Clarify this for me, please

[keithlm]

so when all evidence & reviews say that the phenom is slower than core, people come up with a unprovable victory for amd.

The funny thing is that when Intel wins a bench mark by 10-20% people say that they would not notice it in the real world and it is only a couple of seconds or a few fps but yet these same people can pick up on the milliseconds advantage the imc brings. lol, just lol.

Its the same old sh1t, just a different day.

Core is no longer winning all "evidence & reviews" of the benchmarks. You seem to be stuck in LAST YEAR. The Phenom 9850 is actually beating the heck out of the Intel Q6600 and coming closer to the Q9300-Q9450 in performance. Welcome to reality! And that is at STOCK speeds. (Should I mention that people are hitting 3.0Ghz with older 9500 chips and 3.5Ghz with the new chips? Oh... perhaps I'll hold off... I don't want to completely blow your reality away.)

You are SO living in the past. But you are welcome to your biased viewpoint. Luckily we are not FORCED to buy inferior chips based on an old architecture that is already being replaced just because they come out ahead on a few non-relevant benchmarks.

Actually what you see happening is that people are noticing that their AMD machines are running better and they say: "Hey... how come the benchmarks don't show this.. it's obvious to anyone that pays attention." And then they look and try to explain why one company's chips benchmark better but do not actually perform as well as the other company's chips.

But if it makes you feel better you can go on believing that it is just people that prefer one brand exaggerating and making things up. (If it makes your bruised ego feel better... GO FOR IT.)

This is directly related to the fact that many people have ignorantly claimed that "what is good for servers is not always good for the desktop". I'm going to enjoy watching that myth get busted.