|I'm not trying to be rude, but learn before you speak
What is it with Dell users on these forums thinking that they know everything and others know nothing? Have you seen the x64 version of FarCry compared to the 32-bit version? No? What about the x64 version of Chroicles Of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay? No again? Then what "experience" are you basing your assumptions on?They are already making games with x64 libraries, because early adopters and many gamers will make that leap sooner rather than later. Microsoft even lists gamers and early adopters as target audiences for x64. They are also looking at getting gamers for the upcoming Longhorn beta.
And WoW & HL2 do run faster under x64 than XP. Unlike other changes between OSes (i.e, 8 to 16-bit, 16 to 32-bit), x64 runs 32-bit appl natively through the WoW layer - not through emulation, as other OSes do (for example, Apple's OSX runs Mac Classic apps via emulator).
Someone mentioned that Intel already has 64-bit processors. That's true, but the only ones available now are the Itaniums - which are incompatible with x64. Intel's announced "EMT64" processors - which are literally based on the AMD64 instruction set with SSE3 added - are the only Intels that will run x64. But so far, they have proven to be vaporware. In fact, nobody even knows anymore when an EA64 CPU will be released by Intel.
Also, 64-bit systems can address up to 8 Terabytes of memory, not 8GB. The initial release of x64 can address up to 128GB of RAM out of the box - good for servers, but not going to happen on ANY consumer PC - whether desktop or notebook. So slamming a notebook because it can't handle 8GB is irrelevant, because your desktops can't either.
And I don't know where you got this "100fps" website from, but I'd take the word of optometrists and other researchers over the word of a site that is there to show you "how to make brilliant looking DivX video (from TV, DVB, DV, DVD etc) for archiving purposes OR how to reduce file size to produce good-looking yet small DivX footage." That's like going to the dentist for a gynecological exam.
At least try to find a website that would be an authority on the human eye (or at the very least have some reasearch to support their claims. I've seen reports that humans can see "up to 60FPS", but nothing credible stating that humans can see 100FPS. Maybe
someone with exceptional vision (20/400 or so) could tell the difference, but the average human won't be able to.