which video card manufacturer

Both GPUs were overclocked as far as they could be overclocked, so as far as I'm concerned that's as valid a test as any. The CPU test scores were double for the quad core because I watched one be tested. In one of the tests I make less than 1fps, but it was nearly 2fps on this quad core.

 

Well I just checked the video card thread and I was barely getting 11k, so around 10,800. So my score went up around a 1000, which seems fair.

My CPU score did nearly double though.

 

That seems a bit more reasonable, although still not as much as I'd expect. What is the comparative clock speed of your quad versus your old CPU?

Edit:
Actual scores are:
12509: C2D e6700 @ 3500 Mhz | 8800 GTX @ 615/1013
14700: C2Q Q6600, 8800GTS G92, frequencies unknown.

 

3.6 Ghz E6750
3.6Ghz Q6600

 

Interesting. Now I'm doubtful the frequency of Tiomat's Quad core starts with a 4, so where have the 2191 marks come from?

 

o yea, what about that whole directx 10 on windows xp? any of you have directx 10 on windows xp?

 

It's still in Alpha stage, so I don't want it. Also, DX10 doesn't offer support for Anti-Aliasing so I don't want it on any operating system.

 

You can't have DX10 in XP. You CAN have lots of the DX10 effects emulated in XP though.

 

ok 1 last question lol, how much should i shut down my computer. ive been told to do it everyday and ive also been told once a week and i was even told not at all. does it really matter if i shutdown my computer or not?

 

The science in this is that shutting down and powering up your PC creates stress on the components by creating thermal cycles, i.e. things expand when they get warm, then contract again when they cool, stressing the material. While I see the logic here, I personally don't think it has much to do with anything if you use quality parts. The sort of temperatures PCs get to aren't enough to cause such stresses that should lead to premature failure. One area where the on/off cycles can be harmful is hard drives, but hard drives are rated for so many start/stop cycles that unless you power on/off your PC 20 times a day, they should last far longer on that than they actually do due to other reasons.

In short, I don't think it really does any harm shutting down and powering on your PC, and you're saving money on your electricity bill (and saving the planet) by turning it off - in the UK, using electricity at a cheap rate of 10.4p/KWh, turning a PC off for 8 hours every night rather than leaving it idling saves £40 per year per PC. In the US it's probably about $50, I'm not sure on the exact figure.

 

lol wow i wasnt expecting such a detailed answer, but dont most parts last like x ammount of hours? like my PSU apparently lasts 100,000 hours so leaving it on 24/7 for a year would cost it 8,544 hours in life so it would last around what almost 12 years? man thats a long time for keeping it on 24/7 lol ok nevermind about that bad example lol what about with the cpu, they wont last near as long as any other parts. mine doesnt really say but on my older computer was about eh 3-4 years old when you could tell a significant difference in speed and id always leave that computer on.

 

That's kind of my point, the ratings of most products are so high that you're likely to be years down the line before a product will fail within spec, no matter how much you use it. If a product goes wrong before the time, it was a faulty product, simple as that.
Because of the electronics involved, PSUs should really last forever, but it doesn't quite work that way, so you should probably expect 10 years from the better units. CPUs typically last between 10 and 15 years, not that often longer, especially not if overclocked.
Hard disks probably have the shortest lifespan, I wouldn't run a unit in continuous heavy service for longer than 5 years without wanting it entirely backed up, therefore making the drive a little pointless.

 

alright sweet this all makes sense me to now, just wanted to get that cleared up. thanx alot every1 for all your help!