No, I was the one 'going on' about how you can't extrapolate results because its not good science.
The 'Maybe' question follows from the extrapolation criticism by presenting the possibility of a bottleneck beyond 4.5 Ghz on the FX-8350 in TechSpot's tests.
Please don't misrepresent my words.
i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i
build pics
The very same link you listed in the first place. I'm sorry but if you find this so difficult to understand i can't help you. I will try to explain it 1 more time, and then i'm going to hit the sack.
Say the 7970 does 70fps at 99% load (yes it does, the 3960x maxes out a 7970 at FC3 very high 1200p, i know this because i can max out the same performance on an old i5-760).
So, you test the 8350 vs the 3770K going from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz.
For the 8350, 2.5ghz results in 44fps.
For the 3770K, 2.5ghz results in 65fps.
Now, i can't tell for sure how much % this actually is, but you can safely say the intel is saturating the 7970 GE by almost 90%, because it caps off at 70fps. Whereas the 8350 has a significantly lower saturation %. Meaning it still has allot to gain from 2.5ghz to 4.5ghz, whereas the 3770 immediatly caps off at the next 500mhz bump.
Any simpler then this i cannot do, so if it's not clear at this point then ...yeah.
i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i
build pics
honestly, it seems many people are missing the point of that video, it's not about which cpu is better, or what bottlenecks what, the video simply points out that if you build two comparable systems using the same gpu, what kind of performance do they get, and to make the comparison more realistic, with commonly played games, as well as similar systems, with the exception of SB-E owners who all seem to settle for a 4.6 clock, everyone else pushes their cpu to the max they can get, nobody gets the exact same performance,
the problem with complaining about the tests, the clock speeds, or the motherboards etc, is that it doesn't take into consideration the point that the synthetic benchmarks and testing done by reviewers are not true to life, building two separate systems, and then using them the way real people actually use their computers is much better than anything you will read off of tomshardware, anandtech, sweclockers, etc
i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i
build pics
I said i dont know for sure, but giving the fact it walls off at 70fps, i can assume 65fps is nearly maxing it.
Cyanotical can maybe help us by proving the 3960x is enough to max 99% a 7970 on FC3. Pretty sure he even maxes out the quad SLI on that game.
so, you are saying that either they don't know what they are doing with computers, which is obviously not true to anyone who has watched more than the i5 vs FX videos
or you are saying that they have completely made the whole thing up, which would lead to a full loss in credibility and systematically destroy their entire website and channel, and everything they have worked to build up in the last few months
I'm just saying that if somebody gets repeatable results that are within margin of error each time, then maybe one of the "professional" benchmarking sites needs to look at it again. And if "real life" game-play differs so starkly from "synthetic" game-play, then what is actually the point of the synthetic benchmark when recommending hardware to a buyer?
Pretty much yes. And this is not the first time i've seen these mistakes before. I usually see some variable they miss, or disregard.
In this case i'm not sure what happened, because i wasn't the one who took the test and monitor the GPU load.
I'm having difficulty believing a 8350 trumps the 3570K by 200%, whereas it loses by a small margin to the 3570K on every other review.
Besides, what real-world test is a benchmark where you set the settings so high you get 15fps anyway.
i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i
build pics
I'm not being baseless, there's an entire linear progression from 2.5Ghz all the way up to 4.5Ghz. I'm suggesting that factoring in every other benchmark available for the processor not showing any sign of a scaling wall beyond 4.5Ghz -should- translate into gaming gains.
You're sitting there saying just because they didn't test that high that any informed guess is immediately invalid.
i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i
build pics
well, anymore, there is no point in a synthetic benchmark, a quadfire 7970 setup will consistently score higher than my dual 690s, but a quadfire setup also runs like crap for daily use
benchmarks are for epeen status, heaven 3.0 will not tell you how well your computer will run farcry
i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i
build pics