The Phenom IIs have 6 MB L3 cache, which is lacking from the Athlons, which improves performance. I think I read some benchmarks somewhere that it's a difference of up to 20%, depending on what you're doing... though don't forget that the Phenom IIs also have much higher base clocks, so if you don't wanna overclock, they're gonna be much better than the Athlon IIs.

EDIT: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,2416.html

I'd say 5-10% difference on average actually. The pricing correlates pretty well with performance though; none of the parts are a bad choice.

Crysis does not scale well with hardware; I'd say that a 5970 (may not be actual name, dual 5870s on one card) would do it.

Thanks a lot guys. That helped.

I just ordered an Athlon X4 2.6ghz. Along with a motherboard and graphics card.

Tell us how it goes.

Will do.

Well. It works.

Ehh... I just want to check out my graphics card, but I have to download games first!

Guys please don't advertise those low clock quad cores as great for gamers.

For 99% of games you are much better with strong dual/triple core cpus for you gaming needs.

Those cpus are good either for serious work or for overclockers who can bring them into 3+ GHz territory

I don't think anyone was doing that in the first place. >_>

This is great news, just when I was thinking of an upgrade. Glad AMD is turning a profit again.

I've been seriously thinking of building my own computer for some time now, and these quad-cores are tempting. I'm currently eyeing the Phenom II 3.6GHz Black Edition. It's the fastest processor they have right now.