Interestingly enough, I've noticed something in the phenom article that actually has to do with 2 other processors in the test, the Q9300 and the Q9450. I realise that scalability is a big issue, so this point is slightly invalid, but the reason I bring it up is that the Q9400 will be released very shortly. The Q9400 is essentially a Q9450 with half the cache, and possibly a later stepping than the Q9450's that are currently on the market (and thus potentially faster). If you look under the HD encoding page, and look at the enconding time for the Q9450 vs the Q9300, you'll notice that the scaling is a bit out... The Q9300 scales to a better encoding performance (as I said, its not an exact comparison). What it does show though is that the extra 6mb cache may not do much, especially since its supposed to benefit stuff like encoding. A good review would be to set the maximum cpu multiplier of the Q9450 to 7.5 instead of 8, so it runs at the exact same speed as the 9300, thereby allowing a direct comparison. The results would make for a very interesting read!


It is Most Intresting that two Exactly identical SetUps result in such variance. It Might mean, if You Can OverSpend,err, Meaning overclock, it Is Probably due to exact same Equipement sent by Manufacturer being slightly better than next piece down assembly line, NOT by actual Design.
drashek

Dike building? Canadians? Where did that come from, Paul?

Liquid nitrogen poured without gloves from flasks not designed for stability? Nice of gigabyte to give people an opportunity to sue them eh.

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/gigabyte_competition/images/17.htm
LN handling instructions:
http://www.cabri.org/guidelines/plasmid/m106ap1.html
http://www.med.cornell.edu/ehs/updates/ln2.htm