 Sony has 3 knockout games that you can't get on Xbox one. But for shear numbers of top games and games period xbox wins by landslide. Not only can you play all your 360 games that look and play better on the one you have tons free games. Microsoft's game service hands down better then PlayStations service and more reliable and hack proff. I used to be a PlayStation 2 owner and when Sony Service went down and I lost thousands of dollars in games I swear to God I would never get them again . Sony didn't even offer me the money back for the games that I lost when my account was hacked along with millions of others . I had my Xbox 360 account hacked 6 years ago the games that I had in that account or transferred over to me free of charge by Microsoft. I lost nothing. now did the Xbox One X is coming out there is no reason to get any other console in my opinion than Microsoft . I'll wait for some of the Sony games to come to PC instead of getting a PS4.

I used to be a AMD fan way back when they first started making the K-7 chip. Back then AMD was a better alternative to Intel. Especially since the prices were much cheaper then Intel by 100%. But AMD over the last 5 years has stumbled and fallen behind the lead they had on Intel performance. They now have squandered it and by lying to the public posting phooey cpu test's with mistakes on the Intel cpu numbers. Im sorry it wasn’t the quad core Intel we posted in our brochure. It was actually a 2 core duo that we still couldn’t beat with our Quad core killer. Intel rules the speed and price market for now hands down. I have 4 AMD 4800+ machines at work and there dogs compared to my E6600 Intel by large numbers in Everest and 3d mark 06. Gears of war i installed on the AMD machine it was almost unplayable. The AMD machine even had a ATI 1900XT 512mb video card and 2gb of memory 400mghz. Same Video card and Intel e6600 was smooth and nice to play. Both machines running Windows XP pro one had western digital SATA drive and mine a Seagate SATA drive. Ill grant you that the AMD machine was 200.00 cheeper. But were gamers we don’t sacrifice 200 dollars to have a machine that wont play gears of war. Then if you want to do some over clocking the Intel rockets away in cpu and memory marks. I hope that AMD now with help from ATI chipset department can make some welcome changes. Once again they may come out on top if they produce cpu's like ATI makes GPU's. Unless the chip is more then 50 percent cheaper and performs the same as Intel they wont sell. Intel has some really awesome cpu's on the horizon so AMD already playing behind the 8 ball. they should scrap the phenom and jump right to producing a 8 core or 16 core chip and release it before Intel does. That's what they did in the past and when they rulled the speed game. If ATI can stick 320 stream processors in the GPU they have to be able to double the current core count. There 1000 watt power supply’s now plenty of power to spare. Reminds me i have to dump my 2900XT 320 watt monster. The new chip now sucks only 200watt's that’s innovation..! Thanks, Bri

I beta tested both versions of Vista 32 and 64 on 965 intel and found very little difference between them and xp. I think that when full 64 bit programs and games made specificly towards the Direct X 10 platform are made. Any testing would have the same results as i diid the only thing i found. Vista used resources and memory much better in my computer then XP. But with over 2.5 gb memory doesnt really matter to someone like me the small difference. I used everest and speed test to benchmark both operating systems. I didnt think the price premium on Vista is worth the march towards Vista yet.