Quote Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r View Post
In the review I linked to there was also a 9850 in the roundup, which is clocked less than a 100Mhz faster yet still beats out the Q6600 in many of the tests (of which most are based around normal desktop applications. Data compression, video transcoding etc).
The Guru3d review is mostly synthetic benchmarks, and at least one of the Everest benchmark score is incorrect for the Q6600. There are plenty of other reviews where the Q6600 has a considerable advantage across a wide range of applications like in Matbe's recent 100 CPU review:

http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page30.php

but nowadays it's very easy to match the performance of a mid range quad core Intel machine with an AM2+ one. It's that simple.
It's possible to match the performance of Intel's slowest quad-core machine.