3DMark Vantage Loves The Cores: QCs FTW !!

[perkam]

What are you talking about? The relative gap between C2Q and Phenom has actually increased with 3DMark Vantage compared to 3DMark 06, this is especially apparent with the 45nm C2Qs.

3DMark06 CPU Test numbers courtesy of THG CPU Charts 2007:
C2Q QX9650 @ 3GHz - 4357
C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz - 3507
Phenom 9700 @ 2.4GHz - 3347

Extrapolating from the Phenom 9700 numbers, a Phenom 9850 would score approx 3500 points, effectively tieing with the Q6600 and about ~25% behind a QX9650.

Compare that to 3DMark Vantage:
C2Q QX9650 @ 3GHz - 12407
C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz - 8598
Phenom 9850 @ 2.5GHz - 8340

As you can see, a QX9650 is now ~49% faster than a Phenom 9850, up from ~25% in 3DMark06. A Q6600 is now 3% faster than a Phenom 9850, whereas they would be virtually tied in 3DMark06. In all cases, the performance gap between C2Q and Phenom grows, slightly in the case of Kentsfield, significantly in the case of Yorkfield. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, your interpretation of the data is simply wrong.

Sorry perkam, your theory is busted.

Well, I'm not here to go back and forth, but based on YOUR OWN numbers, the Q6600 was ahead by 7% in 3dMark 06 and is now only ahead by 2.5% in 3DMark Vantage. Ty for helping my argument out . (Remember that a 200 point difference to a 3000 pt score is 7% of the score, while a 200 point different to an 8000 point score is much smaller )

Though, I'm flattered that you went through the (if a tad incoherent) analysis to try to disprove me, but read my first post. The "EFFECT" of the final cpu score is so low in 3dmark vantage that, even with a 4ghz QX9650 and a 3ghz Phenom 9850, one can manage to get very similar scores, which was not possible before.

I would like to see you try to debunk my statement on Tri-cores in the first post

Perkam