I know this is going to sound like an anti-Intel post but I don't like the difference in 4400+ and FX62 either as compared to price.
Anyway, the subject of the post:
I was over on Anand (heaven forbid) and they posted an update tot he PhysX tests using Core 2 Extreme. It was a very interesting review in that it showed a marked increase in PhysX scores, but also because there was a section that showed the difference with and without the card using an underclocked Extreme.
The chip was clocked at 1.86GHz and scored 16FPS(min) at max settings (the game is considered CPU bound) while the 2.93GHz clock only scored 20FPS(min)
The average framerate for 1.86GHz was 30FPS and the 2.93GHz made an astounding 39.1FPS.
This means that for a CPU bound game and a 7950GX2 $800 for the EExtreme will get you 9.1 EXTRA FPS. I expected CPU bound games to show a much larger increase with an aded 1.07GHz.
I'm going to look around for the tests of 3800+ and FX62 to see the difference and hopefully it will be similar or it points to a lack of real scaling with Core 2.
Anyway, the subject of the post:
I was over on Anand (heaven forbid) and they posted an update tot he PhysX tests using Core 2 Extreme. It was a very interesting review in that it showed a marked increase in PhysX scores, but also because there was a section that showed the difference with and without the card using an underclocked Extreme.
The chip was clocked at 1.86GHz and scored 16FPS(min) at max settings (the game is considered CPU bound) while the 2.93GHz clock only scored 20FPS(min)
The average framerate for 1.86GHz was 30FPS and the 2.93GHz made an astounding 39.1FPS.
This means that for a CPU bound game and a 7950GX2 $800 for the EExtreme will get you 9.1 EXTRA FPS. I expected CPU bound games to show a much larger increase with an aded 1.07GHz.
I'm going to look around for the tests of 3800+ and FX62 to see the difference and hopefully it will be similar or it points to a lack of real scaling with Core 2.