I have to agree that when you look at the graphs the difference between the two CPU's seems enormous when it is only a couple of points. BUT, when you also take into account this is an entry level dual core Penryn CPU vs. the top model of triple core Phenom, then I would have to agree that AMD has taken a pounding. There's more to a beat down that just a graph or number, you make take all accounts into consideration. I own boxes with both AMD and Intel CPU's and seeing how I am not loyal to a CPU maker but whomever offers the best bang for the buck at the time I need something new gets my money which is why I have both. Read the article for what it is.

I've slammed them for this before. They use graphs that accentuate 1% difference and make it look like its huge.

They manipulate date constantly at tweaktown, and are NOT to be trusted under any circumstances. And I Like Intel.....

tweaktown is phreaktown. Liars and cheats

The article speaks for itself (apparently if you lose a benchmark by a few % it's a POUNDING...ROFL...Intel pays how much for this?). I'd say they worry about MS money also. I repeatedly emailed them asking for XP64 vs. Vista benchmarks (since they showed XP32 DOMINATING Vista, but didn't comment at all about it in the 9800gx2 review) and they never responded. Multiple people mailed (editor/reviewer etc), no response at all. Of course, I can't even get Anandtech to bite on this so I guess everyone is afraid of MS ads being pulled. Every part I own has an XP64 driver (all current vid cards, chipsets, network cards (even my Edimax wireless N card) etc are supported) so why not benchmark this OS? It's our only option above 4GB, well, to me Vista is NOT an option...LOL. Linux is NOT an option either until I can game on it. :)

For those clever Peepers with Raptor Accuracy, this is already old news. Yet Vantage Score on ----X2 dual GPU Game Card add scores of each GPU together. Scores are quite impresive.
So much for Synthetic Test, how about Field?
drashek

I agree 100%

I was shocked and appauled when I read that article, they made a tiny percentage into a giant leap of performance loss through them graphs.

Really does grind my grain when I see people distort the truth, or pick a side in what should be an unbiased test.

And the INQ's portrayel of the test seems very misleading too. Have they read the graphs correctly?

Hmm.

I'm glad I'm no the only person who saw how close the scores were all around.
4-12fps in every game
a couple of seconds on timed tests.

It makes you wonder.

Given that the two processors are equivalent in performance, and that one is over $70 cheaper than the other right now based on Google search (hint: E7200), which would you choose?

Ohhhhh... I see. You are going to "support AMD".

Clipping bar chart tops has always been a pet peeve of mine, but it creates much more drama (and reader response). A 1-5% perf difference is a yawner in anybody's world. Gotta tip the hat to AMD marketing for earning their money eeching out some sales with a cool name.

Aside from the fact it's also a different chipset used in the 'benchmark' the numbers are as discussed above so close that the graphs should just have a big tick and a cross on them to make people think that AMD is bad, mmkay.

Assuming the numbers are all genuine, Intel really does have a hell of a lead here. 

When you consider the AMD chip has 50% more cores than the Intel one, yet the Intel one beat it in every benchmark they put them through... that makes the Intel chip undeniably faster by a pretty significant amount.

Sure, it's douchbaggish of them to screw with the perspective of the bars in the graphs like that - but the numbers still don't lie. 

2 cores beating out 3 could be thought of as someone driving a car with a 2.0liter 4 cylinder winning a race to someone driving a 3.0l 6 cylinder. Either that's a really awesome 4-banger, or the 6cyl is a POS. 

Plus; anyone noticing the BF2142 numbers? That's a lot more than 5%. That's more like a 15% lead for Intel. Go Penryn! 


You guys really should not link to articles where the graphs don't start at 0 on the x axis.

The cut off on those graphs is ridiculous at some points...

And its a fairly done deal that comparing an Intel cpu with a higher clock speed versus an AMD cpu in single threaded tests is going to go in Intels favour. They could have at least thrown in one multithreaded test to give AMD a chance.

You always know instantly when an author is trying to skew results to satisfy their own agenda when they don't start the X axis at zero. Even when looking at the numbers the graph pictures tell your brain der... Intel is twice as fast cos the line is twice as long der.... pillocks

Have to agree, the graphs make it look like there are 50 trillion point gaps, when the numbers are tiny.

The biggest gap was on the memory tests and they made a large gap look like the ones and twos on the other tests.

Glad i am not the only one to have seen through this intel rubbish.

That TweakTown article is crap, to put it simple. I'm not disputing the tests, but the tone is up Intel's ass soooo much...

It says, "AMD gets a pounding from new E7200"... yeah, a pounding of less than 1% in some areas, and the rest under 5% or so.

And the graphs look like the advantage is huge, untill you look at the numbers.

Freaking marketing bullspin :P

The 8750 is not X4 but X3

*eherm* I hate to sound like a smart aleck but the Phenom 8750 is a Tri-core, not a Quad. (Brain fart perhaps?) They even state that in their article. However I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it beats a Quad Phenom.