Personally, I think it would have been more interesting to see the i7-3820 than the i7-3930K.
IMHO, the argument to spend the bucks on the 39X0K or the $eon is slim - unless money is no object or other factors are behind the choice - such as not being able to live without 16 cores in a box that costs $3,800 just for the CPUs. When I view these chips from my limited viewpoint, one of value, it seems like the high cost of these chips really only buys bragging rights and not much else.
Also, I have to remark about the references in the text to the 8150 - as if it was expected that the 8150 would remotely compare to the E Intel offerings. Heck, I highly doubt that an 8150 could keep pace with an i7-3820 - a much better comparison by cost. IMHO, credibility is higher when their is nothing to say and nothing is said. Who cares if the $eon doubles the performance of a chip that is 1/6 its cost. In terms of value as I see it, the 8150 is the better choice since the 8150 does half the work of the $eon at 1/6 the cost. Was the "value" of the 8150 the focus of those comments or was bashing a dead horse just for the hell of it the focus?
Then again, on a similar track, I think it would be interesting to see a pro graphics card thrown into the mix when a consumer level card is reviewed - but does that violate Tom's agreements with manufacturers as in not pointing out that the cheaper product is actually the better value?