By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HoloDust on 24 September 2012
Edit Thread
Baron said:
HoloDust said:
 

3DMark results (stock clocks):
QX9650 + 4850 http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/3337424

i7965 + 4850 http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/3874142

Now, notice difference in P score (not much), notice difference in CPU scores (huge) and notice difference in GPU scores (almost non-existant). Compare GPU scores (7335 and 7441) with GPU results for Athlon II 620 and Phenom 955 (7332 /7395 and 7513). Now, do you get what I'm talking about? You notice how P score when you go from lowest CPU (620) to highest (i7-965) is slighlty raising (7608-8727)? You notice how CPU score is wildly raising (8578-20256)? Now, notice how GPU score is almost identical in all cases? So that's 4850 3DMark GPU Vantage score (not P). Now compare that with 6570/6650M/6750M GPU scores at stock speeds (somewhere around 5200-5300). Divide 7400 (on average) with 5300...around 1.4...Or divide any of stock speed 620/4850 combo results (which are around 7600) with e6760 score from official specs...

Why? An e6760 is not a 6570 or a 6650m or a 6750m. I thought that was quite clear already. What's the point of releasing a more expensive embedded solution when customers can just go and buy a 6750m when that's the same thing?

And your still using 3dmark results which have absolutely no validity as we can't say whether or not the speeds recorded are the speeds used to run the benchmark. I've showed you two results that are undeniably real no matter how many 3dmark user results you throw at it. Your claim that there's no big difference in total score between different levels of cpu power is absolutely bullshit. Anyone who has ever used different processors in Vantage can tell you that. More cpu power is higher score, A lot more cpu power is a much higher score. That is just fact.

or just use logic and common sense and compare 4850 specs with e6760 specs....whaterever you do I got bit tired of explaining that card with 800:40:16 config with 10GPixel/s-25GTexel/s-63.55GB/s memory bandiwth with 1000GFLOPs performance is quite a bit more powerfull than card with 480:24:8 config with 4.8GPIxel/s-14.4GTexel/s-51.2GB/s bandwith with 576GFLOPS.

So it's common sense to say that, based on specs, one card is a lot more powerful but it's not common sense to look at the results those cards produce and conclude they perform the same? All right then.

On paper it's quite a bit more powerful but as the results I provided show, when it comes to performance they are quite comparable. I wonder how that could be.... Perhaps being embedded directly into the motherboard has its advantages?...

Food for thought there.

Hm, wonder have you looked at test date of those "undeniably real" results? October 2010...Care to find something fresher with newer drivers? And for user results...I gave you several that are around same area at stock speeds....so  I suppose you're saying they are invalid cause they don't fit your case...Right....

Now, if you cared to actually read what I wrote, you could've seen that P score does rise with different CPUs, albeit way more midly than CPU scores. On the other hand, GPU score is around the same for 4850 at stock speeds (7300-7500) no matter what CPU. But those are invalid too, cause....wait, they don't fit your case...Right...

And as for embeded....this is not Apple, there's nothing "magical" about it - in case of e6760 embedded means that GPU and memory are in one package, on same die...with 51.2GB/s bandwith...oh wait, that's the same bandwith as with 6750m with 800Mhz clock for memory (same as e6760)...no, no,  it's not the same chip as 6570/6650m/6750m, it's completely something different...Right...