Your Phenom is…SLOWER, clock for clock even…
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=1
Benchmarks start here…
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=6
so what should i buy rubricunt?
It’s 13.5% slower than the Q6600, but it’s also 13.5% cheaper. So it works out 
Plus those benchmarks were at stock speeds, they didn’t show any benchmarks where they were able to overclock it to 3.0Ghz.
Oh and Tom’s Hardware was able to get it to overclock to 3.0Ghz no problem.
What is going to have more overclocking headroom, a crappy processed 65nm CPU (AMD) or a well processed 45nm CPU (Intel)? It’s really a no-brainer.
[quote=“RuBiCaNT,post:6,topic:38963"”]
What is going to have more overclocking headroom, a crappy processed 65nm CPU (AMD) or a well processed 45nm CPU (Intel)? It’s really a no-brainer.
[/quote]
Even future processors manufactured on a 45 nm process and supporting DDR3 memory will run in socket AM2 and AM2+ boards. The 45 nm CPUs are slated for release in 2009 and will add support for socket AM3.
Granted that’s a while away, but still 
Our engineering sample was very promising indeed. We were able to overclock the CPU by 25%, resulting in a 15% performance increase in 3DMark.
That makes it on par, if not faster than the Q6600 for less money.
These current benchmarks are also only testing it on the current AM2 socket with DDR2 RAM, not the new AM2+ w/DDR3 and HT 3.0.
And one last thing…
AMD positions its new products in the mid-range segment and is currently not planning to attack Intel’s offerings in the high-end. Instead, AMD is offering the most affordable quad-core processor in the market today.
AMD seems to have done its homework when the company set the price for its Phenom processors. The Phenom 9600 is about 13.5% slower than Intel’s Q6600 in our benchmarks. On the other hand, its price is also 13.6% lower than that of its direct competitor. Thus, the two products offer practically the same performance for your money.
I guess that says it all.