No, the Intel dual core is only competitive in single thread performance and power consumption. In Mutli-Thread/Multi-Task and Gaming the 8-core FX is better in the latest games.
You mean like here, with the cheap little i3 destroying AMD's best CPU, with the FX running WAY overclocked?
What all those Core i3 reviews doesnt show in the gaming benchmarks is the high stuttering and how unplayable some times the game is with the Core i3. For older games and older MMOs the Core i3 is fine, when the game can use more than 2-3 threads the situation changes.
Please, clue us in to the professional reviewer who said such a lie. I mean, i3s complete four threads at a time, just like AMD's most expensive (more expensive than the i3, actually) APUs, so obviously
all of AMD's APUs also stutter when gaming, correct?
edit: Wow, I had no idea that AMD was having to sell their fastest, most expensive APU for so little money. Kind of sad. I guess if it was half as fast as the i3 at anything besides zipping files, people would be buying it, and the price would be higher. I hereby retract the "more expensive than the i3" claim.
edit #2: In an attempt to make this post somewhat on-topic, no, AMD processors are not anywhere near "high-end". However, the FX 8 and 9 series do in fact make good showings for their price in the midrange, if you aren't a gamer, and are wanting to do a lot of the two things that people actually buy 'bigger/badder' CPUs to do, namely encoding/transcoding video, or running multiple virtual machines.