Last I checked, tomshardware was supposed to be a hardware site. Why, then, are you benchmarking Falcon and Puget systems?
We can all build PCs, so the focus of the site should be on the components, not the system. The idea is that we can build the same thing for a ridiculous amount less than the Puget or Falcon systems. I don't think any of us particularly care if Puget or Falcon is faster, because for the same price, we can build something faster than both. There may be a minority here which has more money than time and is willing to spend the extra whatever money to get something with a complete system warranty. That could be worth it to them, eliminates the headaches of an unknown instability.
I would've liked to seen Crysis benchmarks at a lower, saner, resolution. For example, if I can get x fps at 1440x900 with whatever settings, I could then judge what the performance increase would be. Most people don't have 30" panels than can run 2560x1600 to start with, so its not easy to guess how that scales back to, say, a 19" LCD. 1680x1050 is also a popular resolution, for 22" LCDs. Most people would be interested in this article on the idea that "Look what 3-way SLI can do" and then try to implement it or decide its a waste of money. It's been proven that monitors are the least frequently upgraded component, so it's more likely people with existing 19 or 22" LCDs will want to implement SLI before they buy a 30" or 26" monitor.
Another matchup I'm interested in is Quad SLI with a pair of 9800 GX2s versus 3-SLI with 8800GTX/Ultra (or as I call it, an OC'd GTX).
And why the hell does the Puget only have 2GB? I just upgraded to 6GB @ 980MHz (OC'd my E4300 to 366x8 = 2.93GHz on a 965), to go along with 64 bit Vista.
With a 64 bit OS, all the programs use more RAM due to the increased address size. That 2GB is worth more in Vista 32bit. I think the figure I heard was that 4GB in 64 bit is the same as 3.5GB in 32 bit. So 2GB in 64 bit is like 1.75GB in 32 bit. Who would do that to such a monster rig?