Sorry Eden, but I still think you're mistaken.
Notice here
http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030120/vgacharts-02.html#aquanox
how moving from a 1GHZ Tbird to an AthlonXP 2700, more than twice the clock speed, and theoretically, the performance, on a Geforce 2 MX, yeilded no more than a 7th of a frame.
Only a 0.7FPS difference, yet that's still a 4.07% increase in performance, which is a <b>lot</b> larger than a 0.06% increase. Further, you're talking about a MX card. If use that same graph to look at a GF2Ti, you're getting an 18.15%, which is a <i>hell</i> of a lot better than a 0.06%.
Now, to be fair let's factor in the differences. An AXP 2700+ is <i>theoretically</i> equivalent to T-Bird 2.7GHz, meaning that it is about 170% faster. The Barton OC was only 20.84% faster. So if we multiply the 18.15% increase for the GF2Ti listed above by (20.84 / 170.0) to normalize the result according to the Barton OC, we still get an expected 2.27% performance incease, which is a heck of a lot larger than the actual 0.06% recorded.
Even if we take your GF2MX difference of 4.07% and normalize it in the same way, we get an 0.5% increase on the GF2MX, which is still almost a hundred times more than 0.06%.
So sorry Eden, but 0.06% is just <i>way</i> too low for me to believe, no matter what the graphics card. Even the GF2MX should have done almost a hundred times better than that.
I'm not saying that the 20.84% OC should have given a direct 20.84% FPS increase. Heck, I'm not even saying that it should have given a 1% FPS increse. I am however saying that the recorded 0.06% increase was <i>way</i> too low. It indicates that <i>something</i> wasn't quite right.
Especially when you consider that all of the other benchmarks were <i>synthetic</i> benchmarks. The <i>only</i> real-world benchmark is the one and only one that seems off. To me, it just indicates that we can't really put any stock in the validity of that review.
That's all that I'm saying, is that I trust that review about as far as I can throw it. If you want to trust it, fine, go ahead. Just remember that even the author admits his benchmarks are lame.
<font color=blue>Update 02/05/03: There was some discussion about my "lame" benchmarks on Anandtech. Do I think they're lame? Compared to otehrs I've done and seen, yes.</font color=blue>
After an endoresement like that from the very author of the article, do I even have to say any more?
PC Repair-Vol 1:Getting To Know Your PC.
PC Repair-Vol 2:Troubleshooting Your PC.
PC Repair-Vol 3:Having Trouble Troubleshooting Your PC?
PC Repair-Vol 4:Having Trouble Shooting Your PC?