To: Petz who wrote (245369 ) 1/3/2008 11:59:43 AM From: wbmw Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872 Re: You still didn't explain why QX loses to Phenom in UT3. Why don't you explain why Phenom loses to a Q6600 in other reviews? Re: The same thing is true for MainConcept H.264 encoding, where a lowly $240 95 watt Phenom 9600 outperforms a $1,000 130 watt QX6700. Strawman. The QX6700 is far from the top of the line for Extreme Edition parts. The Q6600 can be found on Newegg for $265, it measures lower power under real world systems tests, and it outperforms the 9600 on most benchmarks: Exhibit 1: Q6600 for $265newegg.com Exhibit 2: Q6600 outperforming the 9600 in 14/15 benchmarks, and dissipating 79.1W of peak CPU power vs. 131.4W for 9900.xbitlabs.com Exhibit 3: Q6600 outperforming the 9600 in 14/15 benchmarks, and coming in at 223W system peak power vs. 252W for 9700 based system.anandtech.com Exhibit 4: Q6600 outperforming the 9600 in 27/39 benchmarks, and matching it in 6 more, and dissipating 241W of peak system power, compared to 290W for the 9600 based system.techreport.com Exhibit 5: Q6600 outperforming the 9600 in 20/24, and matching it in the other 4, while dissipating 96.0W of peak CPU power vs. 103.2W for the 9600.matbe.com Come on, Pete, surely you have more than one lousy review to present, don't you? Or are you going to insult us both by claiming that Lost Circuits is somehow superior to all the other reviewers out there? Face it. Phenom sucks, and tons of other reviewers out there have concluded that the 9600 underperforms Intel's lowest bin quad core by significant margins, while Phenom dissipates substantially more power. AMD's new micro-architecture disappoints relative to Intel's 65nm generation, and with 45nm, Intel only widens the gap.