Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mas_ who wrote (255562)	8/13/2008 12:36:55 PM
From: dougSF30	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Kentsfield can do a HIGHER resolution at slightly higher fps. That should tell you something about the state of the Nehalem system used for that benchmark. What's to hide here ? Oh, I don't know, the fact that the Nehalem system used for testing was broken? Empty memory channels, etc. And where are the Kentsfield benchmarks? Were the drivers the same? Was the OS the same? Don't you think any of these things matter???

To: mas_ who wrote (255562)	8/13/2008 12:42:47 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Kentsfield can do a HIGHER resolution at slightly higher fps. This does not bode well at all and notice Anand did no game benchmarks either. What's to hide here ? The answer why Anandtech did no gaming benchmarks is clearly stated in the review: The second issue we ran into was a PCI Express problem that kept us from running any meaningful GPU benchmarks. We've been told that it'll take the motherboard guys about a month to work out these kinks, but that's why you shouldn't expect to see a full performance evaluation of Nehalem in the near term. anandtech.com There is no way to directly compare Kentsfield and Nehalem scores from two different reviews from two different locations as there is no way of knowing whether the same graphics options in Supreme Commander were used in both benchmarks.