[H]ardOCP has claimed our Core 2 benchmarks lie to you, that only their real-world GPU bottleneck tests can show real-world CPU performance. We address the issue of "real-world" vs "canned", and go over some of the myths and errors propagated by our friendly rivals, while also going over the pros and cons of both methods. Normally I don?t go off on other websites in my rant articles. Believe it or not, reviewing hardware and games can be a difficult, time-consuming process and I sympathize with my peers as it can be a tough job. But in their latest CPU review, hardware website [H]ardOCP called into question the testing methods of all other websites based in part on false information, and part subjective opinion. From the [H]ardOCP teaser:

We test Intel's Core 2 Duo and Extreme using real-world gaming. Don't let a bunch of canned benchmarks lie to you about gaming performance, real gameplay experience tells a different story. Unless of course you game at 800x600.

In his article he then goes on to state:

Let's just cut to the chase. You will see a lot of gaming benchmarks today that just simply lie to you. That is right, you will see frames per second numbers that are at best total BS, and at their worst a terrible representation of what difference a new Intel Core 2 processor will make in your gaming experience.

FiringSquad