 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Action Games / Half Life / July 2007AMD X2: is the 2nd core used -- how do I know ??
I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the message saying that "the game requires at least a 2.2 GHz processor, and this processor is 1.9 GHz. Continue anyway ?". So, my question is: does the game utilize the second core (and how do I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/ computer is using the second core ? > I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core > processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/ > computer is using the second core ? Simplistic answer - go into Task Manager/Performance and see if there are two small screens for CPU Usage History. If so your two cores are recognised and are being used. If you are using two screens drag Task Manager to the second (non-gaming) screen and play HL2 - see how the load is being distributed (or not) Probably much cleverer ways of doing what you want but its a decent start... > > I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core > > processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Probably much cleverer ways of doing what you want but its a decent start... Thanks, Shawk ! I did what you prescribed. Indeed, there are two screens in the CPU performance section of the Windows Task Manager. Both of them show activity, one slightly more than the other. When playing Half-Life 2 DM, the CPU was utilised about 50% (I presume this is for both cores). It was probably good idea, after all, to ge a dual- core processor instead of single-core processor. > Thanks, Shawk ! I did what you prescribed. Indeed, there are two > screens in the CPU performance section of the Windows Task Manager. > Both of them show activity, one slightly more than the other. When > playing Half-Life 2 DM, the CPU was utilised about 50% (I presume this > is for both cores). It was probably good idea, after all, to ge a dual- > core processor instead of single-core processor. No, the 50% will be for one core. You need the application and the OS to support SMP. HL2 doesn't.  SignatureConor Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak......... >I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core > processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/ > computer is using the second core ? that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at 1.9ghz it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. the Source engine that HL2 uses doesn't currently use dual-core CPUs properly but that will change later this year. Valve have promised to release an update when HL2 Episode 2 is released that will add proper dual-core functionality to the game engine. > that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at 1.9ghz > it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an application together, their performance is equivalent to the performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600 (kHz) is derived from. So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum). So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ?? >> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at 1.9ghz >> it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600 > (kHz) is derived from. No, that is not the way it works. AMD claim that the rating is the speed compared to their older Athlon CPUs, and come about because the newer ones run more efficiently than the older. (IOW, they are saying the new 1.9 GHz with more efficient architecture is equivalent to the older Athlon running at 3600. snipped SignatureCheers Oldus Fartus "carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote... > It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz > (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an > application together, their performance is equivalent to the > performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz > + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600 > (kHz) is derived from. No. The AMD CPU architecture is significantly different, and more efficient, than the old Pentium 4 architecture. The 1.9 GHz AMD is equivalent to an old P4 running at 3.6 GHz, according to AMD's estimates. THAT is the source of the "3600" designation. FWIW, the new Intel "core" (as in Core2Duo) architecture is also of a more efficient variety, so their clock speeds have come down significantly from the P4 as well. > So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core > architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core > (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This > could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels > too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor > computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum). What was your old computer? What background apps was it running, compared with the new one? Game performance these days relies on the GPU as well as the CPU. Some parts of it may be tied to absolute CPU clock speed, while other aspects are tied more to GPU performance or memory bandwidth... While the game itself is only using 1 CPU core, the OS can shift other background tasks to the other core. > So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core > processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ?? The answer is "Maybe..." The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. OTOH, if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU. If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game, maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge. > "carrera d'olbani" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For > general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge. Yep. I'm using a single chip (AMD64 3700+), and it handles all of the latest games without a problem (even ET:QW). Eventually, games will actively use the second core (physics and whatnot), but until something comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm sticking to my single core. Jon On Jul 5, 2:50 am, "Jon Danniken" <jonREMOVETHISdanni...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "carrera d'olbani" wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm sticking > to my single core. I feel the advantage of double core is that the switching between the running programs occurs more smoothly (e.g. switching between the running game and the windows desktop). This is a whole new experience. With all the other "houskeeping" tasks redistributed by Windows to the second core, the first core can concentrate entirely on running the game (I presume), and the 1.9 GHz processor can be equvalent to 3 GHz, which is already good. I noticed that the players of Half-Life 2 (and of other Steam- distributed games) have a quarter of their machines with dual cores, http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html >> "carrera d'olbani" wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jon I recently went from a AMD64 3700 (san diego with 1mb L2cache) to a x2 3800 (socket9390 and games performance is about the same atm. Windows multitasking is however a whole lot better and worth going to dual-core for all on its own IMHO. The only ppl so far to add *real* dual-core support to their engine is ID and latest patches for Doom 3 and Quake 4 add a significant performance boost. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/page4.asp that should work for ET:QW too of course. I play DOD:Source myself so Im looking forward to the hyrbid threading patch that should be out soon. > "carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For > general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge. My 32 bit 2.8 GHz Dell computer smokes my eMachines AMD 64 3200+ machine. Ed Cregger >> "carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote... >>> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Ed Cregger Smokes it at what? Also what is the make up of your "32 bit 2.8 GHz Dell" and your "eMachines AMD 64 3200+" I guarantee my 32 bit* 2.4Ghz no name** PC will "smoke" yours. *32 bit XP **no name as in homebuilt. >> "carrera d'olbani" <dolbani@yahoo.com> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Ed Cregger Your credibility just evaporated... Honu <snip> >> The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. >> OTOH, if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ed Cregger Smokes it in what? Benchmark X? Frames per sec in Quake IV? Do both computers have the same amount of RAM, and what kind of RAM is installed, are they both using the same video card, ... ? >> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at >> 1.9ghz [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core > processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ?? dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no question about it. HL2 currently doesnt utilize multicore CPUs well but that will change in a month or two. Valve are working on adding *hybrid threading* to the source engine which will make good use of both cores. Most games that currently support multicores only use coarse threading - offloading one or two functions to the 2nd core. ie the 1st core does the rendering of graphics (90% of the work) and the 2nd core does physics and sound (10%) - in this case you only get a 10% boost in performance at best. Valves' hybrid threading approach will yield a much better increase than that. whats the rest of your system? what RAM and graphics card do you have? > dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no > question about it. ... > Most games that currently support multicores only use coarse threading - > offloading one or two functions to the 2nd core. Well, HL2 runs fine on my machine (AMD 64 X2 3600+) with its 1.9 GHz first core. But perhaps I am glad that I got a dual core processor in my homebuilt computer instead of single core. It is a novelty feeling for me to see that the computer can switch between the applications (e.g. game and word processor) smoothly. For the future games which rely on a single core processor my computer will probably slow. I have a GeForce 7600GT card, and it runs smoothly on standard screen (1280x1024), and it has a grunt up its sleeve. I have in post a new wide LCD monitor coming (LG L194WT, 1440x900). The only thing I am sorry is that I did not buy a larger (1680x 1050) monitor LG L205WD. I played HL2 and Q4 with the vertical resolution 1024, and the pictured human characters looked crisp and sharp. I played with the vertical resolution 864 pixels (as in 1156x864), and the pciture looked crap (not crisp anymore). The vertical resolution 960 pixels (as in 1280x960) gave a semi-crisp picture in both games. This is the vertical resolution which close to the vertical resolution of my soon- to-arrive monitor LG L194WT. Oh crap, I cannot do anything about it now :-( >> dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no >> question about it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (e.g. game and word processor) smoothly. For the future games which > rely on a single core processor my computer will probably slow. *any* future game should have multi-core support built in - if it doesn't then that's just crap programming. > I have > a GeForce 7600GT card, and it runs smoothly on standard screen [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to-arrive monitor LG L194WT. Oh crap, I cannot do anything about it > now :-( high resolutions like that are asking a lot of a 7600GT because its only 128bit memory interface. I have a 7900GS clocked to 600/700 and still I dont play many games at the native res of my LCD (1280x1024). Day of Defeat - I still prefer 1024x768 with 4x AA and AF. btw - my X2 3800 overclocks easy as pie from 10x200 to 10x240. I simply downclock the RAM from DDR400 to DDR333 and set the HTT to 800 (or 4x) and then raise the FSB. My mobo also allows me to run the PCI slots async (locked at 33) so I only overclock the CPU and without any extra voltage or cooling needed. You may want to try that with your 3600. > >> dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no > >> question about it. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > many games at the native res of my LCD (1280x1024). Day of Defeat - I still > prefer 1024x768 with 4x AA and AF. Yes, it is tru ethat 7600GT has a 128 bit only bus. However, it seems to be seriously overclocked, and has many vertices and pipes, so it can work on par with the 256 bit bus videocards such as ATI X1800GTO, see e.g. http://www.digital-daily.com/video/msi_nx7600gt/index02.htm > btw - my X2 3800 overclocks easy as pie from 10x200 to 10x240. I simply > downclock the RAM from DDR400 to DDR333 and set the HTT to 800 (or 4x) and > then raise the FSB. My mobo also allows me to run the PCI slots async > (locked at 33) so I only overclock the CPU and without any extra voltage or > cooling needed. You may want to try that with your 3600. Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems to be OK for me. But in the future I might overclock it as a first measure... and might buy another CPU as the second measure. > Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me > to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems > to be OK for me. But in the future I might overclock it as a first > measure... and might buy another CPU as the second measure. Overclocking is pointless these days. > > Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me > > to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems > > to be OK for me. But in the future I might overclock it as a first > > measure... and might buy another CPU as the second measure. > > Overclocking is pointless these days. And why would that be ? >>> Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me >>> to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And why would that be ? Perhaps because the percent increase in performance is much much smaller compared to 8 or 9 years ago. Move on, it's a new millenium, spend the extra dollars you would on cooling for a better chip in the first place. Cheers, Ari Signaturespammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life: http://www.abmdr.org.au/ http://www.marrow.org/ >>>> Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me >>>> to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ari As I said to Carrera in an earlier post I overclock my X2 3800 from 2.0ghz to 2.4ghz with no extra cooling or cost. A 20% increase for free - how is that pointless? Im not even pushing my PC either - plenty of ppl achieve double that increase. My graphics card is a 7900GS - well know for its overclockability. Mine runs at 600mhz core instead of the default 450 and still doesnt get much above 50c under load. >>>>> Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me >>>>> to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > know for its overclockability. Mine runs at 600mhz core instead of the > default 450 and still doesnt get much above 50c under load. And the benchmarks showed what degree of improvement in performance? :) Ari Signaturespammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life: http://www.abmdr.org.au/ http://www.marrow.org/ >>>>>> Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me >>>>>> to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU seems [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ari about a thousand points in 3dmark 2006 since you ask - not that I go by synthetic benchmarks much. I do see a marked improvement playing Oblivion and Stalker though and also DOD:Source which I play a fair bit online. The Source engine is heavily CPU dependent too. >>>>>>> Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world for me >>>>>>> to explore ahead of me. At the very moment, the speed of my CPU [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Oblivion and Stalker though and also DOD:Source which I play a fair bit > online. The Source engine is heavily CPU dependent too. Interesting. Perhaps it's time for me to review my information on OCing current CPUs/RAM/Graphics. Regards, Ari Signaturespammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life: http://www.abmdr.org.au/ http://www.marrow.org/ >>>>>>>> Wow. I never done overclocking before. Such a wonderful world >>>>>>>> for me [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Ari It might be that time Ari.....:-). The Core 2 Duos and dual core AMDs overclock extremely well with a proper MB with good OC'ing options using just stock cooling. It is not unusual to see an Intel E6600 2.4ghz overclock to over 3.0ghz with a stock Intel HS/Fan. The architecture of these processors make for good overclocking without the extreme heat produced previously. The increase in performance is easily seen in gaming and in processor benchmarks. Ed > A 20% increase for free A 20% increase in clock speed is not a 20% increase in performance. Civilian_Target > > A 20% increase for free > > A 20% increase in clock speed is not a 20% increase in performance. That's very true However If I decrease the speed of my clock I can get more work done in less time :) - Peter >> > A 20% increase for free >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > However If I decrease the speed of my clock I can get more work done > in less time :) If you put your clock back at the end of the day, do you get paid twice? > >> > A 20% increase for free > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you put your clock back at the end of the day, do you get paid twice? I am getting paid twice a day anyway - no problem My good salary and and the joy of having good colleagues and an excellent job :) - Peter >> >> > A 20% increase for free >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My good salary and and the joy of having good colleagues and an > excellent job :) Yeah yeah yeah, but friendship is no substiture for hard cash... ;o) > btw - my X2 3800 overclocks easy as pie from 10x200 to 10x240. I simply > downclock the RAM from DDR400 to DDR333 and set the HTT to 800 (or 4x) and > then raise the FSB. My mobo also allows me to run the PCI slots async > (locked at 33) so I only overclock the CPU and without any extra voltage or > cooling needed. You may want to try that with your 3600. OK, finally today I did overclocking with my 3600+ according to you receipy (I found this procedure on the Internet, too). Different from your case, I could not find in my MSI K9N Neo-F motherboard the setting which would allow to change the PCI/AGP bus. But an article said that nowdays the motherboards are likely to have the frequencies loced at the nominal values, so that I decided to risk. Differently from your computer, my DDR was of a 667 MHz type (not 800 MHz). So that I went down to 533 MHz. My HTT turned out to be set at 800 (4x), so that I went down to 600 (3x) (in your case, you went down from 1000 to 800). I raised FSB from 200 MHz to 240 MHz (just like you did). Computer now seems to be more responsive, and loads the programs like a bullet. The CPU temperature rose from 30 to 36 DC. I oveclocked my nVidia 7600GT video card, too -- from 700 to 800 MHz. The temperature rose from 45 to 52 DC. I am excited -- a rather substantial overclocking, and the CPUs are cold ! >> btw - my X2 3800 overclocks easy as pie from 10x200 to 10x240. I simply >> downclock the RAM from DDR400 to DDR333 and set the HTT to 800 (or 4x) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > temperature rose from 45 to 52 DC. I am excited -- a rather > substantial overclocking, and the CPUs are cold ! good for you - you can use a free utility called CPU-Z (google for it) to check your speeds. Not just the CPU but also HTT and RAM. Keep an eye on temps - those are good but if the graphics card creeps up to 60c you may want to improve the cooling in your case. Give it a good workout - an hours worth of Oblivion or Stalker should do. Report any problems. Paramount is to have a stable, glitch free PC - free extra performance is just a bonus. >> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at 1.9ghz >> it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600 > (kHz) is derived from. That'd be MHz, and no, it's not where the performance rating is derived from. It's quite an easy matter to google this. > So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core > architecture well ? No, he's saying it doesn't utilise it at all. It's written to use a single core/single CPU, and that's all it will use. > Essentially, your saying means that only one core > (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. Only one core is running the application, yes. > This > could be too slooow. You really need to do some reading as to what the 3600+ really means. It'll explain to you why you may be in error here, too. Speed in GHz is no longer a valid measure of CPU performance. CPUs are changing, and the refinements in how they work are what is brining performance up more than just raw speed. Use benchmarks to compare CPUs now, not GHz. > Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels > too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor > computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum). Have a look at how your new CPU compares to your old CPU in gaming benchmarks. There are too many other factors, such as RAM type and speed, motherboard, etc, to make the conclusion you're heading towards. Regards, Ari Signaturespammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life: http://www.abmdr.org.au/ http://www.marrow.org/ >>> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at >>> 1.9ghz [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That'd be MHz, and no, it's not where the performance rating is derived > from. It's quite an easy matter to google this. What would you Google for? >>>> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at >>>> 1.9ghz [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What would you Google for? Try searching on "Performance rating for computers" http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2121176,00.htm "We've been working with industry leaders today to propose a solution... to come up with a better way for end users to evaluate what they're really getting," Patrick Moorhead, vice president of consumer advocacy for AMD, said on Wednesday -- the same day AMD introduced two new Athlon XP desktop PC processors. Moorhead said AMD is seeking feedback from software developers, as well as from other PC-component makers. http://news.com.com/Will+your+PC+keep+pace+with+Vista/2100-1016_3-6050116.html The above is Microsofts slant on performance rating... The "Windows Performance Rating," which can be seen in the latest test version of the operating system, evaluates components such as the processor, the memory, the hard drive and graphics cards to come up with an overall score. http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=339099&rl=1 http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20030625113439.html > Have a look at how your new CPU compares to your old CPU in gaming > benchmarks. Eg http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html - Peter SignatureHi! I'm a .signature *virus*! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! >> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core >> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > release an update when HL2 Episode 2 is released that will add proper > dual-core functionality to the game engine. Uh, no. >>> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core >>> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> release an update when HL2 Episode 2 is released that will add proper >> dual-core functionality to the game engine. > Uh, no. This was from 2006 and I haven't heard anything different since? http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/Valve_EditorsDay1106/ > I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core > processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the Hey STEAM LOVER, CRAP STEAM INFECTED HL2 in not the only Game made for the PC! Don't you ever play anything else MORON? And btw stop CROSSPOSTING your CRAP STEAM INFECTED posts to others groups! Your STEAM ORGY! ORGY! ORGY! BELONGS ONLY TO ALT.GAMES.HALF-LIFE! >> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core >> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > groups! > Your STEAM ORGY! ORGY! ORGY! BELONGS ONLY TO ALT.GAMES.HALF-LIFE! Pot, kettle, moron >>> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core >>> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Pot, kettle, moron You can tell it's getting round to "that time of the month" can't you? SignatureRob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.