awesome! i actually like this!
why? its realistic... if you want to predict gaming perf of a system this is spot on... this is exactly how most games scale with additional cores and i agree with fms speculation that this wont change within the next 2 years.

the cpu mhz scaling graph is confusing me though... barely any scaling above 2400mhz?
correct me if im wrong, but the latest games really scale well with cpu clocks above 3g, dont they?
i remember reading that sc2 even scales past 4g... i dont know how respresentative that is, but... im surprised, especially with the physics focus and all, that there is no scaling past 2.4ghz?

wow, has anybody else noticed how a 1090T outperforms a 980X in 2k11 at X?
how?

pardon my ignorance, i havent run 2k11 yet, but whats the difference between GT1 and GT2, and GT3 and GT4?
they look identical on the screenshots

i really like that X includes 4aa, but im disappointed that P doesnt have any aa at all...
if it were up to me i think id have made X 8aa and P 4aa actually... cause i mean SERIOUSLY, we are a decade into the 21st century already, i cant believe people actually play games without aa at all.... and i cant believe ati and nvidia arent spending more efforts and transistors on optimizing aa and image quality and performance...
thats why i think all games and benchmarks should be run with top of the line image quality settings, at least for highend hardware... cause thats the only way ati and nvidia feel the burn to improve AA quality and performance...

it barely scales with higher memory clocks on the vga?
that makes sense... i guess...
the problem isnt feeding the gpu cores but having too few gpu cores and them gnawing on the work like an old dog instead of finishing it quickly

hey monstru or matose, could you test in detail how the physics tests scale?
im curious... it seems they run on the gpu only and dont use the cpu at all?
but i thought they were opencl and should work on both cpus and gpus?