That's a given. But that's a cop out reply.
My reply regarding Intel was that Intel was already in the lead, AMD are far far behind in performance per core. Because of all the AMD "Hush Hush" and their "AM3+ only for BD for official support" I sold my AMD 6 core and CH4 set up for an Intel Sandy Bridge.. Wish I'd been able to stay AMD personally.
Yup I bought Martins stuff
and to be honest it FLYS 6core 4ghz and 16gb ram with one of the best mainboards iv ever used (actually THE best mainboard iv ever had), and totally and utterly destroys my old Q6600 at 3.4ghz.
My main uses are photo editing though, so the software I use benefits from from more cores, its probably why iv seen such an increase. I also play games and to be honest anything from a Q6600 upwards is enough given its more about the graphics for games. So yeah I can play ALL games on max settings at 2560x1200 so its 'fast enough', haha
So the cost/performance was unbeatable, I also bought it being totally aware BD *may* be compatible with my board (its a risk as its not out yet), but as there is a beta BD bios on asus's site for the board id say there is a good chance.
So I can go from this to an 8 core, at probably a reasonably higher clock speed than 4ghz (given the die shrink), which again given my main uses, is just perfect
even if it was 95% the speed of SB per clock, its still going to be an 8 core at more than 4ghz, for probably a reasonable(ish) price, which is frankly ridiculous, and really moves my photography editing along nicely, hey if its faster than SB then bonus, if not, big deal, it will all be in the same ball park....
If your into benches then buy the fastest, but its ultimately pointless if that's all you do with your PC.