Actually according to some benchmarks, the FX-60 is slower than the FX-57. The FX-60 is Dual-core but only 2.6GHz. Since games haven't taken advantage of dual core yet, the higher clock speed wins. Check it out: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28152
I'm talking about the Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 955XE, which runs the Presler core and not the Conroe core. I wasn't even thinking of the Prescott.
Well the Presler is basically a Prescott core on 65nm with improved voltage consumption and heat dissapation. Becides, even if the Presler sucks, it's only when it's at stock speeds. Overclock it and it'll fly like you've never flown before.
What I'm really disappointed about is the AMD Athlon FX-60. It costs about $1,200 and there isn't anything new about it. Only 2.6ghz and it uses the Toledo core on the 90nm process. Even if it has unlocked multipliers, AMD traditionally doesn't overclock as high as Intel does. Heck, I'd rather get the Athlon X2 4800+ instead. It's the same Toledo core, same 90nm, same 2.6ghz, same everything except for the fact that it's multipliers aren't locked. It's about $400 cheaper than the FX-60 too, which makes it a pretty good deal. How disappointing...