If I could +REP for this post I would. Thank You Alatar for clearing this garbage up. I'm so sick of AMD apologetic defenders attitude about the "game" being unfair all the time. I want AMD to be successful, but not because the world played nice
and gave them a chance and a participation award, etc etc.
On a separate note for those following along who are concerned about power consumption... (As I was)"Power consumption was close enough to the A10-6800K that it was essentially identical (a couple of watts from the wall). It makes sense since the A10-7850K is rated at 95W and the A10-6800K is rated at 100W. Under full load (Prime95) we were looking at about 135W from the wall with either APU."
-Matt Bach @Puget
Regarding the legitimacy of these benchmarks pre NDA:"As for why we haven't been slapped with an NDA notice yet, we received explicit permission from AMD that we could post this review since we are one of their select system builders that was given permission to do pre-sales."
-Matt Bach @Puget
It is not in the best interest of Puget to perform benchmarks in a flawed manner, and historically, they have had very accurate, content rich analysis and reviews of hardware and software performance. As they are re-sellers of both AMD and Intel hardware, it is in their best interest to be extraordinarily forthcoming and honest about both platforms and how they perform in contrast to each-other because they seem to pride themselves on offering excellent hardware solutions
to customer needs. Puget is the sort of computer company I would want to run or work for, as they seem to be curious minded and do the grunt-work for their customers by running lots of hardware tests.
I think people who "fluff off" and dismiss bench-marking and review sites with that typical "oh, but it's "that" review site, so it can't be any good," are forgetting the fact that the people who run those sites, are human, will make mistakes, but are often trying very hard to provide a fair and positive service. The folks who do this sort of work are computer enthusiasts just like us. In other-words, they love what they do, and are enthusiastic about it just like we are. I suspect that a lot of the "fluff" of dismissal is actually an ego response to defend ones own comfort level of knowledge on the subject. I have been visiting review sites for many years, and while there are bias's in the analysis of results that are apparent in the wording, (we all do this, even when we don't realize it), the results of the benchmarks are generally useful and as accurate as could reasonably be expected, less the rare error. Learning to read between the lines of a benchmark, and extrapolate or reveal the underlying bottleneck is, something that not all reviewers nail down particularly well, but that doesn't mean we can't.