Neil!
I think a lot of newer graphics stuff, Mozilla and QT, don't use PM for graphics. We could use a better benchmark.
Great point, exactly what I speculated above, although I am not at all concluding in one sweep that they "don't use PM for graphics", after all, a simple window, along with MIN/MAX controls is a PM window after all. If someone who knows these apps can comment further, we all would be in a better position to assess.
...Be careful of confirmation bias; where you have a card that has better PM graphics so that must be what is important...
Umm, this is not at all the point I am trying to make. What is relevant to each one of us is the improvement we see on our systems, that of course being based on our "runtime": system settings along with the standard apps we all use. By discussing in our forum we perhaps can formulate a definition of a NEW benchmark that would allow us to measure the performance across various applications - think of a app simulation benchmark!
What might that look like?
1) PM apps
SysBench covers that with it's 'PM Graphics Marks' score
2) DIVE / SNAP / KVA
SysBench covers part of that, but we need to better understand what new testing (if any) is required to cover the remaining ones
3) QT
Ahhh...that would be the new addition, right?...and maybe we need a 'PM Graphics Marks' equivalent, call it 'QT Graphics Marks'?
4) anything else...
This will only be arrived at by establishing some kind of consesus as to what matters to all of us.
And on that very point, you started this thread with a specific assumption that SNAP would not be used, and so you arrived at some results that clearly put the 'Intel HDA Graphics' in the lead...but isn't that the VERY definition of BIAS???