Other than Adobe Acrobat, on the previous page, our productivity suite reacts well to the application of Intel's Hyper-Threading technology. In fact, I even retested my system with SMT turned off in order to verify the magnitude of these victories and the feature responsible for them. This is a great place for the $2500 machine to outshine the $1300 build, though performance remains disproportionate to price.
Someone looking at just this article, which isn't that unlikely, would be lead to believe that an i7 is something that an "ultimate" gaming computer has, that an expensive motherboard helps, and that a $2500 PC is going to be far better than a $1500 one.
They really should include performance per dollar figures in this writeup.
For the parts, or for the computers themselves? Either would be nice, actually.
One thing that would go a long way is stressing how wonky their testing is - most people reading this as advice for building a computer are going to be building a gaming computer purely, rendering 70% of the test bench pointless.
And I'm not griping at tom's, all review sites seem to do this. There should be some way to create a better benchmark. Maybe host a custom server and load it up with scripted "players" or something.
I feel like they've modified the benchmarking suite to favor AMD as much as possible.
And when was the last time an AMD CPU made it into a SBM? Modifying benchmarks to favor a product that is never showcased is a moot point.