Real World Gameplay CPU Scaling

[TX-EcoDragon]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/1

[TX-Thunderbolt]

Interesting reading. No revelations, but interesting. The only other question I'd have would be how the stock Q9650 (not the Extreme version) fits into that equation. Probably just below the QX9650 and the Phenom II 840.

I've been running my cpu at 3.8ghz the last few days (for games anyway) and will likely leave it there for most all my gaming. There is a visual difference in RoF at that setting. I'm really interested in the next-gen graphics cards slated for release sometime in December/January and will likely be an early adopter in that arena for my system upgrade path as long as the performance gains are all they're being cracked up to be.

[TX-Gunslinger]

Great article - but a little frustrating.  The problem with some of these "gaming" tests is the limited sample size of the applications tested.

For example:  FSX is the sole "placeholder' for sims.  We know that Blackshark and ROF for example, perform and function significantly different than FSX.  Yes, I understand that they are a small portion of the overall "gaming - user base" but they are newer and reveal performance behavior trends which diverge from the FSX placeholder.

In reality - comparing the benchmarks from even the 1st person shooters - I don't see all that much to make me want to go rush out and buy into the I7 yet.  If I knew I needed to upgrade from an older system - I'd probably go that route (I7 plunge) which would make the new motherboard and Ram worth it.

Intel is really irritating at this point.  Comparing their current pricing infrastructure - I7 versus Core2 Quad versus Extreme versus Server line one get's the immediate impression of a marketing/business strategy which is at odds with the performance of the products they actually produce.

One day it would be good to see AMD return to performance competitivness with these gouging, bloated businessfolks.   Same with the ATI branch of AMD. 

S~

Gunny

[TX-Gunslinger]

Interesting reading. No revelations, but interesting. The only other question I'd have would be how the stock Q9650 (not the Extreme version) fits into that equation. Probably just below the QX9650 and the Phenom II 840.

Good call.  Why these reviewers chose a "golden chip" is beyond me.   Q9650 would have been of use to many more folks.  Now your left with more questions than answers in the comparisons.

S~

Gunny

[GOZR]

Agreed Gunny..
Yes look well how they did overclock the cpu's they didn't push the FSB on the QX9650 just bumped the multiplier .. pathetic!! but we can see well that the next step is the i9 not the i7 as we know now.

The QX9650 perform less than a Q9650 E0 ( i can explain on comms ) but is a great alternative for the lower rate motherboards that can't jump into higher FSB. The QX9650 is not E0 stepping.. Period
I will be testing the Q9550 E0 ( $169 ) real soon.

The price of a Q9550 is cheap cheap and can run 3.6 at ease closed eye for that much low $$ they should of compare it too.. but here a Q9550 at 3.6 ghz with a higher FSB will kill a QX9650 no doubt that it could have been probably the highest score of all chips there