When you unpack a router it should be a simple plug in and play and with the WL-308 it is. We can vouch for the speed at which this little router can play ball. It was a matter of plugging in the internet connection, the desired amount of network cables, the power and off we went. Wireless setup was a breeze with the system being easily configurable and the signal was more than a little robust both in terms of distance and obstacles.

Port forwarding is a cinch with game settings built in, so if you want to play WoW for example, you select it from the application drop down menu and presto, the router puts in all the details for you including setting up TCP ports for the game. Once you have decided it's time to tweak the system you will find all the settings you could possibly want and more. Thanks to the StreamEngine you can have your COD4 game taking priority over your sister's nightly FaceBook binge and your mother's search for a new fish recipe. The StreamEngine doesn't just prioritize gaming, it will happily prioritize your VOiP over your emails or your YouTube videos over normal surfing.

Having said all of that, a four port router with no modem, at this price is hardly exciting despite the bells & whistles.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that getting used to a new left handed weapon is about as easy as growing a new mechanical arm. There are 15 buttons on the pad and they are in close proximity. This coupled with not being able to see the numbers on the keys as a result of a raised palm rest makes learning the new layout painfully frustrating at times. Having said that, once you get used to it, the N52TE becomes infinitely more agreeable, and you can expect to start regaining your positive kill-death ratio in online COD4 battles. Conceived in collaboration with Razer, the N52TE design is sleek and practical and takes into account the needs of the serious gamer. The device comes with fifteen fully customizable buttons which you can map out as you wish. This is a pretty standard feature for products like these, and the N52TE is a solid contender in terms of customizability.

The only gripe to be had with the keypad's functionality is with the spacebar button which sits underneath the thumb position. To be honest it just feels awkward and a tad unresponsive, but this is easily resolved by mapping jump to a different button. While this solution works, it is hardly ideal when you consider the price tag. The palm rest is adjustable and should fit pretty much every size hand and user preference, unless you are left handed - in which case, sorry, no dice. The extra scroll wheel came in handy in some games and the highly responsive keys, bar the space, did a superb job. Thanks to the USB2.0 interface installation was simple and as a bonus the software is unobtrusive and effective. In-fact, the speed-pad worked without even having to install any software or drivers.

The backlighting on the keys and general spacey design make the N52TE an attractive addition to any desktop. If you are in the market for a game pad of this nature then you will not be disappointed with the N52TE, however, there are fully fledged gaming keyboards which retail for around the same price.

All cards in a GeForce SLI set-up also have to match - not necessarily by brand name, but by chip class. So GeForce 8800GT will only work with another GeForce 8800GT and so on. AMD on the other hand, has a far more flexible platform. Which is just as well, because if you were restricted to using the firm's Phenom chips there'd be no point in considering CrossFire at all. In our most recent tests with a Phenom 9600, games were hitting the CPU threshold even on a Radeon HD4850 card. Adding more graphics cards made no difference to in game performance whatsoever, because the CPU couldn't keep up.

In what seems like a surprising quirk of nature, though, you can put two or more AMD cards into the current generation of Intel motherboard chipsets, and they'll work just fine. And unlike NVIDIA, you don't need to match cards of the same type, just the same generation. So an HD3850 will work with an HD3870 and so on. So you can, in theory, craft a system exactly to your price point.

Perhaps more significantly, in our extensive testing, pairing a Radeon HD4870 with a HD4850 was just about as fast as a 'true' HD4870 CrossFire arrangement. If this state of affairs holds true as drivers mature then you could end up saving yourself $l50 on a dual card set-up.

And that's the rub. Whatever test scores we get today, there will be improvements tomorrow: because getting multi-GPU rendering right is a fine art. For which reason alone, we're confident in saying that most people will be better off with a single card.

It's quite common for two cards to actually be slower than one. Once the CPU cap is hit, the extra latency the second card introduces with its additional processing steps takes a toll. At higher resolutions, there's a stronger argument, but you're essentially talking about framerate improvements of less than 20 per cent in real terms, especially once a bit of image quality is turned on.

So which would we recommend? SLI or CrossFire? Of the new cards, CrossFire scales better in some games than SLI, and vice versa. Where combining GeForce GTX 260s is the better option, the performance gains overall seem to be bigger too - so from a technological point of view we'd probably go down this route. However, two GTX 260s are very noisy and $200 to $300 more expensive than buying two HD3870s, too, so from a practical standpoint that would be where our money would end up going.

Given the enormous number of shader units involved, two HD4850s seems like a bargain powerhouse on paper, but in truth it's not a lot quicker than a single HD4870, and all the arguments for a single chip over two sway us in favor of the latter.

In fact, across the board we'd say hold off on building an SLI or CrossFire rig for the time being. For one thing the forthcoming X2 and GX2 versions of the HD4870 and GTX 280 respectively will be better value for money, and for another, the performance gains just aren't worth it yet. A single GTX 280 will cost less than any dual-GPU set-up barring two HD3850s, and will still outperform them.

Give it time, though. There is one group of people who definitely should be looking to go SLI in the near future, and that's the many, many people who bought a GeForce 8800GT.
It's the marketing story the manufacturers aren't bragging about, because if word got out it could really hurt sales of the new cards. Thanks to driver maturity the gains from pairing two of these are enormous: put simply, in some cases two 8800GTs are cheaper and faster than a GTX 260, and faster than an HD4870. Plus, if you own one, a second card will only cost you the same as a single HD4850 right now - but be quick. It's likely to start vanishing from shop shelves soon.

It's likely that the current generation of cards will begin to scale as well as the 8800GT in the not too distant, but why take the gamble? For the first time in graphics history having the latest and greatest may not be the best - and we have SLI and CrossFire for all their flaws to thank for that.

Viewed this way, CrossFire - as AMD's multi-card tech is known - makes more sense than the competing SLI. After all, why take two NVIDIA cards into the shower when one will do? A single GTX 280 will easily outperform anything else on the market without needing to be paired up. On the other hand, anyone who bought a GeForce 8800GT last year - and there were loads of us - will surely be watching as the price for a suitable partner tumbles.

While it's still being presented as a revolutionary idea, we're used to hardware zerging like this now. Indeed, it's a cheeky move by AMD to claim for its own the territory that NVIDIA first broached with SLI, all those years ago. The question is, with single CPUs getting ever more powerful and games engines standing relatively still, is this so much smoke and marketing mirrors?

Both companies use similar techniques to get their cards working together in harmony. Games are -wherever possible - profiled for the best possible performance increases. By default, the drivers use Alternate Frame Rendering (AFR), where one card is used to render one frame, while the other card prepares the next frame. In rarer cases, split-frame rendering - where pixels from a single frame are load balanced between the two cards - will make a game run faster.

Some competition gamers swear by split-frame rendering, arguing that the minor latency introduced in AFR can affect fast-paced games, but for most of us the drivers will simply select AFR and we won't be any the wiser. Indeed, with AMD's control panel you won't have any choice; but while you can customize profiles for NVIDIA cards, it's unlikely you'll ever need to.

Both companies, too, require a hardware bridge to connect the cards together using internal connectors inside the PC. This gives a direct point of communication between the cards independent of the potentially congested PCI Express bus, but isn't fast enough to carry all the data they need to share. So, are you better off going for the very best single GPU card you can lay your hands on, or should you look for a more arcane arrangement of graphics chips? And if you do, should you opt for SLI or CrossFire?

Back to Basics

A superficial glance back at the last 12 months and the answer would seem to favor multi-GPU arrays. NVIDIA's 9800GX2 - two G92 chips on one card - reigned supreme in the performance stakes up until the launch of the GTX 280. By coupling two GX2s together you got the Quake-like power-up of Quad SLI, and framerates that would make your eyes bleed.

AMD, meanwhile, stuck to its guns and released the HD3870X2, a dual-chip version of its highest-end card. In the same kind of performance league as a vanilla 9800GTX, it may not have been elegant but it was great value for money.

That's just the off-the-shelf packages. With the right motherboard two, three or even - in AMD's case - four similar cards can be combined to create varying degrees of gaming power. AMD also had a paper advantage with the fact that HD3850s and HD3870s could be combined together in configurations of up to four cards too.

Both companies even went as far as to release Hybrid SLI and Hybrid CrossFire, matching a low-end integrated graphics chip with a low-end discrete graphics chip. The result in both was much less than the sum of their parts: two rubbish GPUs which, when combined, were still poor for gaming.

And right there, at the very bottom, is where the argument for multi-GPU graphics starts to steadily unravel. Despite all the time that's passed since SLI first reappeared, the law of diminishing returns on additional graphics cards remains. Unfortunately, two cards are not twice as fast as one card, and adding a third card will often increase performance by mere single figure percentages.

That, of course, is if they work together at all. Even now, anyone going down the multiple graphics route is going to spend a lot more time installing and updating drivers to get performance increases in their favorite games. Most infamously, Crysis didn't support dual-GPUs until months after its release, and even then it still required a hefty patch from the developers to get two cards to play nicely together. It's now legend that the one game that could really have benefited from a couple of graphics cards refused point blank to make use of them.

That's very bad news for owners - or prospective owners - of GX2 or X2 graphics cards, which require SLI or CrossFire drivers; so another strike then for the single card. It would be churlish to say things haven't improved at all recently, but suffice to say that in the course of putting together this feature, we had to re-benchmark everything three times more than is normally necessary, because driver issues had thrown up curious results.

Before you even get to installing software, though, there's a bucket load of other considerations to take into account. First and foremost is your power supply: people looking to bag a bargain by linking together two lower end cards will often find that they will have to spend another $l00 or so on a high-quality power supply that's capable of not only putting out enough juice for their system, but has enough six or eight pin molex connectors for all the graphics cards, too.

Many is the upgrader who's witnessed the dreaded 'blue flash of death' when the PC equivalent of St Elmo's Fire indicates that the $30 power supply that you thought was a bargain is, in fact, destined for a quick trip to the recycling centre.

Even more critical with the current generation of cards, though, is heat dissipation. All of AMD's HD4800 series can easily top 90°C under load, and a couple of cards in your PC will challenge any amount of airflow you've painstakingly designed for. To make matters even worse, many motherboards stack their PCI-Express ports so closely together the heatsinks are almost touching. The HD3850s are single slot cards, but that means they vent all their heat inside the case.

On the NVIDIA side of things, size is more of an issue. The new cards - both GTX 260 and GTX 280 - are enormous. Even though they're theoretically able to couple up on existing motherboards, it's unlikely you'll find one with absolutely nothing at all - not even a capacitor - protruding between the CPU socket and the bottom of the board.

Because the merest jumper out of place will prevent these two sitting comfortably. If all this is beginning to sound a little cynical, let's point out that there have been bright developments in recent history. Most notable is the introduction last year of PCI-Express 2.0, which means there are more motherboards out there with at least two PCI-e sockets that are fully l6x bandwidth, so it's easier to keep both cards fed full of game data at all times.

The major point is that there are only really two graphics APIs worthy of notice. Much like the NVIDIA/ATI divisions that are the subject of almost every tech-forum, API usage is spilt into proponents of DirectX, the current market leader and the brainchild of your friendly neighborhood Microsoft, and OpenGL, the resident underdog that could still turn DirectX on its ear.

What's the point?

Both OpenGL and DirectX have gone through many incarnations since their inception and cataloguing absolutely everything is a job for Wikipedia. There have been some major differences over the years that have set each apart from the other and it is these which are of interest. OpenGL and DirectX have used completely different methods from the very beginning; with the line between the two blurring in later versions. We'll find out why this is the case, though some can spot why right off the bat.

According to Microsoft

DirectX is Microsoft's favorite little creation, allowing them to wield the banhammer on a lot of folks by virtue of its proliferation. Direct3D is the major component in DirectX, supporting only Windows systems and pretty much anything else Bill Gates has touched. It is even the base software for the Xbox and the 360. Created to deal with 3D applications and graphical rendering, Direct3D handles all of those nifty features that show up while setting up options in your latest game. It controls hardware acceleration, should the hardware be capable of using it. Functions such as anti-aliasing and texture mapping are also handled, as is everything else to do with the GPUs 3D functions. Software emulation of certain bits of a GPU are also picked up by DirectX. Direct3D can emulate vertex software but it cannot do as well with pixel shaders. It'll allow an image to hit screens but it will be of shocking quality.

Open source opinion

OpenGL is Microsoft's open source competitor but the major battles are now confined to the past. Some folks still code games to take advantage of the API but it is often sitting side by side with the Microsoft equivalent. Being open source, there is no real limit to the number of versions out there but a stringent qualifying process is needed to qualify for the OpenGL standard. OpenGL is the default API for almost everything that is not Windows-based, running the iPhone, most of Sony's consoles, some of Nintendo's hardware and Mac and Linux-based systems. It also runs on Windows but has none of the exclusivity that Direct3D enjoys. With this wide base of operations it should seem remarkable that DirectX holds so much sway in the API arena.

Head to head

Each API has positive and negative points. Some are valid or can be corrected or lived with. Others are nigh unbearable, forming the bane of programmer's and end-user's existence. Let's start with a few of those.

Microsoft's DirectX is a completely proprietary system, functioning only on selected hardware. In case it was not clear, this translates to Microsoft only systems. Other problems have included the standard Windows bloat for programs which appears to crop up in some of their software. Even the almighty XP has been guilty of this failing. Other cons for DirectX only appear on direct comparison with the competing API.

The fundamental differences in how DirectX and OpenGL go about their business are miles apart. DirectX has tended to focus on the capabilities of the hardware itself without giving much thought to additional features that may lie outside the realm of the GPU in question. The software allows whichever features a card may hold to be utilized by a system and beyond that does not concern itself much with anything else.

OpenGL has been about creating a system whereby all possible features are made use of, either by driving a card's inherent capabilities or by using software to render as much as possible. In the case of OpenGL software is the de facto method of driving a 3D application, with hardware acceleration being used if it is available.

Seeing the difference in approach between the two APIs, OpenGL appears to have a much more robust and potentially more powerful application. With software rendering being the first line and acceleration being secondary, OpenGL's capabilities at running a 3D application would be higher than DirectX's, should the system they are running on have identical hardware.

But the Atom-powered board isn't without a key problem - in that it only has support for the positively Neanderthal PCI graphics slot, as opposed to the far more modern PCI-E. It is a serious, deliberate hobbling of the platform by Intel that does affect its performance as a media centre PC: it couldn't handle recent games, and could only run 1080p video with a firm overclocking boot up the processor's behind.

Enter Via's Nano processor and Epia mini-ITX board. It's the same size as Intel's, but the chip runs at 1.8GHz, and - crucially - includes a PCI-E slot. It puts Intel's board to shame; but there's a catch in that it's not actually available yet, and Via have yet to finalize the form it's going to come in. However, we'd never let that stop us putting the pre-production model through its paces.

Admittedly, we were slightly skeptical about Via's latest venture: the company has a spotted history, to say the least. From severe technical problems using their previous processors with AGP graphics cards, to an almost-company-destroying patent wrangle with Intel; suffice to say Via is at the infamous end of chip companies.

Thankfully, the Nano looks set to put all that animosity in the past, and shows the company is finding its feet again. The Nano uses the same C7 architecture as Via's previous mini-CPUs, and therefore is backward compatible with older mini-ITX motherboards. The Epia motherboard itself includes Via's latest CN896 Northbridge, which is where the PCI-Express support lies, as well as an onboard VGA port. Alas, there is no built-in DVI port as of yet - a chief complaint of a colleague is that he would be unable to plug in a TV tuner card and output high definition broadcasts at the same time.

As with the Atom motherboard, the Epia includes passive cooling on the processor itself, and has one tiny low-power fan on the Northbridge. The Nano achieves this by automatically scaling the performance and voltage states based on the temperature of the die, which causes optimal cooling without affecting performance. Not only does this stop your computer melting but it also optimizes the power consumption of the processor - the Nano will draw a minimum of 5W, and maximum of 25W. So despite not quite equaling the Atom from a straight performance angle, it stands head and shoulders above on the power/performance ratio.

A drama out of a Crysis

But there's one thing we've neglected to mention: the Nano will run Crysis. We coupled the board with an ATI 4850 and a gig of ram; then ran Crysis in DX9 with all settings on ‘high’. It achieved an astonishing average of 20 frames per second - which admittedly isn't that smooth, but is at least playable. There was some slightly odd blurring around the HUD, but for the most part the South China Sea looked as good as we'd expect from a fully fledged bargain PC. High definition 720p video playback was acceptable, but the processor's touted ability to play back 1080p fell a little short, with videos playing slowly. An overclocked processor might have handled the full 24 frames per second, but our test model didn't give tweaking the BIOS as an option. Still, with a cheap graphics card occupying the PCI-E slot the GPU will be able to take the strain of HD playback without a problem.

Via obviously has the technical clout to knock Intel's Atom out of the ring, but it lacks Intel's canny marketing and brand recognition. If Via can smooth out the niggles we experienced on the processor and card, it'll definitely be a winner; the Nano could be the product that launches Via into the stratosphere.

Of course the Eee PC 901 is the official replacement for the original Eee, but this is its spiritual successor, due pure and simply to the fact that it is closer to the original sub-notebook. And while we'd be happy enough to have a few more machines that cost less than $600 in the market, regardless of their specification, the Aspire One actually improves on the original Eee 701, and brings it up to date. Not least because of the lovely (and larger) 8.9-inch display.

This is another outing for our current CPU of choice: the Intel Atom N270. Set to run at 1.6GHz, but with the capability of easing back to 800MHz in order to conserve battery life, this is truly a quality processor. It's good that it does clock down as well, because Acer has kitted out this most affordable Aspire One with a 3-cell 2200mAh battery. Those looking for a more serious travelling partner should grab a six-cell battery pack, but this should be fine for small trips.

In order to keep the price low, the Aspire One comes bundled with a customized build of Linux, called Linpus Lite. Most of the features you would want are already present, including a versatile media player, OpenOffice and numerous net tools. The OS itself is easy to use, and thanks to its stripped down nature is quick to load as well. The OS takes up just over 3GB, leaving you a reasonable amount of room for your data.

Extra storage can be added to the main drive by using the SD slot on the left of the machine (it'll appear as one continuous area), while a memory card reader on the right acts more like traditional expansion. There's no Bluetooth support as standard though, so you'll need a wired mouse unless you fancy your dexterity with the tiny touchpad. The keyboard is surprisingly usable mind.

Overall, the Aspire One is an impressive addition to the sub-notebook genre. It's powerful, versatile and affordable. We'll have to admit to preferring the MSI Wind U100, thanks to its sizable hard drive and the slightly more games-friendly Windows operating system, but if you're budget can't quite stretch to that (or you relish the challenge of Linux), than this is definitely worth the cash.

The closest current competitor to the PC3-14400 is fellow Yanks OCZ's Platinum RAM, which comes in at a similar price point but features lower latency. However, Patriot's memory beat OCZ's hands down, and it topped all of the DDR3 memory in our recent supertest - even Corsair's seriously pricey Dominator sticks. We were testing on one of the latest X48 boards though to get the most out of the memory itself.

Obviously, twice as much DDR2 RAM would be cheaper, but in terms of speed and performance, this is the best memory we've come across. You will though need one of the latest X48, P45 or 790i motherboards to take full advantage of the ramped-up 1,800MHz frequency. It is pricey, but definitely worth considering if you're after high-performance memory. Just make sure you pronounce the manufacturer's name correctly to avoid confusing this tech journalist.

Despite being around since 1996, ATX has staved off multiple attempted coups, including BTX, introduced by Intel in 2003 mostly as a result of the soaring power output of the old P4. It offered optimized airflow, a larger heatsink and motherboard area with dedicated low-profile designs. But as the P4 faded, any justification for the increased costs of BTX became extinct as well.

We're seeing ever-increasing drives to lower power consumption and increase efficiency: laptop motherboards use technology that can reduce idle Northbridge power to below 1W, though an entire running desktop system board will suck at least 40W idle, compared to the 10-20W for an entire laptop. The VIA mini-desktop ITX motherboards strike a balance on this front, usually consuming 10-15W in idle and usually less than 20W under full load, but that's hardly ever going to be a realistic choice for the gamer or anyone else that wants to perform other intensive tasks.

Part of the problem is just power regulation, that's pulling the 12v line down to around 1.5v for the processor. Much like PSU efficiency, motherboards have the same problem. Much noise is made about multi-phase voltage regulators: while we're sure they do smooth the voltage in technical terms, they seem to have little real effect. Similarly, new energy regulation modules such as the Gigabyte DES or Asus EPU claim to regulate voltages and perhaps clock speeds more efficiently. These do affect power consumption, perhaps as much as 10w or more at full load.

Despite some shrinkage in the market over the last few years - VIA being sidelined, ULi being bought by NVIDIA and names like ALi and SiS slipping into the background - there's still a lot of choice if you're after a new motherboard. Higher levels of integration mean you get more for your money; budget boards come packed with features while today's high-end boards come bristling with exotic extras, to the point of confusion and pointlessness.

Intel remains the leading chipset supplier: about half the world's motherboards have ‘Intel Inside’. It's also a technology leader, bringing new developments such as PCIe v2, SATA 2 first to boards in new chipsets. It has used the Memory Controller Hub (MCH) as the Northbridge and the I/O Controller Hub (ICH) for the Southbridge ideology since the debut of the P4. ICH9 is the current mainstream Intel Southbridge and supports up to 12 USB 2.0, six SATA, two eSATA and twin Gigabit network ports, plus high-definition audio and six single PCIe lanes. Extra options can supply hardware RAID and Turbo Memory. ICH10 is just becoming available but adds little to the party: you should note there are no PATA channels at all.

Robson technology, now branded Turbo Memory, was supposed to increase drive performance, but real-world results are disappointing. ICHl0 introduced User Pinning so it's possible to permanently store an application in the flash memory. This could have been an interesting development, but it has been somewhat overshadowed by the likes of Asus Express Gate that enable you to boot into a ‘Virtual Appliance Environment’ (VAE) featuring a basic GUI, a browser based on Firefox 2.0 and a Skype VolP client in less than six seconds, courtesy of a compact Linux distribution. This 'instant-on' OS offers many advantages: it's able to run on PCs where the hard disk is absent or malfunctioning, and is less vulnerable to malware as the system is mostly read-only. Already a feature of the Eee Box and nine others, Asus will be extending Express Gate to its whole range in 2009. Intel's high-end option remains the X range; the X48 is the only motherboard to officially support the 1600FSB for both DDR3 and Core 2 Extreme Edition. In reality though, most available X38 motherboards can actually offer this support anyway, as well as the XMP for enhanced memory performance profiles. It also offers two l6-lane PCIe v2 slots for CrossFire support.

A similar situation can be applied to the new P45 that replaces the P35. At least it does introduce PCIe v2 and optionally supports three graphics slots, but as it's positioned as a mainstream chipset, it's hardly required at this point. If your modules support it, Intel XMP memory technology will mean you get the best performance out of them.

NVIDIA has always made a point of offering both Intel and AMD options. Currently, its 790i Ultra SLI with its top-end Intel chipset, boasts: PCIe v2, support on two full 16-lane graphics slots and a third PCIe vl 16-lane slot, DDR3 up to 2000MHz and 1600FSB support. The accompanying MCP Southbridge offers an additional 12 lanes of PCIe, twin Gigabit ports, ten USB ports, high-definition audio, six SATA and two PATA ports and even a PCI bus.

Unlike the Intel chipsets, NVIDIA has opted for DDR3 only, firmly encamping at the high-end. It of course offers the NVIDIA ‘SLI-Ready Memory’ technology for EPP memory support. For people requiring DDR2 support, the 780i still offers triple SLi in a largely similar configuration to the 790i and the 750i with its ‘Vanilla’ PCIe v2 SLi support.

With its AMD range of chipsets NVIDIA's entire range sports integrated graphics - DirectX 10, HDMI and HDCP-compatibility. We guess the lack of a memory controller on the Northbridge helps when things get busy, almost like having a spare room in the house. The 780a is its high-end option and supports three-way SLi - again, via two PCIe v2 and a single v1 16-lane slots. Oddly, the SLi support hangs off the Southbridge, that being its sole job. The usual Southbridge connections are on the Northbridge, offering 12 USB 2, six SATA, two PATA and Gigabit port, plus high-definition audio and three more PCIe v1 lanes.

For mid- and entry-level buyers, the NVIDIA 8300/8200 chipsets are the perfect choice. Identical in everything but graphics speed, these are single chipset solutions, offering the same abilities as the 780a but with only a single 16-lane PCIe v2 slot. This is somewhat balanced via the Hybrid SLi feature that uses the onboard graphics to accelerate graphics or save power. The Hybrid mode only works with the 8400GS and 8500GT cards, which makes sense for low-end options.

Finally, what about AMD? It's still pushing its high-end 700 chipset, and has rebranded the ageing Xpress 3200 and Xpress 1600 ranges to the 580X and 480X to eliminate any confusion from their Intel-compatible counterparts. The high-end 790FX (launched at the end of 2007) is still something of a power-house. It supports two physical CPU sockets -rare in real-life - along with 42 PCIe v2 lanes enabling four-way CrossFire fun via two full 16-lane and two 8-lane slots. Oh, and twin Gigabit ports - yes, it's a fairly feature-heavy Northbridge, alright. Odd, then, that it was typically paired with the comparatively weak SB600 Southbridge, offering only four SATA ports, an extra four PCIe v1 lanes, RAID, two PATA channels and 10 USB 2.0 ports. Happily, this is being superseded by the SB700/750, with six SATA ports, eSATA support, 14 USB ports and support for hybrid flash drives.

For more mid-range systems, AMD's 790X supports two physical CrossFire slots and the new 780G. This last chipset is of interest as it comes with integrated graphics and offers similar features to the NVIDIA 8300/8200 chipsets. The Hybrid CrossFire works alongside a HD2400 or HD3450 graphics card for about 50 per cent increases in 3D speed. Those will remain on the market for a good while. New high-end options such as the Intel X58 and the AMD 800 series are on the way with new sockets and better memory support, but not until the beginning of 2009.