It is very interesting, and does show how some platform homogeneity can yield best results. However...
I own an Athlon X2 3800+ (a socket 939 one, on an Nvidia 6150 first version, with 2 Gb of DDR400 in dual channel, at native 2.0 GHz). While I don't think this setup can be qualified as powerful anymore, it isn't outdated either (it cost me a pretty penny in 2005) and for proof, equivalent systems are still present in Tom's CPU charts.
But these same charts don't include the E2160, the only similarly clocked Intel processor included is the 4300 - which has an extra 2 Mb of L2 cache.
Now, Intel Core 2 processors are 10 to 25% more powerful at similar clock speeds than K8; however, cache size is also very important for the efficiency of Core 2. It also happens that K8 is no slouch either, and in some cases can reach Core 2 performance per clock. Add to that the fact that fast DDR can make a K8 on s939 slightly faster than an identical chip on AM2.
I end up with a 15% error margin without taking clock speed into account: is my X2 3800+ as powerful as a E2160, slightly slower, or a whopping 25% faster (cumulated error skew + extra clock speed)?
It is also true that Geforces and Radeons don't react the same to CPU power increase (AMD chips aren't hampered as much by low power CPUs, if I'm not mistaken).
I'm not too anxious about the answer, since I replaced the original Geforce 6600 (not GT) with a Radeon HD 4850 last month for impressive results (the GF was never a fast chip, but it was passively cooled). I'm just wondering how much benefit actually overclocking that processor would give (it can reach 2.4 on air with just a thought), but too smart power management in Linux would require either a power manager rewrite (not my idea for fun), or disabling CnQ - and I like quiet.