Quote Originally Posted by gallag View Post
4 cores vs 4cores Anyway, Comparisons should always be done on price, I mean , It should not matter if it is 16cores 32 threads vs 1core as long as they are the same price then it is a good comparison. Its like x3 k10 being compared to 45nmcore2, One has an extra core but if they cost the same then it is fair game.
Yes and no, although you're mostly right.

I think however that people who base comments/purchases on said reviews should look from a neutral point of it. In the end Nehalem is a well designed architecture with proven features from the Core 2 line where as this is AMD's first 45nm.

Where it often goes wrong is that people right away think 'Intel OC's further'. If said comparison shows AMD being equal or a little bit slower, they lose regardless when OC'ing is applied. As said, you're right although people seeing CPU x coming better out of a test than CPU y fastly call CPU y to suck.

But yes you're right, in the end we compare a R700 with the GT200 too although the R700 has two GPU's. But does GT200 suck? No, but it's getting its butt kicked though.

[OFFTOPIC]Although it's funny as nVidia came with a too big ego on the market with its GT200 without knowing what AMD was up to.[/OFFTOPIC]