Originally Posted by fatal1ty
I don't like seeing percentages when the numbers are so low. Like when ATI releases drivers and the release notes claim a 55% increase in game X at 1600 x 1200 with 6xaa / 16x af... what kills me is when 55% = 4 or 5 FPS thats just LAME!!!!!!
I see your excitment...realizing that the game MIGHT be CPU dependant but come on man if you are using a 939 with DDR 1 system and have to fork out $200 for a decent conroe motherboard, another $525 for the e6700 chip and another $400 for decent 2GB of DDR 2 then I sure as hell better see more of an increase than 5 fps...I almost died laughing when you noted it to be 55.6% increase over 4800, I'm sorry but 14 fps still sucks LOL.
4400+ @2.3Ghz = 8fps
4800+ @2.4Ghz = 9fps (~12.5%+ over email@example.com)
E6700 @2.7Ghz = 14fps ! (55.6% + over 4800+)
Wow I'm sold on a conroe time to sell my 3Ghz overclocked X2 3800 and blow $1100 to gain 2 or 3 more FPS... W00000t!
You are crazy if you dont think that is a noticable improvement. 55% is still 55% no mater how many ways you cut it. And your logic is thoroughly flawed by saying you "blow $1100" on the system. So if I have a 500 dollar video card and I sell it... then buy a 600 dollar video card is that blowing 600 dollars? I highly doubt you would say that. Bottom line is that the conroe system costs about a grand... you a right. However, if you were to build an Athlon system to try to get remotely close to those scores you will be spending ALOT more money on some FX chip(and then if you bring overclocking into the scenario those Conroe chips overclock WAY WAY better). I'd say it was money well spent.
Nice scores btw.