Let's see, you seem to have SATA 2 Hard disks! Now that is an irony isn't it?
They are SATA 1 ...
And what about your 64bit CPU?
Is this even in question? No. Does it provide me any benefit, no. Did I buy it for 64 bit, no. Am I even using 64 bit, no. Will it last until I use 64 bit, No. Why did I buy it.... because it spanked Intel's offering at the time.
There are no benefits, but you still opted for the futureproof hardware.
No such thing, nor do I ever plan to future proof my rig. I build it to last 2 years, that is it. Then a complete rebuild. Don't speak to motives you don't know or understand.
Not to mention the tyres of 99% of the cars that run around the world. The maximum speed limit is 165km/h for a typical cheap set of tyres, yet nobody buys them, you all opt for something like 180km/h or even 200km/h.Now when are going to drive that fast? Probably never and nowhere, but you still go for that "theoretical" value.
The faster tires have softer rubber and therefore more grip. I use that grip on a daily basis. I also have been ticketed for going 135mph, so yes I do use my $1000 tires. Nice try. I live in Texas, plenty of room to hit 120-130. Just because you are too scared to drive that fast doesn't mean others don't. There is nothing theoretical about the value of the Z rated tires. Let's see how great you "value" tires hold up in cornering, hard acceleration, and wet weather.
Not to mention another billion things in your everyday life (HD tvs, although only 2-3 stations broadcast true HD signals) etc etc etc...
Don't own any useless crap like that. I don't buy useless crap. Keep trying, you're bound to get one right.
So cut the crap and admit that YES a newer better technology is better wether you like it or not and yes you buy it despite the fact that you are trying to prove that it offers no better performance in the real world.
Spell check works wonders. It is newer, I agree, but to warrant the use of the term "better" it must show some sort of end user experience improvement and it doesn't. Therefore, it is purely theoretical. What can I do with a paper performance increase? Eat it for lunch and save $5?
To conclude the differences between the theretical and practical values i will give you a very simple example: The Core 2 Duo's memory bandwidth is much smaller than the RAM's bandwidth at their maximum official speeds. Hence any kind of overclock on the CPU FSB would gain no benefits at all since the RAM bandwidth will never get saturated (not until huge speeds - impossible at the moment) are achieved. Well surprise surprise it does actually benefit on every single benchmark that is on the internet. Now go and convince 100000000 million people that that is not the case.
Good luck!
Again spell check. You are talking purely bandwidth and leaving out frequency... The FSB is the communication between the memory controller linked to the north bridge and the CPU core. Therefore, if the speed of the communication path increases, the data travels faster. Now, whether that translates into a end user performance gains depends on the application. RAM intensive files, like compression obviously benefit, but ripping CD's doesn't gain anything. Bandwidth is the potential total memory throughput, not the actual throughput. Get your head out of the white paper and into reality.
You were booked for doing 135mph and you call me a chicken? I call you an absolute idiot. Who quilified you for doing that speed on the roads? NASA? LOL, only test pilots would be going that fast and definately on the streets. You are probably one of those idiots that kill other people, or even worse get killed themselves and then ask for the police and ambulances to run on the spot to save their asses. From that part alone i can understand the kind of person you are!
Have a nice weekend!