Well, it may seem like a strange question, but I'm genuinely interested in how raw 16-bit DOS performance will be on the latest dual core / quad core CPUs. Now, I realize DOS can't take advantage of more than one CPU core, but I'm looking to upgrade my system to achieve the fastest 16 bit pure DOS and 32-bit DOS extender speed in general. 1. Which CPUs are better theoretically for 16 bit performance- 32 bit or 64 bit? 2. Will a dual-core CPU based on Intel technology, such as the core 2 duo running at 2.8 - 3.2 Ghz outperform a similar Mhz Athlon dual core 6000+ CPU in DOS tasks? Specifically, archiving (pkzip, etc) and emulation (MAME). 3. In the past, I noticed that Mhz being equal, Athlon CPUs generally performed better at 16 bit tasks than Intel CPUs (P3-P4 line). Does this general trend still hold for the "modern" offerings? 4. 1333 fsb vs 800 fsb -- Will I see much of a difference in general 16-bit performance, again, Mhz speed being the same but only bus speed being increased? 5. Dos Extender 32-bit performance. I should expect it to be faster with the larger L2 caches and faster bus speeds that Core 2 Duo systems offer. Is this a correct assumption? Thanks for any help you guys can provide on this suject. Real world benchmarks would help also.

Why dont you email me your homework so I can do it for you.

What? It sounds like you want a NASCAR type engine to be placed in a VW--you don't want to do that for 16-bit. I built a computer using old-school parts a 486DX-33, Paradise 16-bit Super VGA, and tons of ram. If you are hungry for power then try using a Gainbery Maximizer 486DX5-133MHZ or a 486 Pentium Overdrive 83mhz. Both chips push the 16-bit pipeline without overdoing it like modern CPUs. Spurs