Again, I understand what you are saying. But there are extremes at both ends. Now obviously, if you are totally gpu limited, then the cpu has no effect and it is not a test of the cpu except to say that both cpus are good enough to play at that setting. But by the same token, testing at a super low resolution that nobody uses for gaming may tell you something, but does anybody really care, because they dont play at that resolution. I still would put more weight to a middle of the road test (like 1080p) but with settings (or a very powerful gpu) such that you are not gpu limited. Now admittedly, that may not be a pure cpu test, but it *is* a test of how the cpu affects performance in a situation that users actually play at. I guess to use your term, it is a "gaming" test, but I dont see that as a bad thing, since that is what you actually use the PC for, not to run a Lost Planet at 480p at 400 fps. Overall though, I agree with Head. A very poor test: highly gimped ram on KL and a strange selection of older games. Plus the results as shown by the other videos show generally 30+ percent improvement from SB to KL. Just my opinion, and granted KL is a marginal gain on the desktop, but this particular publication seems determined to show KL in the worst possible light.