Yeup, and I am disliking the reviews, "lets overclock and run benchmarks, then declare AMD as the loser!"
What I want to see are clock for clock tests, a 3.6Ghz AMD vs 3.6Ghz Intel using the same RAM speeds... Not a 3.8Ghz AMD vs a 4.3Ghz Intel with higher memory speeds. Starting to smell something kinda fishy with some these "reviewers". Declaring a $1000 CPU as the winner for gamers over a $500 CPU because it wins when it has a higher overclocked core clock?
Seriously, it reminds me of the days when Intel was paying people off (and OEMS!) to say what Intel wanted people to hear.