Screenshot from Event Viewer. No reason why it crashed.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Windows 7 Previewed - Everyday Use - A little bug
Found this bug when I was dragging the Task Manager around. Don't ask me why I did that. It just just for fun. Then the monitor blinked a few times, after that, 7 beta told me that the drivers has crashed and has successfully recovered. I'm using an 8600GT, btw.
Screenshot from Event Viewer. No reason why it crashed.
Screenshot from Event Viewer. No reason why it crashed.
Windows 7 Previewed - Everyday Use - Customizing
Right clicking on the desktop in Vista was quite like XP. And like XP, it has those features, albeit in weird locations. If you used XP, and switched to Vista, you will know what I am talking about. However, in 7 beta, things are more organized.
Right click on the desktop bring up -->
Yup. All the often used features are here. No need to go Properties->advanced->Change Resolution. Here, you just open up Screen Resolution, which will open -->
Very easy. Even beginners will like it. Unlike Vista's horribly badly organized one, this one is more elegant.
Personalizing brings you this menu.
All the often used features are here. Very convenient. Microsoft has learned from its mistake in Vista.
Right click on the desktop bring up -->
Yup. All the often used features are here. No need to go Properties->advanced->Change Resolution. Here, you just open up Screen Resolution, which will open -->
Very easy. Even beginners will like it. Unlike Vista's horribly badly organized one, this one is more elegant.Personalizing brings you this menu.
All the often used features are here. Very convenient. Microsoft has learned from its mistake in Vista.
Windows 7 Previewed - Everyday Use - MSN
For those who are like me, who surfs the net and opens a lot of MSN windows, you may be disappointed. I have a tendency to chat with a few people at a time, and so my taskbar will be cluttered with tons of icons. Not in 7 though. Every window under that program will be in that icon.
Have a look at the following screenie..
Hovering your mouse icon over that icon bring up what is happening under that program. As you can see, the monkey icon is my WLM's main window. The other two is my current chatting partners. This is all done real time. Hovering you mouse over each mini window does this.. -->
Yup, it opens up the actual program. Not bad at all. You will need a reasonably fast CPU to tackle that,as well as some RAM. I recommend 3GB.
Talking of MSN, 7 beta does not come with WLM. You will have to download it yourself. Downloading WLM will give you WLM9, which in my opinion, is still not quite perfect. Microsoft will still need to finetune WLM9 to make it popular among people. Serious.
Updated : As you can notice from the last screenie, the minimized program no longer clutters up the right hand corner, instead gathering under that one icon. Very nicely done. The right hand corner seems to only fit important Windows applications. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Have a look at the following screenie..
Hovering your mouse icon over that icon bring up what is happening under that program. As you can see, the monkey icon is my WLM's main window. The other two is my current chatting partners. This is all done real time. Hovering you mouse over each mini window does this.. -->
Yup, it opens up the actual program. Not bad at all. You will need a reasonably fast CPU to tackle that,as well as some RAM. I recommend 3GB.Talking of MSN, 7 beta does not come with WLM. You will have to download it yourself. Downloading WLM will give you WLM9, which in my opinion, is still not quite perfect. Microsoft will still need to finetune WLM9 to make it popular among people. Serious.
Updated : As you can notice from the last screenie, the minimized program no longer clutters up the right hand corner, instead gathering under that one icon. Very nicely done. The right hand corner seems to only fit important Windows applications. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Windows 7 Previewed - Intro
Windows recently released their replacement for Vista. Replacement, you may ask. Vista is only 2 years old plus, and why so fast a replacement? Well, for those of you who are old enough to remember when Microsoft released Windows ME in 2000. 3 years later, XP came. In essence, Windows ME was a white elephant. Same case here. Vista's replacement is coming sooner than what you think. I predict that it should hit stores some time next year.
After a grueling through-the-night download, I burned the ISO and got myself the Windows 7 DVD installer.
Enough said about that. Let's have a look at what Microsoft has to offer here.
The new desktop. First thing you will notice is the revamped taskbar. In my opinion, it is so much better than the cosmetic upgrade of Vista. Now, you will no longer see the full name of the running program. All you get is an icon. It does indeed make 7 look so much more sleek.
Yup, Win+Tab still brings you this. Although I am not quite a fan of Vista, but I must say that this does look good. Not too sure on system stability though..
The rating system returns. First introduced in Vista, the built in rating tool gives the user a rough idea on how fast the system can cope with Vista/7. I scored 3.0 because my HDD was an IDE type, and with a 2MB buffer, dragged the score even lower. I'll use a SATA drive if I have any spare..
The "new" My Computer. Noticed that now USB drives has the cool blue bar to show its capacity? Vista did not have that. Kudos to Microsoft for listening to its feedbacks.
The new Paint. It won't kick Photoshop in the ass yet, but it does look a little more feature packed that the previous versions.
I'll cover more in depth stuff in my next posts.
After a grueling through-the-night download, I burned the ISO and got myself the Windows 7 DVD installer.
Enough said about that. Let's have a look at what Microsoft has to offer here.
The new desktop. First thing you will notice is the revamped taskbar. In my opinion, it is so much better than the cosmetic upgrade of Vista. Now, you will no longer see the full name of the running program. All you get is an icon. It does indeed make 7 look so much more sleek.
Yup, Win+Tab still brings you this. Although I am not quite a fan of Vista, but I must say that this does look good. Not too sure on system stability though..
The rating system returns. First introduced in Vista, the built in rating tool gives the user a rough idea on how fast the system can cope with Vista/7. I scored 3.0 because my HDD was an IDE type, and with a 2MB buffer, dragged the score even lower. I'll use a SATA drive if I have any spare..
The "new" My Computer. Noticed that now USB drives has the cool blue bar to show its capacity? Vista did not have that. Kudos to Microsoft for listening to its feedbacks.
The new Paint. It won't kick Photoshop in the ass yet, but it does look a little more feature packed that the previous versions.I'll cover more in depth stuff in my next posts.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 vs Pentium D 820 showdown - Gaming Tests
Well, here is the final part. (Or is it?). Real world tests. aka gaming. From here, one can tell how good a processor really is, not just by how fast it performs in synthetic tests.
Here, I used Half Life 2 as a benchmark. As you can see, the stock E4600 almost reached 200fps, using a 8600GT as the graphics card. After overclocking, it managed 211.98fps, which is rather impressive. The Pentium D, on the other hand, managed 131.58fps at stock speed, while it managed 138fps, after overclocking. Just a mere 7fps gain.
Other than Half Life 2, I also used Call Of Duty : World At War as a benchmark. Due to the fact that the game is very graphic intensive, none of my 2 chips managed to get an average of 40fps for smooth gaming. The stock E4600 managed 20fps, while after overclocking it managed 22fps. The stock Pentium D, other the other hand (literally!), managed an average of 19fps. After overclocking however, it did not ran the game. This show that the 8600GT does not have enough power to play World at War at 1600x900. If you toned it down to 1024x768 or 800x600, you should be fine.
What is a 3D test without 3DMark? Well, I have no idea. Here, I did 2 different resolutions. One at 1600x900, the other at 1024x768. As you can see from the results, the E4600 totally annihilates the Pentium D, even after the Pentium D was overclocked. This is another example of synthetic tests.
Lastly, I used Need For Speed:Carbon as a benchmark. You may ask why I used this particular game. My reason is simple. The latest NFS, which is Undercover, is rather buggy and the framerates keep dropping for no reason. Therefore, I used a game which has no problems. I wated to use ProStreet, but I could not find my disc. Anyway, from the benchmark, it is quite clear that the E4600 pawns the Pentium D again.
Well, what is my conclusion? Simple. Want a fast computer, and yet consumes less power? Get the Core2Duo range. You won't regret it. Make sure to look out for this logo the next time you go shopping.
Maybe, just maybe, I will update this post, with a comparison with an AMD X2 5000 Black Edition. Just maybe.
Here, I used Half Life 2 as a benchmark. As you can see, the stock E4600 almost reached 200fps, using a 8600GT as the graphics card. After overclocking, it managed 211.98fps, which is rather impressive. The Pentium D, on the other hand, managed 131.58fps at stock speed, while it managed 138fps, after overclocking. Just a mere 7fps gain.
Other than Half Life 2, I also used Call Of Duty : World At War as a benchmark. Due to the fact that the game is very graphic intensive, none of my 2 chips managed to get an average of 40fps for smooth gaming. The stock E4600 managed 20fps, while after overclocking it managed 22fps. The stock Pentium D, other the other hand (literally!), managed an average of 19fps. After overclocking however, it did not ran the game. This show that the 8600GT does not have enough power to play World at War at 1600x900. If you toned it down to 1024x768 or 800x600, you should be fine.
What is a 3D test without 3DMark? Well, I have no idea. Here, I did 2 different resolutions. One at 1600x900, the other at 1024x768. As you can see from the results, the E4600 totally annihilates the Pentium D, even after the Pentium D was overclocked. This is another example of synthetic tests.
Lastly, I used Need For Speed:Carbon as a benchmark. You may ask why I used this particular game. My reason is simple. The latest NFS, which is Undercover, is rather buggy and the framerates keep dropping for no reason. Therefore, I used a game which has no problems. I wated to use ProStreet, but I could not find my disc. Anyway, from the benchmark, it is quite clear that the E4600 pawns the Pentium D again.
Well, what is my conclusion? Simple. Want a fast computer, and yet consumes less power? Get the Core2Duo range. You won't regret it. Make sure to look out for this logo the next time you go shopping.
Maybe, just maybe, I will update this post, with a comparison with an AMD X2 5000 Black Edition. Just maybe.
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 vs Pentium D 820 showdown - Synthetic Tests
Here, the Pentium D will fight the Core2Duo in standard benchmarking programs. In this case, I'll be using Everest Ultimate Edition 4.60. Although synthetic tests can show the improvements from chip to chip, this is no way to find out how fast a chip is. To find out how fast the chip is, I'll need to test it real world style, aka gaming.
Here, I benchmarked the memory performance in the Pentium D and the Core2Duo. As you can see, the overclocked E4600 blazed through all the tests. While unsurprisingly, the overclocked 3GHz PentiumD did NOT managed to even keep up with the stock E4600, which is at 2.4GHz. This show's that the Core2Duo's architecture is far more efficient than the Pentium D's.
Here, I tested the CPU and FPU. Again, the E4600 leaded the pack, while the Pentium D chugged along behind slowly. This is a clear indication that the E4600 is way faster than the Pentium D.
These are the temperatures for both chips. The cooler I used wasn't great, but good enough to keep both chips cool. But as good as the cooler may be, the overclocked Pentium D nearly hit 70 degrees Celcius, which is pretty hot.
Next up, real world tests !!
Here, I benchmarked the memory performance in the Pentium D and the Core2Duo. As you can see, the overclocked E4600 blazed through all the tests. While unsurprisingly, the overclocked 3GHz PentiumD did NOT managed to even keep up with the stock E4600, which is at 2.4GHz. This show's that the Core2Duo's architecture is far more efficient than the Pentium D's.
Here, I tested the CPU and FPU. Again, the E4600 leaded the pack, while the Pentium D chugged along behind slowly. This is a clear indication that the E4600 is way faster than the Pentium D.
These are the temperatures for both chips. The cooler I used wasn't great, but good enough to keep both chips cool. But as good as the cooler may be, the overclocked Pentium D nearly hit 70 degrees Celcius, which is pretty hot.Next up, real world tests !!
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 vs Pentium D 820 showdown - Introduction
The Pentium D 820 I used for this benchmark was launched back in 2005. Yup, this processor is already 2 years old. The Pentium D 820 is basicly 2 Prescott core soldered onto a single package. And because of that, the Pentium D's temperatures are rather high. The clock speed for this chip is 2.8GHz, with a 800Mhz Front Side Bus, while it has a 2MB L2 cache. TDP rating is 90W. The Pentium D is manufactured using the 90nm fabrication technology, while the newer Presler based Pentium Ds were manufactured using the 65nm fabrication tehnology.
The Core2Duo, on the other hand, was launched in July 2006. The timeframe did clash with the Pentium D, but due to the fact that the Pentium Ds were sold at dirt cheap prices, the Core2Duo had a price "disadvantage". The Core2Duo, unlike the Pentium D, which uses 2 desktop cores in a single package, actually uses the Yonah coclore found in Intel's notebook range. The Yonah core is famous for its low power consumption. All Core2Duos, except the Penryn, are manuafactured using the 65nm fabrication technology. This means that power consumption and heat output is noticably lower than the Pentium D's.
In my benchmarks, these are my hardware used.
A Core2Duo E4600 @ 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB. And also a Pentium D 820, 2.8GHz, 800MHz FSB
2 sticks of Crucial Ballistix Tracer RAM @ 1066MHz, 1GB each
Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro CPU cooler.
Western Digital's 500GB SATA II Hard Drive, with a 16MB cache.
And finally, Gigabyte's GA-EP45-UD3L board. this board is based on Intel's P45 chipset, and supports all of Intel's current CPUs. Sans the Core i7.
All of these will be powered by a Silverstone ST400 power supply.
The Core2Duo, on the other hand, was launched in July 2006. The timeframe did clash with the Pentium D, but due to the fact that the Pentium Ds were sold at dirt cheap prices, the Core2Duo had a price "disadvantage". The Core2Duo, unlike the Pentium D, which uses 2 desktop cores in a single package, actually uses the Yonah coclore found in Intel's notebook range. The Yonah core is famous for its low power consumption. All Core2Duos, except the Penryn, are manuafactured using the 65nm fabrication technology. This means that power consumption and heat output is noticably lower than the Pentium D's.
In my benchmarks, these are my hardware used.
A Core2Duo E4600 @ 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB. And also a Pentium D 820, 2.8GHz, 800MHz FSB
2 sticks of Crucial Ballistix Tracer RAM @ 1066MHz, 1GB each
Artic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro CPU cooler.
Western Digital's 500GB SATA II Hard Drive, with a 16MB cache.
And finally, Gigabyte's GA-EP45-UD3L board. this board is based on Intel's P45 chipset, and supports all of Intel's current CPUs. Sans the Core i7.All of these will be powered by a Silverstone ST400 power supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
