looks interesting, what about the FPS for those games on Windows PCs like HP, Dell? Anybody have an idea?

BTW, XP is still better even though DirectX had a major update in Vista.

I will try the same tests on my Macbook and use your result as reference

Geez, you guys are thickheaded. If you have a little something called "discrete graphics" (also known as a graphics card), you can see high settings with at least 45fps+ with a GTX 280 or 4870x2.

And Scott_Gardner, you're one of the worst. The main differences between processors (and besides, games don't care about processor speeds at resolutions past 800x600 to begin with) is the architecture, or the marketing name; not the clock speed.

Intel and AMD stopped the clock speed war a long time ago, and even now, the amount of cores doesn't really count as an improvement. A 3.0 ghz Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme will beat the entry-level Intel Quad Core.

Get your facts straight, dillweed.

True. Sorry.

I just get worked up about how little some people know about gaming hardware.

Again, apologies.

It is just me, or is it kinda strange that XP outperforms Vista in all these benchmarks? I was wondering whether to migrate my Parallels install to Vista (I'm on XP at the moment), but all signs are pointing to: NO!