I repeat, since you have a hard to understanding:
If I OC a Q9400 to 3.2Ghz, it will beat a OC'ed Phenom2 @ 3.2Ghz.
Those are facts!
Now if you do not understand that they used a more expensive chip, because they happend to have one, and the results would have been the SAME if they had OC'ed an CHEAPER chip, then you are just a waste of time.
ALL reviews agrees that the Phenom2 is slower, clock for clock to the Core2Quads.
Period!
Again.
PERIOD!
Now the Phenom2 and Core2Quads overclock the to about the same Hz...
But a Phenom @ 3.8Ghz cannot beat a Core2Quad @ 3.2Ghz.
So your fallacy about prive does nothing but prove you ignorance in that regard.
Feel free to post data that whows otherwise...untill then, you are a waste of my time.
The Phenom II 940, which is 3GHz by default, is the processor reviewed in the HardOCP article. Compared to a QX9770, which is 3.2GHz by default but much much much more expensive. Again though, a Q9400 at 3.2GHz will not perform the same as a QX9770. The reason being a massive difference in cache size, which quite clearly helps Intel's Core 2 architecture significantly.
Your second statement is going to bit you rather quickly...
Not a win...more like showing up 2 years late.
It is a win, but you're being so thick headed and biased you can't see it. If you'd for one instance stop being so self serving when looking at this you could see it beyond such pointless blank statements. General sweeping statements that are easily proved wrong do nothing positive at all.
The i7 920 is the perfect replacement for my Q6600, most OC to ~4Ghz and nothing AMD has comes near that price/preformance.
The Phenom II is clearly not for you. Expecting it to be so was ignorant. It is a bit like buying a HD4870 when you already owned SLI'd 8800GTXs, for most purposes the performance isn't the same. Of course your next logical move is to the Core i7, that processor is also priced relative to the move up... being much more expensive.
I am not the one with my balls in a sling, whining...I'm just dissapointed in AMD for not delivering any competion.
Again, this information was easily known a number of weeks ago. Additionally I do believe AMD deliver competition in limited markets and price brackets.
Yup, like I said, to little, to late, to hyped...and quit whing about "~$1000"pats, since you obiviously don't understand what overclocking is all about.
The Phailure2 is only "good" if you have a compatiable AM2 motherboard.
New build:
Pure performance: Go i7, nothing touches it.
Price/performance: Go Core2Quad, same price as Phenom2, but way more performance if you know how to go beyond stock.
You have already mentioned how these parts overclock to similar levels of clock rate. This has been shown to be rather true, generally, in most reviews. You still fail to realize the difference between the $250~ vs $1,000~ chips in how one is equipped with massively more cache.
However,
these Tech Report gaming numbers clearly show that the Phenom II is competitive clock for clock depending on the benchmark. Again, showing the issues in your sweeping thoughts. Factor in the motherboard price difference and you have the Phenom II with a slight edge in some markets, most notably the mATX form factor where AMD easily has better priced boards. A $60 difference is that between the HD4850 and HD4870, which is massive for a gamer. Not everyone buys with credit and can stretch their budget on a whim.
Using "Phailure 2" just proves that you can't look at these products in a unbiased manner. It is the equivalent of using "Micro$oft" or "M$", it is both immature and makes you look like a moron before even reading what you've typed. I hope you enjoy that image.
