CPU Charts

[SgtBilko]

I have a question,
In the CPU charts there seems to be some inconsistensies. I'm referingIntel Q9550 vs. Q9450 in particular but not exclusively.
I find it hard to believe that two processors with exactly the same die, the only difference being that the Q9550 has been passed by intel to run at a higher frequency can show some wild results. It doesn't ring true.
If the only difference is that on processor is quicker than the other, how can the slower be better in some benchmarks?
Example: How can a processor that scores higher in Vantage CPU test score lower in Vantage GPU test. It does'nt make sence.
If the graphics card is the same how can a faster CPU score lower that a slower CPU?
Is it a question of different graphic cards or just wacky results?
I don't know about but I think somethings wrong.
Anyone got an answer to this one, I'd really like to know.
Bilko out.

 

[jlvitt]

Like everything else in life, nothing is perfect.

In a perfect world, in a perfect technological world, a processor rated at a higher frequency would run faster than one at a lower one.

All that benchmarks do is try to provide a side by side comparison of two products with as little variable as possible.

So let's make an analogy here:
You put two brand new corvettes beside each other, everything is exactly the same. They race, and 9 chances out of 10 one of them is going to get beat.

Is it the driver? Maybe. Is it the quality assurance? Could be.

In a perfect world things like this wouldn't be the case. Just because something is rated at a higher frequency with more h.p. doesn't always mean it was ran through the ringer of q.a. testing. I doubt that Intel or any company test every single product that comes through that line, the time ratio from production to the point of sale would take too long. Thus, you get an occassional product that might step out of its lines of the way it should perform.