Yeh I know! I set the bios back to default, checked CPU-Z, it's was at stock multiplier, base clock, voltages etc and running at 3.33GHz with HT on. Scored 11,004

Did you really default settings the BIOS, you know, full reset?What do you achieve with the OC then???

I think I did. I must have done something wrong. I'll give the bios a full reset tonight, see what it scores. I don't have the time to OC yet, but on the weekend, I'll put it to 3.8GHz, bench it, 4.2Ghz, bench it and see how high I can go, without errors. If I can hit 4.5Ghz+ I'll bench that too so we can compare SB vs 980x

Hi guys, I found this graph on one Czech website, which collected data from reviews all around the globe. The graph shows raw CPU power in games, without the influence of GPU and other parts. The numbers are percentage, so it is very easy to compare all the CPUs on their stock frekvencies.ENjoy.

Depends on the game and how it utilises cores. For example, a game that could utilise 6 cores would have the 980x right up the top easily. However, one that only utilises 1 or 2 cores wouldn't see the 980x up top.

Thats why it shows the average percentage. Anyway, we still have to wait for the benchmarks in FSX, as it is not a game, it is a simulator...

Hmmm. Even still. The fact a 975 with only 4 cores and same speed is better than a 980x...don't think so, and an i7 2400 with slower stock speed and locked multiplier, and only 4 cores is better...don't think so.

Chris, no offence, but the difference is you think, they did the math. As far as we don´t know which games they used (as it is calculated on worldwide reviews with different games), we can´t simply make any conclusions. I think many people will decide either to go SB way or stay on their i7s 9xx based on the first reviews by FSX users. What we all know, it is a good move for us Q94xx users... Peace, bro...:Peace:

No no. I'm not saying that the sandy bridges should be lower, all I'm saying is the fact the 975 is above the 980x is strange, when the 980x is newer technology, more cores, same stock speed etc. Just doesn't seem right. Of course it may be true, but if you looked at it logically, you would think the 980x would be above the 975 and the i7-2400. If I was to place it logically, I'd place it 1st or 2nd, not well down the list.

I completely understand your arguments. All I am trying to do is to gain as most data as I can before making a final decision (well, it seems to be influneced by my job, being a journalist :Thinking: ). Therefore your opinion is as valuable as any others for me. And I do agree with you that in case someone owns a super-duper i7-950 overclocked at more than 4GHz, he won´t see much difference against SB. I thing we´ll see the results of those who upgraded within next hours or days.

Depends on the game and how it utilises cores. For example, a game that could utilise 6 cores would have the 980x right up the top easily. However, one that only utilises 1 or 2 cores wouldn't see the 980x up top.

Show me a game that utilizes 6 cores, let alone 12 threads. You can't. Your test case does not exist. The 2600k is a faster gaming CPU than the 980x, as EVERY REVIEW has shown.

I believe I said for example. I know they don't exist now, but think about it. You haves brain don't you? Ever heard of the future? With intel planning 6 and 8 core SBs, don't you think game makers are going to be pushing more limits? And we don't know what MS Flight will be like. If they pay attention to what their customers say, ie these forums, then surely they will make a better game.

No no. I'm not saying that the sandy bridges should be lower, all I'm saying is the fact the 975 is above the 980x is strange, when the 980x is newer technology, more cores, same stock speed etc. Just doesn't seem right. Of course it may be true, but if you looked at it logically, you would think the 980x would be above the 975 and the i7-2400. If I was to place it logically, I'd place it 1st or 2nd, not well down the list.

Here's the thing, Chris. The 980x actually is slower than the 975x in applications which don't take advantage of the extra parallelism of the 980. The reason is because of the L3 cache latency. In order to increase the L3 cache size on the 980x from 8MB to 12MB, Intel had to also increase latency. Clock-for-clock the 980 is slower than the 975. This was covered by several 980x launch reviews.

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining instead of being a complete d&%k about it.

I believe I said for example. I know they don't exist now, but think about it. You haves brain don't you? Ever heard of the future? With intel planning 6 and 8 core SBs, don't you think game makers are going to be pushing more limits? And we don't know what MS Flight will be like. If they pay attention to what their customers say, ie these forums, then surely they will make a better game.

/sighChris, it is a non-trivial task to parallelize game code. It's even less trivial to parallelize game code in a manner which produces a net performance gain. This is why we still don't have many games which really take advantage of today's multi-core processors. You have to remember, multi-core processors have been around since 2005. It's 2011 now and you can count on one hand the games that stress > 3 cores.

I believe I said for example. I know they don't exist now, but think about it. You haves brain don't you? Ever heard of the future? With intel planning 6 and 8 core SBs, don't you think game makers are going to be pushing more limits? And we don't know what MS Flight will be like. If they pay attention to what their customers say, ie these forums, then surely they will make a better game.

whatever by the time flight will be out and will have add-ons devl. for it to make it worthwhile from FSX, cpu architecture will have changed from what we know now. It will most likely rely on GPU speed, not cpu speed like all of the new games today!

Here's the thing, Chris. The 980x actually is slower than the 975x in applications which don't take advantage of the extra parallelism of the 980. The reason is because of the L3 cache latency. In order to increase the L3 cache size on the 980x from 8MB to 12MB, Intel had to also increase latency. Clock-for-clock the 980 is slower than the 975. This was covered by several 980x launch reviews.

Good point!!