Yes, and you don't answer the question. If I have two similar computers, both HDCP capable at least on paper, what's the physical difference? HDCP is meant to be fast in the hardware, but it doesn't mean that it's not possible to decrypt it in software; and more to the point, there is no physical difference as the GGGP implies: It's just the same hardware.
Hmm, lost me there. Answer me this: What separates a HDCP capable computer without the software player from a HDCP capable computer with the software player? All the same parts, from Blu-Ray player to the graphics to the monitor.
As both cheap graphics cards and motherboards with HDMI outputs are very much mainstream nowadays, I think your use of the word "specialized" is inaccurate here.
Core 2 Duo P9600 has 2 cores; we have moved much past that stage with six core CPUs and advancements in CPU architecture after C2D, and like mentioned, the code presented is pretty much an early alpha.
Great stuff! Shows Intel's representative's earlier comments about software implementation not being feasible quite wrong.
I know you are trying to be funny, but you still should have replied the GP here, not me.
Absolutely right, emphasis on the tiny chance. Where are my mod points...
Thanks for the tip.
You can "easily" change the button positions in Gnome: Open terminal, type "gconf-editor", go to
Steam and HL2 work fine on Linux with WINE.
So, do we get Phenom II X4 955 vs Intel i5 750 here?
Have fun lagging behind, AC!! LOL!!1!
Hmm-ho, again thanks for the reply. I'll again address your points by numbering.
1. Good for you. Did you really need the quad core? What are you using the computer for? Did you forget the longevity of LGA 775, where you can still do the same thing? Doesn't make sense to me, but CPUs are readily available.
2. I'd suggest taking a hard look at CPU architecture development. By a friend, I happen to know something about it, and the pin layout (corresponding to power and data ports) is actually very important. If you don't think that AM3 was outdated when it came out, I'd suggest doing some research. This is not meant to offensive in any way, the CPU design just means that the pin layout has to live with the optimal physical construction.
3. Your latter point about AMD's big change strikes true to me too, but as a solid-state physicist, I recognize the realities. AM3 is old now, and going past it requires changing the socket, or hampering the real performance just to be backwards-compatible.
For your musings, Intel already made the thing, and it got good acceptance.
Again, I'm not an Intel buff by any means, but as a computer building enthusiast, IMO they have been taking the more sensible way, dropping old crud and pushing aggressively forward.
Yeah, and you just chose the CPUs no-one in the "know" would buy. 980X is for the AnalWare and equivalent horrendously overpriced prebuilts and the few stupid people they can snare just by being the fastest around here (which is probably true); i5 and i3 dual cores can't compete with AMD's offerings.
Can we go back to i5 quads vs Phenom II X4?
Yeah, I agree. Whoever modded up the GP doesn't know a thing about the issue.
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
