Quote Originally Posted by JumpingJack View Post
What experiment should we run to prove your hypothesis?
Pick any test that is sending a lot of data through the FSB. When programmers optimize code this is in fact something that they are working hard with. Using the cache as much as possible and avoiding going to memory.

Quote Originally Posted by JumpingJack View Post
If I compared a Phenom 9850 @ 2.5 Ghz running a game at 640x480 against a QX9650 @ 2.5 GHz (running the same clock speed), who would win?
Your mama!

It depends on the application (the code). You can analyze things until you die... But if you check the code then you have it!
Single threaded games then QX9650 will win big, the big L2 cache is a huge advantage on singel threaded games at low res.

If the game is using two threads then C2D will win, C2Q is going to be a bit slower and last is Phenom. If the game is using three threads and they are doing some synchronization. Then Phenom will probably win, it depends on how the threads are using memory and talks to each other. C2D is going to runt two threads on one core and that will slow that processor. C2Q isn’t good at synchronizing and if two threads are writing to the same data then it also is going to decrease its speed. More threads and Phenom will increase its advantage.
If the game is using MUCH memory (almost as databases) then Phenom will probably win if the game is using two threads.
The Core 2 architecture is very good for single threaded applications. This isn’t any arguing about. It is built to perform well for that.

The assumptions above is of course dependent on how the implementation has been done, if you create code that isn’t using what is fast on the processor, like reading one byte each read when BIG blocks are read etc then the result could be anything.


Here you can read article that explains some techniques creating threaded games so even a non programmer will understand.
http://www.gamedev.net/columns/event...le.asp?id=1345