Quote Originally Posted by Sr7 View Post
Of course, that's a given. But the sad part is I'm on a 12x10 monitor still Even at those lower resolutions like 10x7 or 12x10, where the CPU is much more of a bottleneck, we see it doesn't seem to be beneficial to upgrade to nehalem, according to these released benchmarks. This is the first time I can remember that being the case with a new gen of CPUs in quite some time. Usually Intel and AMD specifically recommend that reviewers test at 8x6 or 10x7 to see the gains of their new processors.
Depends on the game... Gen-1 games, yeah I agree.... but current DX10 games... even 1280x1024 with high fidelity settings is GPU limited.

WIC at 1280x800, high setting default, QX9650 @ 3.2 Ghz
Min =32 Ave = 58 Max = 154

WIC at 1280x800, high settings default, QX9650 @ 2.66 Ghz
min =28 Ave = 59 Max = 141

This is on a 4870X2 ... lost planet is doing the same thing (everything high)..... so this review ran GPU limited but tries to conclude (as well as most other on this thread) about the CPU.... this is incorrect. EDIT: Note I ran XP DX9, DX10 will be even more the same...

Does it make a difference, nope ... why? Because we like to play at those settings ... however, I personally, prefer to not buy a whole new system ... the CPU is the lowest common denomenator -- and revs every 1-2 years, GPUs rev every 6-9 months, so if I want to future proof -- I prefer the fastest CPU then incrementally upgrade the GPU as needed... that's me ... which is why I want to see both the high quality, high res result but also the low res, lower quality results to ascertain the viability of the CPU ...

This review did not do that... the question whether Nehalem actually improves gaming is still a question mark... I do not expect a huge leap, and I suspect to see some games actually under perform ... but the oddity of this data set is that all the CPUs compared bunched up to be roughly the same ... this is GPU limited.