Today, AMD officially launched their much-anticipated 4x4 enthusiast platform under the name QuadFX. The results of the rash of QuadFX reviews that just came out are uniformly disappointing; Intel's quad-core offering, the QX6800, outperforms AMD's much hotter, more power-hungry offering in almost every benchmark.
When only running one or two CPU intensive threads, Quad FX ends up being slower than an identically clocked dual core system, and when running more threads it's no faster than Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700. But it's more expensive than the alternatives and consumes as much power as both, combined... Until then, there's always Quad FX but you're better off with Kentsfield.
But here's what Sharikou said:
Retarded dudes like Anand (who proudly discovered negative scaling on MySQL--adding CPU leads to lower performance) would reach retarded conclusions. But true multitasking benchmarks would show Quad FX fragging anything Intel has in stock.
...hmmm compelling argument considering all benchmarks from review sites are consistent with the results: QuadFX is a failure.
But what really is the point of arguing with a person who hasn't been right about Intel for as long as one can remember?