First Comment!!!

AMD is competing with Core 2 Duo? Why don't they try to compete with core i7? Oh wait, they can't compete with core i7 being 2 years behind. But AMD FTW against Core 2 Duo 2 years later!!!

I'd upgrade to the 6400+BE before I'd upgrade to the 7000 series.

Poor AMD

Wow, only 80 bucks to upgrade a four whole fps over my 5400 x2....lemme rush right out, not !

Now the 6000 is just under $80 (same price as the 7750BE) and the 6400 is hard to find.

I am building my first gaming computer from the ground up, proudly starting with the 7750 Black Edition.

would like to have seen some overclockability tests but otherwise great article. good to see amd has released kuma (finally) to become slightly more competetive

notice the memory used is 800mzh not 1066mhz, also why would they use different video cards? the drivers used arnt even up to date... test should be run with alike hardware and software(or as close to alike as possible) or its not to be taken seriously.

Naw, I'll ask Patrick to answer the memory questions. However, if you read the Test Setup page, you'll see that only one graphics card was used. Also, given the mainstream nature of these graphics cards versus the very high-end graphics card, there is no way in a million years that the WHQL driver used would have any effect on the outcome of these benchmarks.

Naw, ran the memory question past our German team and updated the piece. Same modules were run at 1066 and CAS 5. Thanks for the catch. Hope that answers all of your questions. If there's anything else, please let me know!

..................................
A-DATA DDR2-800+ (2x 2GB)
Setup: DDR2-1066 (CL 5.0-5-5-15-2T)
VS
A-DATA DDR3-1600 (2x 2GB)
Setup: DDR3-1333 (CL 7.0-7-7-20)
...................................
WELL - Perhaps you could do an extensive unbiased review that would SOMEHOW DEMONSTRATE that these 2 mem sets are EQUAL????

good luck with that

I guess it just wasn't possible to select newer mobos for the AMD setup. Not sure why you used 2 different mobos. One newer mobo with a 790GX/SB750 or 790FX/SB750 chipset, would have been better and would offer EZ-oclox using AOD/ACC.
Plus the intel boards are newer and FOR A CPU COMPARE TEST it would be better to just use similar ram, so there is no accusation of bias - I bet you would like that.
But somehow, there's always the 'smoke and mirror' trixxx, = sad.
Your readers must be idiots.

Also - in all results, it would be nice if all those cpu's could be listed with CLOCKSPEEDS rather than model numbers so that we could tell that the little AMD is clock for clock blowing the doors off the intel products.
Perhaps I should be surprised that bigger model numbers are faster. You know, that, I would have guessed. In which case, you could have saved a lot of testing time.

Have you noticed?

Whenever I read a test report here, I always have to make posts like this complaining about blatant bias - it's just so obvious to me.

This gets old and boring for both of us = yes??

Apparently, your people do not know much about AMD hardware; or, they don't want anyone to know.

Also lose the synthetic benches - I do not run synthetic benches.
And please try to avoid cherry picked benches that make intel look good.
Also try to word things without the obvious slur against AMD.

A brief review on this cpu here:
Includes a cpu-z oclox to 3.3 Ghz

http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/r [...] on-x2-7750

Cool. And you will be able to easily upgrade in a year or two by dropping in any DENEB cpu, whenever you feel like it. (DENEB has dual integrated memory controllers on the cpu for either ddr2 or ddr3 and socket AM3 is back-compatible

pPlese ppl ddr 800 or 1066 is gonna make no difference in the real world, and timings schmimings...it's not gonna make the "new" XP's a compelling reason to upgrade.
AMD needs something that is FAST, not just marginally faster rehashed leftovers.

o THAT reminds me
In this test report, the power consumption figures are all meaningless because the intel cpu's require power from north bridge re memory controllers which, in AMD the mem controller is internal. So the intel scores are artificially low = add 15-20 watts to include mem controllers.

More smoke and mirrors. You should have known that too. That's called something worse than bias.

Well, yes, that is true. But many little biases make for a biased inaccurate review that is not true. So prove your point with a fair test. I know what you mean, but the truth is all I am seeking here, and it is not here!

The things I am pointing out are common in many socalled tests and reviews. Once you start to see it, YOU benefit.

C2D might be faster, but not all of them are faster. And in real world computing, something else takes over, and is not about test reports. They don't speak of that either. Lack of stalls, smoother, consistency. Or the fact that a bench test can be cached on first run and reported on second run = faster = lying to make one look better.
There are a lot of trix.