Recent content by zumzum

http://www.anti-x.net/hwnews/200608151/ASUS_P5B_Deluxe_vs_G_Brand_DQ6.pdf What do you guys think? :)

wow look at how e6400 beat x2 5000+ in almost all game tests. amazing!

If synthetics cannot tell the potential of future performance. So now all the old 640x480 synthetics tests saying A64,X2 CPU were better are all false now? Do netburst CPUs actually game better than K8's in terms of future performance now?

true that. thats where this *real world* benchmark method fails. ;)

I just want to see whether 640x480 tests are so useless as some people say.

How about we do a netburst CPU vs K8 *real world* gaming re-evaluation now with this [H] real world method, then compare to the old results of all the 640x480 tests that were done on AMD's CPU to see if its indeed a bad way to test CPU gaming power?

Exactly. Too bad its only when Conroe comes out now that some people start to realise the importance of *real world* benchmarking... ;)

I agree, there are SO MANY combinations of different real world settings, it really takes lots of time to find just ONE setting to bench and call it real world and then draw conclusion from it.

well, playing games @ 800x600 or 640x480 with a high end card, is just like testing high end CPU performance with rather non-matching performance bottlenecking GPU setup. :)

What is highest playable setting to you might be absolutely not playable to the others, so picking one setting for EVERYBODY is just like picking a EVERYBODY favourite song, pretty impossible if you ask me. I dont game at settings that is even remotely close to the one they pick, if this...

That is why people bench some games with different maps. e.g. oblivion outdoor, city, dungeon, far cry.., HL2..., etc. mutiple settings always give more information than just ONE setting.

Thats why a review should not define and test only ONE *real world* settings for EVERYONE. But I know, this kind of superior review is just for who they define as *real world gamers*.

Then A64, X2, FX series are just more expensive waste.

If all of the time was spent on testing only GPU performance, of course there would be no time for real CPU gaming performance tests.

I think real gamers, enthusiasts are not only interested in certain selection of GPU limited benchmarks, real gamers are also interested in real CPU limited game tests. And its not like newest games are always playable @ 1600x1200 with all the eye candy options on with AA and AF without SLi/CF...