It's like arguing with a tree.I really see no point here.You fail to understand the basics.My opinion is that Core i7 was never the intended chip to compete with from price perspective.Maybe the lowest part(i920) was.The charts we saw(they are offline now) were representing 4 CPU generations. It's clear since all chips were there apart from 65nm C2Q.Agena was there for PhII comparison (and we see the core +cache improvements nicely),C2Q and i7 were 2 latest fom intel.Last one is there simply because it is released (it would be stupid to miss out a whole gen. in one review) and is similar in clock to all the chips since 920 would be too low looking at the def. clocks.Q9550 is 6% away in clock terms and closest in price as things stand right now since PhII 940 will cost around 265-275 US Dollars.Q9550 is 250 bucks.
Again you quote yourself for who knows what time in vain.I did the math since you asked me to do it.Remember.It's 16x10,CPU plays smaller role and therefore you see smaller differentiation when chips with similar cache size and clock are in question(12MBs vs 8Mbs,2.83Ghz vs 3Ghz).Agena falls a bit short because it lacks those larger caches and CPU clock,hardly surprising eh?
Tell me,what kind of results from Q9650 you expect to see in 16x10 in these games?Do you think it will score 6% faster than Q9550 in these settings?Hmm k.
Still you failed to see RV770 vs GT200 similarity and not responded to it(yes Phenoms will be sub 280$ region,apart from early price jacking that always happen).
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks