One thing that sometimes bugs me is that all these benchmarking sites don't run the exact same benchmarks, there's always something a little different. So if you want to compare the score of one machine as tested at site #1 with the score of a different machine at site #2, you can't. It wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. But I did observe something interesting in the case of the IDF results. The following two links each contain benchmark results for Windows Media Encoder 9. One of them is for THG's review of the FX-60, and includes the OC'ed version at 2.8GHz. The other is anandtech's benchmark run at IDF for the same chip. I'm amazed that both tests came up with the same result: 75 seconds. So this could be a good sign that the IDF numbers are on the up and up, or at least they didn't cripple the FX60.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] age10.html

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshow [...] i=2713&p=4

Where can amd make up the supposed 20% that conroe is going to beat it , i don't know but maybe this would help:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/02/ati_crossfire_xpress_3200_chipset_takes_off/page19.html

See the BIG difference between the RD 480 and the RD 580?????
The 580 mother board would make up the 20% difference , and the nforce 4 is even better then the 580

8)

Those benchmarks you linked to are x1600xt's not x1900xtx's. Sort of, just sort of makes a difference.

x1900xt Benchmarks.

yeah! and the x1600xt's weren't even the same brand. One was an asus and the other was a sapphire. this could very well be the reason why they didn't scale so good on the rd480

. o O (Wow man.. everything so.. red, where my sunglasses)