Alright I'm trying to match a CPU and mobo together - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103678 and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813186155

I know to match the socket type and make sure the mobo supports the CPU... but what I don't understand is AMD's HyperTransport. I'm used to matching Intel's FSB, but not HT. Will the CPU and mobo I've linked work together? Will the HT speeds scale to match or what? AMD is irritating me. Any other time, I'd build Intel.

Thanks for the help.

It's a 945GT for the dead mobo I'm replacing

Long story short, I am trying to replace an LGA775 mobo to match the LGA775 CPU that has to go with it. The new mobo I am buying is an LGA775 mobo but does not list the specific CPU I am trying to put in it as being supported. It lists C2D, C2E, Pentium dual-core, etc as being supported, but does not list Pentium 4. I know it's an old CPU and finding a mobo for it will be harder.

I'm not sure if it will work simply because it matches the socket type, or if the motherboard either has to: support the CPU specifically beyond just socket type, or if the P4 will work fine and just isn't listed because it was an oldr CPU when this newer mobo was made.

http://www.compumusic.com/f338362x0.htm

If you go here and look at the picture, you can kinda see the mesh wrapping I'm talking about.

.... but who wants to pay $50 for Monster cables, am I right?

My TV is having wavy lines in it and has this sort of stripe effect going on where there are lines of fuzziness/distortion across the screen. It's only noticable when the screen is certain colors, like a grey, a darker blue, etc. Whatever, this house has serious grounding issues. That's not what I'm posting about.

What I'm posting about, is the component cables. I fixed his problem a few years ago by buying Mad Cats multi-console S-Video composite cables... and they were shielded. It said it on the box, and you could see through the transparent sheath that there was a silver mesh wrapping around the wires.

My question - are the SDTV/HDTV Component cables the Xbox 360 comes with shielded? I know the xbox.com website says that certain Microsoft cables are shielded, but I don't know about the ones it comes with. Do I have to pay extra for some shielding? Maybe 3rd party? I know this is a problem people have, but it's not very common. I'm the type of guy that can tell the DIFFERENCE between 60Hz refresh displays and 70, or between 40 frames per second and 50. I really wish I didn't.

and to the guy above me.. I agree. I didn't like the first Gears as much as I thought I would, but Gears 2 certainly is one of the best games ever.

Try both then decide, if you can. COD4 is just one of the best games ever. WaW is awesome, much better than I thought, and I found myself playing it endlessly just like COD4. But, if I have to pick, I'll choose COD4. But it's still pretty close. And yes, what someone else said - the spawning in WaW can be baaaaaaad. It works kinda like Halo 3, where parties have an advantage and if you're playing alone, due to uncooperative, childish people, you're screwed. In Waw, there are parties of people playing, they function like a squad in a battlefield game. Whenever people, friends, in the squad die, they respawn WHEREVER their squad leader or other members are. This means one single enemy can sneak up behind your team's battlefront, then have all his buddies spawn up with him, and rape you from behind. It's definitely... a problem.. and personally (maybe because I don't HAVE many friends) I hate games that give advantage or priority to people who come as a group.

But still, it's very fun. COD4 seems to feel like more of a special forces type of thing, where a few people are infiltrating a location, or where small armies are having skirmishes. WaW feels like world war. (Isn't that the point?)

To me, Halo 3 is more than just a disappointment. Halo 2 was better in every way. I loved it. For that matter, I liked San Andreas better than GTA 4. Hell, I seemed to have more fun with the previous generation than this one.

But anyway. To me, Halo 3 is a broken, unfinished, short game that disappoints on a game series I literally grew up with. I've been through many many little details about what aggravates me so much about Halo 3. To explain it in an easy way.... after playing Halo for a round or two, I'm aggravated that no one seems to be noticing the obvious problems with the game that I do. It's almost to the point that I think it's MY XBOX ONLY that's causing it. Basically, you die for untold reasons and can never explain how you did in Halo 3. In Halo 2, when I died, I could explain it. In COD4, when you die, you generally understand why, learn from it, and feel better for the experience. In Halo 3, at least for me, I spend my time trying to just get a grasp of it. It's really a poorly made FPS, with bad controls, and maybe it's just that I've played so many games, including basically ALL the best PC shooters -- which might be leaving me (and none of the other non-PC enthusiast gamers) asking WTF, naming ways that other shooters have done things better that Bungie should have encorporated, and dieing with boredom and aggravation. It makes me crave playing COD4. Not to mention, the community and *ahem* age range Halo 3 attracts..... is a fierce turn-off to anyone who has already passed puberty themselves. Games like Rainbow Six Vegas and COD4... those are great communities. At the time of me writing this, Halo Wars is out, and I'm impressed with it. It rejuvenates my Halo experience. But I really had hoped for something better than Halo 3 to end the series on.

I'm also one of those people that think the graphics in Halo 3 aren't the leap they should've been. Halo 2 was INCREDIBLE. But. I'm also one of those few people that understand hardware limitations and that to implement the live video recording that Bungie has done, and to have the game play so smoothly, that graphics had to be sacrificed. The map sizes are certainly bigger and better than the first Gears of War game - to which I blame whoever is responsible for engineering console hardware that spend millions on developing great new processors (like the Cell processor) or GPU units (Xbox 360 and PS3 had incredible graphics units when they were released) ....... BUT SKIMPING ON THE CHEAPEST COMPONENT, THE RAM. Seriously. RAM is much cheaper than other components. And if they wouldn't try to cut it short on every console to date, we might have enough RAM to design maps more to the sizes of Battlefield 2142 maps - and give those nice triple core processors and GPUs something to work with.

Sorry. Back to the point. I love Halo, always have. But I wish someone could explain to me what's wrong or at least different from Halo 2. Is it a faster frame rate, HD tv, and different controller that are messing me up? I know if the game employed some type of lag compensation, like Enemy Territory for the PC, then I'd be a much happier person. I have a very beefy cable connection, and fantastic ping. That's not the problem. When I shoot someone on my screen, I want that to count. I don't wan to "lead my shots" because in this modern day of games, I shouln't have to. This is not 1999 Unreal Tournament on a 56k aol dialup connection, trying to hit a guy with rockets while running about 5 times as fast as you do in Halo. Which is another thing - you run too slow in Halo. It's boring. It puts me to sleep. Halo is not a tactical game like Rainbow Six, and should not have the run speed as such.

Still though, I'll be trying to like Halo 3, hard. Especially since Halo Wars came out, I really miss the good old days. It sounds nerdy, I know. But if you're reading this, then you're already in that same position.

1) those screen shots are concepts or screens of just the models. it doesn't look to be the actual game running, just a few shots of some character models and a level. Wait till the game comes out.

2) GTA games stream content. They don't load levels or certain portions of the game, they are consistently loading new objects and models at all times as they come into view. This means that it's one big open world without loading (besides the initial loading sequence) but also that it's not going to be as polished as if the game were only running one level. Compare CoD 3's bigger levels to Gears of War's tiny little multiplayer levels. They began doing this when they started gta games on the ps2. The ps2 had so little RAM, they had to find a new creative way to run a big game world on such weak hardware. There was little RAM, but the DVD drive WAS speedy, so they were able to have it stream the game from the disc the whole time like one big loading sequence WHILE you were playing the game. Considering how in GTA san andreas you could fly friggin planes across the whole game world, it's easy to understand and accept that the graphics are just a bit below other games released around the same time. You can also compare World of Warcraft to other mmo games. WoW looks worse than just about all of them, but WoW doesn't have to load when you cross maps. That's because it streams.

Not argueing or anything, just stating things that people like Gamespot and IGN have explained before about gta games.

thanks for the advice. I'll have it assign my squad members' points automatically.

But does anyone know if you can get Garrus after getting Tali? Or does saving Tali ruin that?