Uh, because I'm disagreeing.... why else?
Right, because one review page with a limited game selection and limited sample size which isn't even about X2's and only shows one particular model which had about a 2 fps difference in most cases automatically makes it completely superior.
Your post doesn't make any sense. What is problem if the review is not about X2 ? Does that make it unreliable ? It seems that any review that shows Intel faster than AMD is automatically unreliable according to you !!!
The particular model that xbitlabs benchmarked is AMD 6400+ which is the fastest AMD X2
In UT3 and world of conflict E7200 performed more than 10 fps faster than
6400+
Perhaps you should look at more reviews than just the ones that make Intel look good.
Show me the reviews that show that E7200 is overall not faster than 6400+ !?
You talk a lot but you can't show us any review that support your claims
You failed to mention how much the price difference is.
The reviews I posted clearly shows that E7200 is overall faster than 6400+. You ingnored the fact that we are comparing it to the fastest AMD x2
The 6400+ is faster than 5000+. We run not comparing E7200 to 5000+ but to 6400+
The performance difference between E7200 and 5000+ is not as small as you think
You ignored that fact that E7200 is not expensive and it is within his budget
In other words, you're actually admitting that an AMD processor is faster. That's a first.
E2200 performed better in 2 out of the 5 games benchmarked, but in non-gaming applications E2200 was overall better
Anyway, E2200 overclocked to its max would perform better than 5000+ overclocked to its max