I've been reading Maximum PC for years (finally got a subscription about two years ago) though I'm sick of the clear Intel bias.
Look, when the X6 debuted you guys said that AMD had a disappointing performance but all except one of the tests were over one hundred FPS and the last time I checked 1Hz = 1FPS and therefore most people won't see anything beyond 60FPS (60 Hz LCD's). Before the less informed jump in and start talking about 120Hz LCD's it should be noted those are intended for 3D gaming so your FPS is HALVED (two frames are combined to make one so a 120FPS = 60FPS effective). So saying AMD processors give disappointing performance doesn't cut the cake.
Then you have to look at longevity. Sure I understand what the title of the magazine implies though most of us aren't taking money showers, see related picture.
So for the rest of us getting the most money for our dollar matters. I personally went from socket 939 to AM3 though regardless I can still upgrade to just
a socket AM3+ motherboard next year and get a second or third stepping Bulldozer CPU later on. All the Intel people will have to throw out both
their CPU and motherboards as clearly Intel doesn't like their customers and with like a hundred times the resources of AMD could more then afford to make their customer's upgrade paths actual upgrades then outright nearly full system replacements.
Taking AMD and Intel's business practices in to consideration trying to convince me or anyone sane that Intel wouldn't jack their prices up even further if AMD disappeared is like telling any sane person they don't need oxygen, everyone knows Intel is a monopolist company interested in nothing more then money. Most of us know that even if an Intel board made by Gigabyte or MSI in example was not made by Intel that Intel still makes money from various components on those boards and very likely licensing fees. Heck, Light Peak will further establish more licensing fees from everyone in a few years. AMD hasn't from what I can tell tried to screw consumers.
Looking at innovation AMD has clearly brought consumers the first integrated memory controllers, 64 bit computing, etc etc. Intel only bothered because they still have to compete with AMD.
I'm not an AMD fan boy, I simply don't have the money to burn that Intel wants. If Intel changed their ways and provided the best bang for the buck sure I'd buy Intel then though I don't see that happening.
Also calling AMD parts budget is retarded. I could understand calling a 24inch HD $300 IPS LCD budget in the context of IPS screens specifically though you can't call anything CPU related budget except single and dual cores at this point in time. Heck, you guys are calling Nvidia 470 and AMD 5850 budget parts! Those are the affordable high end parts, they're not "budget" parts!
Honestly at this point I think it would be fair to call a part budget if it couldn't get 40FPS at 1650x1050 at medium settings in most games (not games like Crysis or Metro or whatever it's called).
I also think the magazine should use AMD as the basis for benchmarks as that's what most sane people will be using. Do I really need 200+ FPS in games from $8,000 rigs when my LCD is 60Hz and if I was using a 240Hz LCD really what is the effective ceiling where excessive performance counts for nothing? I doubt it's going to be far beyond 60 if not at or below 60 and that's taking in to consideration that some games can be reasonably (not desirably but reasonably) smooth at mid-20 FPS without getting too choppy and some games require a solid 40-45 FPS to play smoothly.
I'm not trying to say stop looking at the latest and greatest but we're not all taking money showers on Mars in fictional universes.