Nickname said:
My laptop’s 8600 can barely play l4d at medium…. and major’s new laptop has a 9600 and can barely play l4d at medium so yeah, I’m gonna stick with my statement about the 7600 not being capable of playing newer games at medium settings.
So you’re using laptop cards as a basis for comparing desktop cards. You know *edited* well they’re never as fast as their desktop equivalent. Also, what resolution are you basing your poor performance on? I know you have a habit of playing everything at the laptop’s max which is where ALL low-end cards fail.
Nickname said:
And LOL have you even looked at benchmarks of the 9600gso vs the radeon 4670? or gaming benchmarks of the q9400 vs x3 720?? Maybe next time do your homework but since you are incapable I will do it for you…
radeon 4670 vs geforce 9600 gso:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2330188,00.asp
We’ve been through this so many times it’s getting to be funny. Remember last time we did this in RL and I proved they were using different machines to test video cards? Look at the machine specs to that review and tell me that doesn’t look fishy.
Also worth mentioning, Extremetech disabled the Phyx processor for it’s testing to “compare apples to apples. That’s something that should give any Nvidia card at least a small bump. Andtech literally uses different driver version for each card they test and beta drivers for the 4670. Now why is that? All Nvidia cards use the same package of drivers and my understanding is that ATI is the same way. A fair comparison would have been to use the same drivers for everthing. Then again they bash the 9600GSO every chance they get for being “rebranded” so I’m sure the reviewer was unbaised 
I know drivers can be finacky and finding one that performs well with the card in question is part of the challenge but drivers are a big deal when it comes to games and from what I’m seeing it looks like they played with drivers to get the results they wanted. Then again if they’re using updated drivers in a fair way to compare new cards to older ones already benchmarked then that also creates biased results because updated drivers might have also helped the older cards as well.
Nickname said:
q9400 vs x3 720:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd…?i=3512&p=8
the only GAMING benchmark where the 720 really loses is far cry 2, in the other 3 they are virtually equal
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showd…?i=3512&p=8
forgive the fact that its the q9450 instead of the q9400 (the 9450 is faster), but the x3 720 clearly wins in farcry 2 and l4d, clearly loses in bioshock, and is fairly even in the other gaming benchmarks.
Not sure what review you’re looking at but the two you linked are the same. Also, the longer bars mean BETTER performance. Using the “longer bar is better” technique, Fallout3 is dominated by a dualcore (we’ll throw that out), they have identical scores in L4D, and the Q9400 CLEARLY wins in Farcry2 and Crysis, although in Crysis an E8400 outperforms the Q9400 so it really shouldn’t be considered either.
Gaming benchmarks for processors is silly as most games usually favor one brand or type over the other. Some do really well with multicores but most games aren’t threaded well as seen by that one where the Core2Duo beats the Core i7. Thanks for the link though, been wanting definitive proof to that claim for a while.
Nickname said:
quick edit: my statements are assuming gaming only. Clearly the q9400 has advantages for other applications.
Glad you clarified. When you look at the non-game applications the Q9400 creams the P2-720.
Also, the Q9400 and Q9450 are the same speed. The 9450 has more cache.