Does this graph reflect reality?

I came across this graph at Tom's Hardware (I know people have mixed feelings about him), and was wondering if most folks here agree with the findings.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/cpu_charts-15.html

I've done a bit of research and for the money, I'm really leaning towards an NF3 / 3400+ combo. I know those of you who've already bought a 939 setup will tell me not to, but my research has me feeling secure.

Any thoughts?

Holy crap...

Strafer said:

really leaning towards an NF3 / 3400+ combo.

....Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Yea dont get the 3400+. All it is, is a bus crippled 3500+. For the money you would be far better off buying a Winchester 3200+ and simply overclocking the remainding 200mhz. There is no point in buying the old Newcastles at this point, especially since everyone on a winchester is surpassing any overclock that a newcastle is capable of

I don't care for the way he put the winchesters on the K8T800 and put the newcastles on the nF3. I realize the chipsets don't make a huge difference with these chips due to the onboard memory controllers, but it seems like with testing of that magnitude he could've put them on the same chipset. It would've made it a more controlled test. It also fails to take into account the overclocking potential of the s939 chips.