First THIS ISN'T A BENCHMARK it's a GRAPH OF A GUESSTIMATION !!
terror112 :
These benchies look way more realistic than the previous 4870 being up to 50% faster than the 9800gx2. So I guess it is safe to assume that the 4870 used in previous benchies had to be an X2...
Really? I mean REALLY?
(ala Seth Meyers on SNL)
C'mon, it's not a benchmark even, it's a fabrication based on the "It is said that they are respectively 20% more than X and Y...." can I just point out a few things which make me laugh about the scientific-ness of the originating thread at OCW, this passage in particular;
In 3DMARK06, Radeon HD 4870 will be 32% faster than 8800GT, 22% faster than 9800GTX and 12% faster than 4850.
AS for 4850, it will be 20% faster than 8800GT and 10% faster than the 9800GTX.
That first line ignores the whole damn premise and then F's up the interpretation of his own graph. [:thegreatgrapeape:5]
The graph is base on the HD4870 being 20% faster than the GF9800GTX, not 22% (132/110x100 = 120% ie 20% faster) and is not 12% it's 10% faster than the HD4850 by his own made up numbers, at least he gets the first one right.
As for the last line yes once again the baseline is 20% faster than the GF8800GT restating the obvious, but actually getting it right this time, but once again according to his numbers the HD4850 is not 10% faster than the GF9800GTX, but 9.0909repeating % faster.
For someone so poor at math, I wouldn't bother with these made up numbers, even the author of the graph obviously doesn't know WTF it means.
So once again.... REALLY !?! [:mousemonkey:1]
Seriously people stop posting stuff you'd be embarassed being associated with because it makes you look almost as stupid as Blootooth.