I've been interested at looking at new CPU's and GPU's for a couple of days, not that I can afford one, but I've come to a cross roads in my thinking...

Now I can either carry straight on, or I can go left or right.. If I go left, then K is the way, if I go right its not... Let me explain.

When I talk about K, I'm talking about the current Gaming Goto Intel Core processor with a K added on, so this is the i5 4670 K and the matching i7.  Every time I turn a page about Gaming and building a gaming rig I see people say "Get the K" version... And for the life of me I can't figure out why, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see people explaining why.

Now, you can look any place to see these chips, here they are on Amazon... And you can notice something here, a price difference, the K version has a higher price... I'm taking the right path... Right K, more cost, an added letter... It must do More!!!! MORE!... MWHOORE!!!!!.... Nope, as far as I can see the K chip does less...

The cheaper standard 4670 here does more, lets take a look at the Intel Ark page listing them...

So on the Ark there you can highlight the rows which are different, now some of the items are highlighted in error, but if we skip down to the bottom, this is where the functional changes are.  The K version has some of the Virtual technology removed...

I use that technology a lot, so a K version is not for me... But curiously, with functionality removed, the K version costs more?

This is where I'm confused, go right, enjoy the K and be in all the gaming comments... but don't be able to virtualize?  And pay more?  Go figure.

Lots of the kits I see out are also the K version bundled in.

I don't get it... I'm not able to go left, I'm not able to buy one of these kits... I don't want to go right, and buy a K.. Cus they're nerfed... So I'll just have to go straight on...

Is my direction metaphor grating?... Sorry, its because I have directions - from the multiboxer - on the mind.

Read the Specification 2

I've often chided others for not providing me a clear specification, well today I have to chide myself... bad Xelous... BAD BADDD!!!!... For not reading the specification.

Now, in my defence, it was not my fault... The specification was IMPOSSIBLE to attain, and I made the obvious assumption that the person handing it down to me was not an utter fail-tard, not an unreasonable thing to do... But they did fail and so I failed and I'm BAD.

The problem is a system, a widely used system - with many units floating around - which the company produces is equipped with an nVidia GeForce 7300 graphics card.  And I was tasked with exploring the possibility of using OpenGL on this hardware, and the manual I was handed was for OpenGL 3.3, so I set about creating code for this.

None of the code worked, nothing, nada, zip... I looked up tutorials, I contacted online tutorial writers, I looked through forums, I searched for ways to see if the code was wrong, or failing... Nothing, it was saying it worked and was working... But nothing was being displayed so somewhere something was lying.

Frustrated I resorted to basics... and the most basic level you can get to using a library like OpenGL is... "Are these calls supported"...

6) What NVIDIA hardware will support OpenGL 3?

The new features in OpenGL 3 require G80, or newer hardware. Thus OpenGL 3.0/3.1/3.2/3.3 is not supported on NV3x, NV4x nor G7x hardware. This means you need one of the following NVIDIA graphics accelerators to use OpenGL 3:

So there you go, my fault I should have looked earlier, my own fault... But the other guy, boy should he have thought about this before passing me a manual.