Originally Posted by MUYA
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
I understand what you're saying. No doubt whenever you increase the processor speed the potential for better performance is there, even if it is a GPU bound application. It depends upon the angle you are looking at. The 3 games you listed that you are going to play might all benefit from it, where the upgrade for me I'm looking at performance across the board. What I consider cost effective is more than likely different from what you might. When there is a 10% gain I don't consider that a large boost in performance. It needs to be more like a 25% gain if I were to consider replacing the processor. For the price of that CPU, it wouldn't be considered cost effective for me.