Then there's always replacing the processor with something that will fit the same chipset, but that's rather expensive and typically not worthwhile as at some point you would be bottleneck'd by the X3100 itself right?
Additionally, regarding the compatibility list, couldn't it be converted into a "Works Well"-like page? Like a list of things that are playable, considering that it can run pretty much everything, but might not run it smooth enough to be considered playable. For example, if I tried to run a game and it run at like, 5 fps, then that would be considered an "Unplayable" game and would not be on the list, while games that run with a decent frame rate of 20-30 FPS (varying upon the game) could be put on the list. Just throwing ideas out there. Otherwise, the list in the archives might just be useless if it's just a compatibility list considering that it's compatible with most things. A "playability" list would be a better list if it were to be kept. On Feb 2, 6:08 pm, MAD_BEAST <[email protected]> wrote: > which in the case of the x3100 depends a lot on the processor, for > marketing reasons most of the x3100 have low power processors, few of > us (cause i also have a 965) have powerful processor why? beacuse the > x3100 was designed for a what we the administrators call the cow > market (low end), the processor in the chipset depends on the market > segmentation of the computer, for example XPS series of DELL have 10x > better parts than Inspiron, Lenovo... or compaq, or HP, and some > others becuase XPS series are for another market. > In the case of the x3100, there is no mid-high computer with that > chipset... > Thats why VAIO, XPS, and MAC are computers of other segment, and the > prices are over the avarage. > > a little complicated but thats why there is "no" x3100 with good > processors -- INTEL 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
