Originally Posted by Vagrant Storm
I personally don't think AMD has ever played catch up...they want to be the best price for performance as that market is probably bigger. (though it still boggles my mind why I see so many Intel CPUs in pre-built computers...if abosolute performacne is not needed in any machine I build it is going to have a AMD CPU in it).
If AMD catches up, or the one time they got ahead, it is because Intel got lazy. Which is what I am thinking we are starting to see again. My old i7 isn't far behind the new 2600k. Up till now Intel has been producing relatively large performance gains with a new line of CPUs. When the Athlon 64's got the performance crown Intel was just doing this stint of making the clock speed of Netburst P4s higher and AMD caught them with thier pants down. I am hoping that the next AMD product will do the same thing, but I never expected bulldozer to do it.
I dunno man, Sandy Bridge is a beast. I don't think Intel has gotten lazy at all. My 2600k easily beats any 1156 or 1367 quad-cores by a wide margin in Cinebench.
Getting back to the article, I really want to see what the Cinebench scores are for the 2600k and 8150 at max OC's. That would be the true determining factor as far as performance goes for me....