First THIS ISN'T A BENCHMARK it's a GRAPH OF A GUESSTIMATION !!
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.
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 !?!
Seriously people stop posting stuff you'd be embarassed being associated with because it makes you look almost as stupid as Blootooth.