The scores demonstrate that the test code is poorly threaded and/or that windows vista has a poor task scheduler. Poor task schedulers have always been a feature of Microsoft OS's, so no amount of great threading code in the test can overcome the fact that the OS is useless at this. The more cores the worse it gets and the return on investment drops.

You will need a good Unix platform like Solaris to really get the advantage of SMP configurations. Linux is better than windows at this, but its by no means the best either, and being better than windows in this arena is not exactly a big bragging right.

Thats why some of the scores defy common sense.


Well actually, it's the benchmark that is pitiful.
I plunked down for a quad-core when I found out that Supreme Commander on my dual-core, single-GPU system with 2GBS of DDR2 RAM was gasping for air.
So now I have a quad-core Q6600, a single 8800GTS and 4GB of DDR2 RAM, and Supreme Commander runs a lot better !
Oh, and I run XP SP2.

Flame on.

Futuremark has been dissed as junk benchmarks years ago.
All rubbish what they produce.
And it has been proven many times, so sad The Inq uses them again.
You are putting your reputation in the shredder writing such crap.

Game1/Game tests: why does 2core1gx score higher than 4core1gx? (I think all cores run @3.2G)

What are results with a 4/2 core CPU running without a Nvidia graphics card and with the best intel graphics chipset?

And there was much rejoicing.

Could you guys post a conclusion article somewhere where you dumb it down so laypeople like me can understand it?

The numbers there make it look like there is little point in an extra 2 cores and a second GX2, the gains are pitiful in fact. Quad still sucks for gaming, ah well.