[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]The reason the $500 buld used a dual core pentium was because SC2 ran better, conspiracy ... come on dude read what he said.
openly admitted conspiracy basing all cpu decisions on one article and in particular one game.[/citation]
Pure nonsense. Way to take a quote out of context.
That comment was a direct response to someone who called the use of a Pentium G860 CRAP for our pure gaming system, while instead suggesting a Llano-based Athlon II as a better option, with zero proof offered to back up his claim.
I was simply showing how the Pentium is a far better processor for the intended purpose and provided one example review proving my claim. The RTS I referenced being an extreme case which also happens to make up 25% of our SBM gaming suite. His solution would have been far worse, and probably failed misreably,
at the machine's intended purpose, which was to increase our processing fortitude for gaming alone (vs. the G530), and not winning an overall SBM. Winning will take more CPU cores. Specifically of available options in range, 4 overclocked AMD cores (preferably Phenom II) would indeed be better in today's comparison, if that were the machine's goal. I covered that in the text. Shoot, likely the best way to win this thing is with OC'ed i5-2500K and make graphics an afterthought, yet then we'd have to lose the gaming name and accept failure at the higher game settings.
Like it or not, Tom's consistently has found Intel's Sandy Bridge offerings to offer stellar gaming value, and chips like the Pentium G860 have ruled their price bracket and
repeatedly earned the site's monthly recommendation for "Best Gaming CPU for the Money". Not based on one game, based on all our time spent testing various CPU's. It has nothing to do with brand preference, we long for either company to trump current top performers, and do NOT like using an enthusiast-unfriendly "locked" dual-core CPU. We are begging for better options, yet appreciate the amazing per-clock performance and affordable gaming abilities Sandy Bridge offers.
So many are bashing a CPU found to offer the best value at this machine's intended purpose, because it is not their preferred brand. Others may not like the Pentium because they wanted a different goal for the $500 system; That is fair enough. But let me ask, I also chose five AMD processors in a row when they best fit the intended purpose for the money. In fact, make that 7 out of 9 systems, spanning 2+ years, were all AMD processors, all my choice. Did you bash the whole site just as much then because I ignored Intel's budget offerings? Or did you understand we do this 4 times a year, having one shot each quarter, covered Intel's best already, and moved on to addressing the weakness we found with what could best serve the purpose (Athlon II and Phenom II X3 & X4).