Excellent find and the results do look like a very credible improvement.
Just picking up on Jori's point:
Originally Posted by Jori
Heres something.. How the heck does a processor affect gaming THAT much? I doubt these results for some reason... No other processor has had "this much" of a lead in gaming over any other one, because processor doesnt do that much to the fps unless you have a really slow proc and fast graphics card.
I agree. The CPU isn't normally the bottleneck, for games. If you want to test a bottleneck, underclock your CPU and see the difference in framerates. I took my CPU from 2.8 down to 1.8Ghz and lost, on average, about 10% FPS. Now try underclocking your GFX card proportionately and compare the difference.
Granted, if you're running a very slow CPU it might begin to degrade performance significantly, but a new GFX card will normally yield the highest results in games, when upgraded, and is hence the bottleneck.
Also, check out the minimum frames and average on the FEAR test. 78 for Intel as opposed to 63 AMD. These are the sort of things to look for. Who needs 500+ FPS? But the minimum framerates is where performance starts to degrade and the difference is much closer here. Also, check out the average FPS; 186 Vs 132 in favour of Intel. Again a very good advantage, but nowhere near 500 FPS.
Just wanted to point a few things out from these results to put them into context. I'm looking forward to Conroe and fully expect it to be my next system, if results continue to show these sorts of improvements. However, it's not going to be the 'be all and end all' of gaming. That performance will still be gained, on the whole by the GFX card(s). Credit to Pauldovi though who has brought us some good info over the last few days