I would certainly hope an AMD processor that is currently quite a bit more expensive than a lower level and lower cost Intel processor, the i5 750 vs. the 965, would perform better. And its (the 965) speed differential does help in a lot of situations.

But, at least to me, the "value" graphs are rather meaningless. What weight is put into what metric? How were they chosen? It's just too easy to skew the results in the "value" graphs to show anything you want....give me pure performance graphs, period, and forget the "value" graphing.

Taking into account that you've got a cpu that's $50 cheaper (i5 750 @ $179 vs. 965 @ $229), motherboards are in the same price range, and it performs at least on par with the 965 in most worst cases, flat out beating it in best cases, I cannot see how anyone can consider an AMD platform today.

(And by beating it, I refer to the majority of content creation benchmarks like second pass video encoding, WinRAR encoding, Sony Vegas Blu-Ray disc creation, Excel spreadsheet, Blender, SPECapc 3dsmax CPU rendering test, DivX / XMpeg 5.03 1080p encoding, Photoshop CS4 performance....there is more to computing than just gaming. And the i5 750 is ultra competitive in gaming, too, much to the embarrassment of the 965.)

Oh well, guess the AMD fanbois will have to clutch at any staws they can reach right now.