But you don't know IF TURBO MODE was turned OFF for this shootout (for a clearer comparison). Usually, if these performace enhancers are turned on, there is usually a disclaimer. Even if it wasn't, it is a known fact that Nehalem generally offers NO improvements over C2Q in gaming.
Well, accrding to you, the benchmarks are GPU limited, so I guess:
CPU Effect = 0
Therefore:
PII 920 = Q9550 = PII 940 = Ci7 940
In case it's hard for you to understand, my argument is that that measly 6% you talk of, is enough to make up for the marginal difference (yes marginal difference) between Q9550 and PII 940. Mind you, not LINEARLY, if it was, it'll beat it by a relatively bigger margin.
This one needs quoting:
What you're saying will be true if the margins were bigger than is represented. Don't try throw dust into this; I'm looking at fractions of fps difference with compared to a relatively healthy 6%. I think it's enough to make up for those fractions, regardless of uarch, don't you? About uarch improvements to PII 2, my point was if that is the case, why isn't PII fairing any better in certain games than PI?PhII over PhI is not just a clock uplift but a core and cache one.Total cache amount is doubled and some core tweaks can help too.So PhII is more than a C2Q@ 3Ghz compared to 2.83Ghz one.That's the point i was trying to make.
Finally, let's appeal to logic here:
IN ALL the AMD SLIDES WITH SEEN SO FAR, the Q9650 has not been featured. WHY? Its STOCK CLOCK IS 3GHZ TOO? WHY IN YOUR OPINION, INFORMAL, HASN'T ANYONE TESTED DENEB ALONGSIDE Q9650?YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.




.You can say 3Ghz C2Q will perform better than 2.83Ghz one and that's just fine.But it will still be C2Q with only 6% higher clock in a game that is GPU limited(in 16x10).It will hardly be 6% faster in those settings than a 2.83Ghz C2Q..I think you can understand this? 
YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks