8600M GT or 4670 ati?

Actually, you're so fast to criticize, but you're the one who is confused.

A 3670 with the point of reference, has a 100% level of performance.
Doubling this level of performance, is 200%.
A 200 minus 100 equals a 100% increase.
So when you say a 4670 has a 200% increase rather than saying a 4670 performs at a level which is 200% that of a 3670, you are actually saying it is triple (100+200=300%) the performance.

 

You're just arguing semantics. When I'm referencing 200% the performance of the 3670, it's using the 100% as a baseline and not in ADDITION to 100%. Like I said previously, you could say the 3670 is 50% the performance of a 4670 or say the 4670 performs at 200% of the 3670. Either way is correct. I don't think anyone took the 200% reference to mean a 100% PLUS 200% increase since that would be absurd.

 

How about this: 3670 is 1x and 4670 is 2x if it's twice as fast and 1.5x if it's inbetween? That should make it easier for all to understand and avoid confusion.

 

wow guys, 2 pages of this? common its just the way you look at it, and yes it can be misunderstood by some, but that's just a matter of explaining, not arguing.

and IMO 1x, 1.5x and 2.0x seems to be the simplest way to describe and increase in performance, and cant be mistaken easily

so relax, lets get back on topic, if there is still one anyway...

 

At this point there's nothing left to discuss. We just have to wait on the 4670 systems to arrive and then we can have a meaningful comparison. I'll be posting up benchmark results in the 4670 thread if you guys wish to participate.

 

Of course. It will be nice for us to see the cpu difference becuase other than that our systems will be identical. Cheers to valid data!

I also want to test if there is a performance gain (not just seat of the pants) of removing all the bloatware. Rather actual numbers.

 

Agreed? multiples from now on?