Wbmw:
The game titles are not optimized for being fastest on a given CPU. They are optimized for being fast enough on a value CPU that exists in most of the installed base. Basically a mainstream CPU 3-4 years ago. GPU driver writers (those who work for the GPU makers) do optimize the GPU code for their cards sometimes pulling dirty tricks to do better like silently lowering the quality in order to bench better in the popular titles. Those tricks are usually found by the better review sites. So that takes care of those "popular" titles.
Less than 10% of the installed base ever uses Photoshop, 3D Studio Max, Cinebench, etc. These were put into the reviewer's toolbox during the P4 era where it did well on them, but badly on normal office tasks. The biggies like word processors, spreadsheets, web browsers and other office type tasks which most of the installed base uses every day, aren't optimized. As for the encoders, most users do not spend a majority of their time with them. The typical user spends less than 10% in them and again are not optimized for a given CPU. They did not do it for Athlon or K8. In fact one popular benchmark, WME 7.10..., used a highly unoptimal version for Athlons, picked of course by Intel. Later versions stripped out the CPU ID string test.
Its hard to find a hard core person who uses these programs 50+% of the time, but not impossible. And servers and the VARs who supply software for them, don't use such programs either. And for Xeons and Opterons that installed base spends less than 0.1% of their time with those "popular" titles. They even usually size the hardware for the software they buy. Somewhat suboptimal software actually makes VARs more money. That turns your arguments on their head, doesn't it?
Pete |
