i really don't think you get it at all. Why not bench at 640x480 if you want to just show which CPU can play a game at 1000fps vs 1200fps
What i am doing is showing the relative performance of 3 CPU platforms using the same video cards - and in two cases, the only difference is the CPU. However, i am benching at the resolutions that gamers play at - 1080p and above and i use sufficient powerful graphics that DOES show the relative performance differences of the CPUs.
You also need to realize that these reviews were all RUSHED. Part two will use much more powerful graphics - GTX 580 SLI/HD 6970-X3 to shift the burden to the CPU and even higher resolutions. Then we will have a pattern of how each CPU handles the load.
Not from me. i am way behind in benching. However, i am trying to get another reviewer who specializes in Linux to write for ABT.
I appreciate your charts, and look forward to the 580 SLI etc. I like how many games/benchmarks you are running, thanks for that.
I think what max is saying is that given two choices within a price band (AMD 8150 versus 2500K), if both are GPU limited at 1080p+ with high AA (which they are), how does one, with gaming as a primary need, decide which is the better value? I would say:
a) More powerful in gaming - tested by removing GPU bottleneck (lower resolutions) - somewhat useful as a predictor of future gaming performance when faster GPUs come out
b) Performance/watt and power use/heat considerations
c) Overclocking (if applicable to user)
Based on these, it's really hard to choose Bulldozer over the 2500K, especially since the 2500K is significantly cheaper on sale. For a gaming rig, I do not understand why anyone would consider buying Bulldozer unless they were upgrading from some really old/slow Phenom II but somehow already had an AM3/AM3+ mobo.
Building a new system as a gamer it is a no-brainer to go the Intel route.