@W1zzard @EarthDog
"The story repeats in our game-tests, where the most difference can be noted in the lowest resolution (1920 x 1080), all of 5.5 percent"
Again, as I've said before, it would be helpful if a low res test could be added eg 1024x768 or even less, so we can know the true fps performance of the processor. Testing only at 1080p and up, it's being hidden by GPU limiting which can kick in and out as different scenes are rendered, so you don't really know fast it is.
Contrary to popular opinion this really does matter. People don't change their CPUs as often as their graphics cards, so in the not too distant future we're gonna see 120Hz 4K monitors along with graphics cards that can render at 4K at well over 120fps. The slower CPU will then start to bottleneck that GPU so that it perhaps can't render a solid 120fps+ in the more demanding games, but the user didn't know about this before purchase. If they had, they might have gone with another model or another brand that does deliver the required performance, but are now stuck with the slower CPU because the review didn't test it properly. So again, yeah it matters. Let's finally test this properly.
Good review otherwise and good to know that it's not worth spending loads on fast, expensive memory. I remember it being a similar situation with Sandy Bridge when I bought my 2700K all those years ago. Saved me a ton of money.
