Show me a hardware site where over 80% (Tom's over 90%, Anand over 95%) of their advert budget isn't paid for by Intel? You could have all you wanted. the bias is so bad on tom's now that for their "best gaming" CPU lineup the writer admitted that most new games require at least a quad core to run and then scored the Pentium dual and i3 (which even Intel fans make fun of) higher than an FX6 that was cheaper!
But since your lousy net connection can't run video (and you obviously missed TFL) I'll be happy to provide a source that nobody would accuse of bias provided by another in this thread..here you go, enjoy. And wadda ya know, when compiled with GCC instead of ICC or MCC (they call it "Wintel" for a reason guys) the exact same chips that sites like Tom's were saying get "curbstomped" by an i3 or low end i5 are trading blows with the i7....is it magic? Is the coders of GCC just soooo fucking good that they can squeeze an extra 40% performance out of an AMD chip with only a compiler? Nope its what happens when you take market rigging out of the equation.
Again I don't give a fuck if you are a raging Intel fanboi, this ought to PISS YOU OFF as market rigging ONLY benefits the company doing the rigging, it leads to higher prices, less competition, and worse selection. If the market rigging were removed from the equation Intel's scores would go down, people would see a 5-10% difference costing 200%+ in cost and not buy Intel, then Intel would have to lower their prices to make their chips a better value for the consumer...a win for the market, a win for the consumer, and a win for YOU as your new Intel chip would be much cheaper than what you are paying now.
Or are you such an Intel fanboy you consider it a tithe to pay more than a market fair price for your processors?