one bug that needed to be ironed out. Naturally, when Intel replied by stapling 2 dual-core dies together, upping the architecture, and selling it at an increased price compared to AMD’s offering, everybody bought Intel’s product without any bugs in it. AMD were left behind to pick up the pieces and try to fathom out what went wrong while Intel; loaded with the proceeds from their victory, developed better, faster, offerings.

AMD’s senior vice president Randy Allen said at today’s launch of AMD’s 45nm Shanghai-cored Opteron processor that it was "the best server processor on the planet". – A side swipe at Intel who had said that their new Core i7 is the ‘fastest processor on the planet’.

Fusion was originally scheduled for 2009, but now appears to have effectively been cancelled according to some commentators. If that is the case than that is a setback; because if Intel produce 32nm processors in 2009 then AMD have their work cut out for them and won’t be able to catch up until at least 2011 by all analyses.

AMD aren’t finished yet though; so don’t go writing them off just yet as they live to fight another day. Do you agree?

Chipmaker, Advanced Micro Devices, has launched its first 45nm ‘Shanghai’ Opteron chips for servers and workstations.

It also has a forthcoming range of desktop processors built on 45nm technology codenamed "Deneb". Both of these ranges are constructed using a process called "immersion lithography". AMD claim that this fabrication technique will lead to ‘dramatic performance and performance-per-watt gains.’

The new Opterons will have an increased clock speed due to this fabrication process; rising from 2.3 GHz with the current Barcelona-cored Opterons, to 2.7 GHz with the Shanghai-cored chips. The current Phenom range, which run at up to 2.6GHz, may also benefit from this upward-clocking in their next incarnation.

The new Shanghai-cores also benefit from increased cache-size, as well as from HyperTransport 3.0, which increases bandwidth considerably. Let’s hope they vastly outperform the Intel competition as well as the previous/current Phenom CPUs, or AMD is going to have a hard time on its hands and will probably end up cutting retail prices to offer a cheaper though lesser alternative to the Intel  developments.

AMD also plan to introduce a new six-cored range of chips called "Istanbul" sometime next year (2009). As for Deneb; AMD will probably be launching them before the end of 2008.

The Question is can AMD ever get ahead of Intel again? Can they even catch up; and if so is this their chance? What’s your opinion?

Another thing is that Intel will soon be facing antitrust charges for allegedly using unlawful methods to keep ahead of AMD in the marketplace. European regulators could bring the charges forward according to the Wall Street Journal.

“We are continuing to cooperate and really don’t know what the commission will do,” Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloytold the Journal. “We believe we operate within the law.”

Intel was accused by the Europen Comission of illegal practices last year; selling chips below cost and offering huge rebates to customers.

The company is also facing a formal investigation by the US Federal Trade Commission.

Intel has already been fined over £12 million by the Korean Fair Trade Commission. Intel are set to appeal; but all this litigation can’t be all that good for the chipmaker.