- WHQL Certified
- Improved performance on workstation applications
- New NVIDIA PureVideo features and enhancements.
- Adds noise reduction post processing
- Adds image sharpening post processing
- Improved Inverse telecine algorithm
- Improved de-interlacing algorithm
- Improved compatibility with third party MPEG-2 decoders
- MicrosoftR DirectX 9.0c and OpenGL 2.0 support
- For a full list of fixed and known issues please view the Release Notes (PDF)

The obtained results indicate that the new low-cost AMD processor that has already started selling turned out a very attractive solution. Although Athlon 64 X2 3600+ features half the L2 cache compared with the 'fully-fledged' dual-core Athlon 64 X2 CPUs and hence can be regarded as a 'dual-core Sempron' at some point, its performance didn't suffer that much. In the worst case, Athlon 64 X2 3600+ is no more than 5% behind the 3800+ model with the same nominal clock speed of 2GHz. And in fact, there are very few applications like that. In other words, Athlon 64 X2 3600+ offers very decent performance, especially keeping in mind that it is less expensive than the 3800+ model.

If we compare the performance of our hero against Intel Pentium D 915, which will most likely be its primary competitor from the pricing standpoint, the AMD solution turns out a definite winner. Just like before, the new AMD processor on K8 microarchitecture outperforms the competitor built on NetBurst. Even the recent price wars didn't change anything, and the recently announced Core 2 Duo processors are still in a different price category.

The important advantage of Athlon 64 X2 3600+ is that it belongs to the Energy Efficient type with the 65W maximum heat dissipation. As a result, this solution will become very popular in quiet systems, because Energy Efficient dual-core AMD processors have always been a little bit more expensive.

As for overclocking, we managed to hit only 2.6GHz clock speed, which is not too impressive. However, on the other hand, the performance boost from overclocking appeared quite tangible. Athlon 64 X2 3600+ working at 2.6GHz can compete successfully with the top model in the family with 5000+ performance rating. So, those overclocking fans who decide to go with the new AMD CPU will be happy.

Our testing shows that the X1950XTX is significantly faster than NVIDIA's 7950GX2 at rather common enthusiast in-game setting. This is definitely very appealing for the gamers, especially when you factor in the ability of the card to run true HDR with Anti-Aliasing compared to the 7950GX2 which can't do that, and the fact that the X1950XTX offers dual display without compromising performance while the 7950GX2 has to sacrifice dual GPU performance for dual display. Add the best performing and best looking default cooler found in the market and it really seems ATi has come up with quite a winner this time. It is rather shocking however, to discover that the card actually draws more power than a multi-GPU 7950GX2. Other than that this card seems to have almost everything going for it, even though 3D Mark performance boost is not catching up to the 7950GX2 at 650MHz Core clock. Now it's much of a question of the availability of the cards at launch, and this may be partly affected by the production quantity of the rather new GDDR4 Memory. For gaming enthusiasts, if this card really retails at the USD$399 it is slated to, this is THE loveboat as you won't be able to get the performance for that price looking at any other card than this. It seems that ATi has delivered quite an uppercut to NVIDIA with this!

CRITICAL:
- Vulnerability in Server Service Could Allow Remote Code Execution (921883)
- Vulnerability in DNS Resolution Could Allow Remote Code Execution (920683)
- Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (918899)
- Vulnerability in Microsoft Windows Could Allow Remote Code Execution (920214)
- Vulnerability in Microsoft Management Console Could Allow Remote Code Execution (917008)
- Vulnerability in HTML Help Could Allow Remote Code Execution (922616)
- Vulnerability in Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications Could Allow Remote Code Execution (921645)
- Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office Could Allow Remote Code Execution (922968)
- Vulnerability in Windows Kernel Could Result in Remote Code Execution (917422)

IMPORTANT:
- Vulnerability in Windows Explorer Could Allow Remote Code Execution (921398)
- Vulnerability in Windows Kernel Could Result in Elevation of Privilege (920958)
- Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows Hyperlink Object Library Could Allow Remote Code Execution (920670)

For Quad-SLI owners, configuring a system doesn't necessarily stop once the hardware is up and running, however. To take advantage of the high resolutions offered by today's crop of large monitors, many games have to be modified manually. For power users, we don't think this will be an issue, but for gamers that don't happen to be very tech savvy, taking advantage of what Quad-SLI offers could be somewhat difficult. Keep that in mind. Another major consideration for Quad-SLI is cost. The parts needed to assemble a worthwhile Quad-SLI system are considerably expensive at this time. The products we used for our build consisted of the following core components...

Core 2 Extreme X6800 - $1300
XFX GeForce 7950 GX2 - $570 x 2
Corsair TWIN2X2048-6400C3 - $400
Asus P5N32-SLI SE Deluxe - $250
Turbo Cool 1 Kilowatt - $500
Dell 3007WFP - $2199
-------------------------------------
Total Cost - $5789

As you can see, we were approaching the $6000 mark with just the core components to a high-end Quad-SLI rig. We did not take into account a case, drives, input devices, a dedicated sound card, or any other accessories for that matter. Clearly, Quad-SLI is not for everyone; then again it isn't meant to be. But for those that can afford the hardware, there is currently nothing more powerful when it comes to graphics performance. And as NVIDIA further optimizes their Forceware drivers, Quad-SLI performance and compatibility should only get better.

Intel's snazzy new CPU architecture again proves very potent. As you've witnessed, the Core 2 Duo E6300 generally got the better of this comparison in terms of performance. The E6300 is faster than the EE SFF-and, by extension, any of the three versions of the Athlon 64 X2 3800+-when running at stock speeds. When overclocked by an easily achievable 25% to 2.33GHz, this CPU can run with a AMD's fastest processor, the Athlon 64 FX-62. That's pretty darned spiffy for a processor that lists for under $200.  The E6300 doesn't draw much less power than the higher models of the Core 2 Duo, making it arguably less energy efficient than those chips. Still, the E6300 is easily more efficient than a Pentium D or a regular Athlon 64 X2.

Also, outside of a few exceptions, the E6300's smaller L2 cache doesn't handicap it significantly in terms of clock-for-clock performance compared to Core 2 Duo processors with 4MB of cache. What that says to me is that there's no reason to fear grabbing a 2MB version of the Core 2 Duo if you plan to overclock. You're not likely to miss the extra cache.

In short, if I were building a PC today and I could get my hands on an E6300, I'd grab it and go to town on the overclocking. The only reason I might hesitate would be worries about my motherboard taking the front-side bus beyond 1333MHz without problems. If you aren't confident about taking the front-side bus into the stratosphere, the higher multiplier in the E6400 might be worth the extra money. Beyond that, the E6300 looks like a killer CPU for an enthusiast's desktop PC.

When you consider all six games, the winner becomes abundantly clear. There's not a single game where the Core 2 Duo didn't deliver a higher average frame rate. Across all games, Intel's new CPU delivered a 16% higher frame rate. What is more important is that it spent a significantly smaller amount of time beneath our arbitrary thresholds for a really smooth and enjoyable gameplay experience. In fact, there are three games-half of our sample group!-where the Core 2 Duo essentially never dipped below the minimum threshold at all.

Both systems are truly fantastic game platforms, and the recent aggressive pricing by both Intel and AMD are very exciting. Compared with last year's tests, the games in our group are more demanding, and our minimum frame-rate thresholds are higher, too. Despite this, both systems delivered higher overall frame rates and, more importantly, spent less time beneath the minimum FPS threshold.

Though we proclaim Core 2 Duo the clear winner, we can't be too hard on the Athlon 64 X2. It turned in a great performance and definitely makes a great gaming CPU. We've lauded the game performance of AMD's CPUs for a long time, and they didn't get any slower with the introduction of Intel's Core 2 lineup, just less expensive.

The real winner here is the consumer. You don't need to spend several thousand dollars on hardware to make a great gaming system. At 1280x1024-the most common LCD resolution and 40% higher-res than 720p high definition-you can have a really awesome time gaming with a single sub-$300 graphics card and a CPU just over $300. And you don't need to reduce the game's detail levels to do it; we ran all these tests using each game's "high" setting. With such high-performance dual-core CPUs priced so aggressively, and with Vista coming out in the next year with a strong focus on improving PC gaming, the signs look good for PC game fans.

This release of Catalyst introduces Enhanced CrossFire Support. The enhanced support allows for CrossFire Alternate Frame Rendering mode for Direct3D applications to be forced on by setting the Catalyst AI slider to the Advanced position. Users are encouraged to enable this setting if they are not seeing significant performance gains in applications when Crossfire is enabled. This enhancement is available for all Direct3D applications except for Direct3D applications known not to work with Alternate Frame Rendering.

Scott Wasson over at TR had expressed some doubts that putting a GPU into a CPU socket would actually be desirable. I've seen these doubts expressed elsewhere in response to our AMD-ATI article. The reasoning goes that a PCIe video card with high-bandwidth GDDR3 will outperform a GPU that's placed in a cHT socket to share a pool of DDR2 with the CPU. As far as it goes, it is, in fact, correct that putting 512MB of GDDR3 on a daughtercard with the GPU and linking it to the CPU over PCIe will get you more performance than just dropping a GPU into a cHT socket. This is just throwing hardware and money at the problem, though.

The point of doing a cHT-compatible GPU that's a drop-in replacement for a second Athlon is that it's much, much cheaper and less wasteful than a dedicated daughtercard (with a dedicated cache of GDDR3), and the performance is pretty good. So from a price/performance standpoint, glueless cHT and a shared CPU-GPU memory pool will beat the more expensive daughtercard solution by a significant enough margin to make it attractive to many gamers.

The other issue that I want to address is this article over at the Inquirer. Clearly, Charlie has some of the same information that I have about Intel's various internal research initiatives. Intel is a big, research-driven company that has many teams working on many different types of projects at any given moment. I know for a fact that they have teams looking at Cell-like projects that combine DSP and general-purpose cores. They're also looking at low-power x86 cores, and Niagara-style chip multiprocessing, and lots of other exotic stuff.

Q: Does NVIDIA have any official statements or comments on the news about AMD buying ATI?
NVIDIA: Today's news about the acquisition of ATI by AMD is a positive development for NVIDIA. We are now the only graphics processor and core logic company that supports both Intel and AMD processors. We will continue to execute on our strategy, which is to develop industry-changing GPU and platform technologies, extend the use of the GPU into new applications, and expand its reach into all computing devices - from PCs to servers to phones

Q: How do you expect AMD's purchase of ATI to affect your partnerships with AMD?

NVIDIA: AMD needs and wants the support of our leading brands - GeForce, nForce, Quadro, and SLI. We will continue to work with AMD to bring our brands to our mutual customers. On the other hand, our relationship with Intel is going to become much more intimate than before. We are now Intel's best GPU partner.

Next, Intel had only this to say:
Intel: We will study the transaction but have no comment at this time about any possible impact it might have on our agreements with ATI.