Whether it's a flaw or not is debatable. Default setting in FM is that even the league where you're managing is not set to full detail. I believe many people never even change these settings. i7 3770 is also 400 MHz slower.
This is not correct, every competition that your team is entered in is set to full detail & cannot be downgraded, you're right that many people probably don't change these settings for other competitions which is why we see threads asking whether FM supports multi-core/hyper-threading as only full detail match processing takes advantage of all available physical & virtual cores.
As for the clock speed even at the stock speed the 3770 should cream my overclocked 920 when all 8 cores of both cpu's are being used & I'd be disappointed that it doesn't when FM is not utilising H/T although that disappointment would be more directed at FM rather than an issue with the chip.
You are correct about detail level of the competitions your team is entered. Still, it's only one league out of 10/20/30/xy you select. Speed difference between running default/full detail is more than double from my experience. You get all cores to work, still processing speed is halved. You do get most accurate results, but aren't the default ones quite OK?
I wish we had more i7 920 results, as the other one is half minute slower.
What mostly interests me is difference between 2600K and 2500K at the same clocks, and it's quite a lot, around or even more than half a minute (because of H/T?).
There is always the forgotten factor of how well maintained people keep their OS & background programmes & as you say a larger sample of results for each processor would be preferable as the two results so far for the 920 might just represent the max upper & lower ends of the performance scale.
The file has disappeared....? I wanted to see if my i3 could stumble over any of your times.
There is an i3 in the list already, which has finished around the 5 minutes mark. As you can see, there isn't that much of a difference amongst newer processors, as the text interval isn't that taxing to begin with for new machines and it's the full detail match simulation that benefits from faster processor architectures AND multiple cores alike. So much so that a benchmark graph looks more akin to application software rather than your typical game, where fast dual cores such as the i3 can often downright outperform quad cores of the previous generation, such as Phenom II X4 and Core 2 Quad. Not the case here. Usually lower speced mobile chips are another matter altogether, though.
The argument against that and a question you have to ask yourself is of course: Who does really simulate a bigger number of leagues and competitions, each one, even, in their save in full detail? If you do, however, this benchmark will tell you only so much how FM will perform on your machine. In this save, even a handily spec'ed Core 2 Duo can do okayish. Not the case if you set it up differently. In this case, any older dual core processor (Core 2 Duo, Athlon X2, Athlon II X2) will finish way behind anything else. And an i3, which I own myself, will certainly be no equal to a much more expensive i5 clocked at the same speed, as is the case here*.
* As I personally simulate only a number of competitions loaded in full detail, this was quite useful to see though. It seems upgrading to an i5 will only take me so far. :-)
Good bump, Scribe. I'm thinking of buying a desktop to coincide with the new game because I'm frustrated by the speed of my Vaio and the 2 stars my graphics card gets on FM12 (1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650).
CPU: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo P8700
CPU Frequency: 2.53GHz
RAM: 4GB DDR2 SDRAM/800MHz
OS: Win 8 64 bit
Time: 10 mins even