A nice, interesting read! My thoughts...
1) This article makes most sense from a budget perspective, as noted in many places by many people. People looking to build high end rigs are probably better of with Phenoms and Intel.
2) It's also very specifically a gaming article, if the CPU is intended for any other intensive tasks, those factors must be considered.
3)Line graphs FTW!
4) I know why you limit the graph to 60 fps, makes sense, but still, just for the sake of the complete picture, it would be nice if we could see the whole thing.
5) For those saying that Tom's trashed the Tahiti GPUs, iirc the only negative thing they said that the driver/firmware side imlementation of transcoding was broken.
6) For the dude saying that "OMG TEST INTEGRATED GRAPHICS PERFORMANCE" and "AMD's IGP CAN TOTALLY WALK OVER AN i7 WITH HD 3000 GRAPHICS": what the heck man, this isn't even about the IGP. Everyone, including intel, knows that HD3000 sucks compared to Llano's IGP. Even Tom's said that when llano was released. I mean, as BSMonitor says:
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]Exactly. Not sure the point of a CPU test where the bottleneck is clearly the GPU[/citation]
Comparing an A4 and an i7 using only the IGP isn't a good way to show the advantages of an i7 in gaming. No one who buys an i7 plays at the settings the A4 is limited to, they'd spend on discrete graphics.
Likewise, no one who cares about gaming within $100-$150 would consider an i7.
For the rest read jtt283's post.