werxen :
http://anandtech.com/bench/Product/102?vs=107
No. 870 trumps it most of the time and sometimes by a very large margin. There is a large amount of misinformation coming from AMD fanboys that claim the opposite with bogus and cherry picked benchmarks. What it ultimately comes down to is price for performance and AMD wins for the most part but Intel really narrowed the gap with the i5s - especially if you can find a discounted one near a microcenter. If I was gaming I and needed and upgrade I would go i5 at the moment and invest in a great gpu. If I was strapped for cash I would go for the x3. x3 is still the best bang for the buck hands down.
i7 870 = $550. 965BE = $170.
And a lot of these benchmarks are synthetic (NOT gaming) and I clearly said the i7's would whoop a 965BE in those cases. I said, strictly in gaming, the 965BE is equal or under 5% slower than an 860 or 750. The only GAME I see on that comparison that doesn't fall into that 5% difference is Far Cry 2 and I think it's weird that Tom's, in their article today, showed the 965BE beating the 870 at all resolutions.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-gaming,2588-9.html
I guess it depends on what sight you want to believe. That said, it's clear that the 870 (and the i7 920 which is more than half the price) can beat a 965 in things NOT game related, but for gaming....
And, BTW, it's hard to call me an AMD fanboy when I have an Intel rig, no (see my sig)? I like competition and I go for the best for what I need at the time for the best price. I'm absolutely drooling over a 980X but I'm having a hard time justifying the cost even though it's technically a tax write-off. IF I was JUST a gamer, though, the 955/965 is, by far, the best bang for the buck in processors out there (unless you want to OC an i3 530, which I have in my HTPC currently and LOVE). I'm NOT a fanboy, but I do appreciate the low cost of AMD/ATI compared to Intel/nVIDIA.
Just my 2¢