HelloI am wondering if anyone saw or made a clock for clock benchmark/comparision of performance gains for bloomfield chips over kentsfield yorkfield quads?I need to buy a new PC for the kids, I am tempted to give them my CPU, mobo and ram of my rig (see signature) and upgrade mine to a i7 920. Since my Q9650 is already running at 4.23ghz I am wondering how faster would a 920 at similar clock speed would be over the Q9650.thanks

Minor correction: Kentsfield was the designation of the original Core 2 Quads, you have a 45nm C2Q, a Yorkfield. Clock-for-clock in FSX, I'd say that Bloomfield is a good 20-30% faster.

Minor correction: Kentsfield was the designation of the original Core 2 Quads, you have a 45nm C2Q, a Yorkfield. Clock-for-clock in FSX, I'd say that Bloomfield is a good 20-30% faster.

Thanks for the correction! Not enough coffee this morning :)The numbers you're mentionning, have you measured them somehow or they are estimates?I've been looking at Anandtech benchmark comparing the i7 vs. other processor and the gaming benchmark show approximately 10% (depending on the game) improvement over Yorkfields.Maybe FSX benefits more of the bloomfield architecture than other games

It really does depend on the game. More independent assessments have shown much greater gains than 10% across a wide variety of games, that's rather conservative. Here's a recent one comparing an i7 @ 4GHz vs. a Core 2 Q9550 @ 4GHz.

It sure depends on the game. that's why I was asking if there is a similar benchmark somewhere that does the clock-for-clock comparision for FSX to see if it benefits more than other game. doesnt looks like that exist or at least I was not able to find any so far

Outside of the avid online FS community, no one really cares about FS performance so no one benches it.