[citation][nom]lemlo[/nom]No my stance remains the same. They are trying to say the cheaper cards are better with their carefully crafted set of guidlines when in fact the general performance will, in my personal opinion, show otherwise. It's not the first time I've seen it and Tom's isn't the only site who does it. I think most do to some extent and I think it's rather misleading.[/citation]Here's the thing: Tom's didn't "do it". Tom's went into the article expecting SLI to scale better and, happy day ATI fans that CrossFire scaled better. Had this been a conspiracy the editor would have replaced the benchmark that didn't respond to 3-way CrossFire...but please don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
Having stated the facts, you definately will find different scaling results at different CPU clocks using different platforms. ATI seems to be more CPU-reliant and more PCIe-restricted than Nvidia, according to numerous tests on this very site.[citation][nom]ngoy[/nom]Although you mention a Nvidia Physx bias in the 3dmark benches, I would be more interested in how this benchmark set works with all GPU physics disabled. Nowhere in the article do you mention if you modified the physics settings or what affect they would have on the gaming benchmarks. Without knowing where the processing load is occuring, it makes this benchmark set arbitrary at best.Shango[/citation]3DMark 11 gets rid of the PhysX bias found in previous versions, and was unmodified. Since most of the 3DMark data you'll find on the web is also from unmodified tests, the results are only as arbitrary as the test itself.