I was pretty sure those AMD Processors have been out for quite some time now? The record breaking changes nothing, and you obviously do not understand what benchmarks are if you think it will have any affect on them. Most Benchmarks are for normal clock settings, and if they are not, they are compared with CPUs of similar clocks. Most people cannot get the 8GHz clock anyways.
Intel really has no reason to overclock there CPUs that high, because all it will do is make small news for a day. No one is ever going to run that, and even if they did, they would need someone to constantly be feeding liquid nitrogen.
You did leave out architecture, and its unbelievably important. Clock speed is irrelevant if you are not taking into affect the difference in architecture, which Intel wins at hands down.
Well yeah I honestly wouldn't expect anybody to even try an 8 GHz overclock.
As for the architecture, a simple mistake on my part.
I'm just glad you're not totally lashing out with insults like anybody else here would. :U
Cores are irrelevant as well, since most programs dont need more than 4. Only lately have games actually started requiring more then dual core processors for normal settings.
Just throwing that out there, I know neither one of you was arguing for cores any ways.
Eh.
Core numbers have never really been an issue for anybody, actually. Wont be for a long, long time.
Everyone can pretty much get by with a dual core for basic gaming, and a single core for basic office work.
That wont change for a long time.
For heavy-gaming rigs, maybe. Games today are starting to recommend quad cores heavily, so I agree with you there.
