Originally Posted by Bman212121
Actually here is another good question. Is there a particular title where it feels like the game is running slow?
One thing that would be note worthy is there are no minimum fps numbers shown. The cpu could potentially have a larger impact if you were being cpu limited and that was causing the slowdowns. The only game I can think of where I've seen cpu slowdowns is Far Cry 2. When the fire is on the screen during the benchmark I can see the SLI scaling shrink on the bars to very little while the fps drops. There are other times where I've seen the bars shrink, but usually the fps doesn't drop meaning that I'm already sitting on a frame cap or something else isn't scaling right.
Actually I can think of another time where that happens, if you play an MMO and there is a bloat load of characters on the screen.
If you read the report, i7 does benefit the 295...how much is relative to what you can justify for yourself as a purchase. Certainly in some situations, an overclock in quadcores seems to boost average fps. As you mentioned, min fps has been overlooked but, still average fps is still indicative as a form of measurement...not fool proof but still.
I hear your point about all the other intricacies of benching/gaming but, coming from a q6600@3Ghz and finding 400mhz more could benefit you (as I mentioned onionmarks). More specifically, for SLI reliant situations in which the 295 is an example, I would think (if you have cash/credit to burn for a 295...) you could probably consider such things. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
I intend to bench crysis warhead and far cry2.
I play AoC a lot and will try to bench it with Fraps...but benching consistently in AoC is a problem. You probably have rely on feel, perception more than anything else and that is always subjective