ragemonkey :
The article is flawed and biased. I find it strange that the benchmarks that the author posted directly contradict his conclusion. One would think, that if the real world numbers were truly that much different, he would've posted those results, and not ones where it showed, in many cases, less that a 10% difference from top to bottom. Instead he just says, look at the CPU charts... I'm right. OK... but the numbers you just posted say different... huh? It just seems this article is a bit biased, as the author obviously was trying to prove a point up front, then posted data that directly contradicts his hypothesis, then backtracks in his conclusion by using a nebulous reason as to why he is right. Also, the author manages to skew his findings by only using Intel chips that still rely on the FSB. If he had used any AMD chips, one would see that an Integrated Memory Controller puts far less importance on L2 cache than the use of a FSB. I would've liked to have seen a AM2 6000+ Windsor put against a AM2 5000+ Black Edition Brisbane @ 3.0ghz to see the difference between 2x512kb and 2x1MB. But doing so would only further debunk the author's hypothesis.
That being the case... why did he even bother writing the first 7 pages? He could've just written page 8 and the article holds the same weght.
Almost 20 lines without any information or factual points regarding your own argument. A little more quotations, better formating and punctuations would make your argument easier to understand.
You begin with the conclusion instead of outlying a proper argumentation. Instead of quoting the author you go on and spin your own twisted review trying to impersonate the original author coming to the very conclusion you drew out in the first sentence. Basically you do yourself what you are trying to complain about.
Your finding "
that an Integrated Memory Controller puts far less importance on L2 cache than the use of a FSB" is interesting yet you fail to provide factual information. Claiming something based on personal feelings or subjective observation does not equal facts. Stating information as a fact does not inherently make it a fact.
While you state that you would have liked to see how other Processors would have acted with different sizes of L2 cache, especially processors with a build in memory controller, you only provide speculative arguments why the author didn't provide that information in his review. Someone interested in a serious argument would have at least tried to see reasons why the author did or didn't include it. You only provide speculative reasons that benefit your own conclusion that is based on your subjective perception of the article.
Since you are unwilling to even see arguments leading to a conclusion different from your own, i conclude that you made up your mind before you read the article.
If i'm wrong and simply failed to comprehend your argument i sincerely apologize and hope you are willing to point out my misunderstanding in a comprehensive way.
On the other hand if you are a "fan" or emotionally attached to a certain brand and simply try to propagate your own personal views as facts or to provoke others, please refrain from posting.