Originally Posted by pauldovi
You are getting upset because a X6800 scores differently than a QX6800. That not inflating anything, they are different processor!
No, you're missing the point. They compared a dual core X6800 to a quad core Nehalem and then claimed there was a 23% clock-for-clock core-for-core
improvement (Note that this text is changed now because people realized it was false, but my screenshot shows the original text). They're comparing dual core vs a quad core, so their claim is simply not true. And then when they do actually include a comparably clocked quad core for comparison, they claim a score lower than what it actually gets. By making Intel's current chips look worse, they are inflating the performance difference between Core2 and Nehalem, there is no way around it.
The other benchmark cannot really be used. Who knows if the two tests used the same hardware / OS / drivers as the first test?
Well of course it's not the same hardware, the chipset is different. And the benchmark from their site that I posted earlier used Vista just like the Nehalem bench. But from looking at other reviews that feature PCMark05 and the QX6800, there isn't much variation:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06...800/page3.htmlEdited by darkcloud89 - 7/10/08 at 3:29pm