Thread: 3dmark 11 cpu test.

I ran 3Dmark11 and I observed that my results arnt that better for somthing that is guess to beat out the core i7 950 I was only obtaining 21 FPS at the physics test while the 950 gets more more closelipped to 30 FPS.My cpu is overclocked to 4 GHz could this mean my cpu is heated a small bit thats why its not performing very better.I mean earlier i buy this cpu i had the impression it was essentially a core i7 but with HT disabled.I also am sorry for ordering my i5 could pwn a i7 when i got my machine.

Well you have to realize these semisynthetic workbenches are not the similar as games. They like many application are real more thread pointed, whereas most games aren't more than still dual thread pointed. It's type of a mixed bag. Your CPU has a high and commodious turbo boost & unlocked more for those whom would rather apply that than OC, but the 950 is more ready for next generation multi threaded games with HT and QPI.

I view you mean our cpus have unlike strengths and helplessness. And by the time the 950 commits ahead we would so soon have buy good hardware.Makes sence.Apperceive i have buy into the sandy bridge hype but later on all it isnt too bad but i question my cpu will always come close to those core i7 extermes i was stargazing about.

Your CPU is the good option. As Omen said, 3DMark - while a very good stress test, and a great indicator of overall system performance - it doesn't always reflect actual-world games. Most games out now are optimised for dual-core setups (if that), and there are very few (though there will be more) that will right apply a quad core, let along chousing with virtual cores.