Proof that your i3-540 benches are out of whack as I complained in my pervious emails and forum posts.
Computerbase.de put up their new CPU benchmark review and in it they have CPU benches for both COD:BO and MOH for the i3-540. You have the Athlon II X4 faster than the i3-540 in your review, where here the i3-540 is easily faster.
COD:BO …
i3-540 …………………… 115.25
Athlon II X4 645 ………… 103.78
Phenom II X3 740 ……….. 101.70
Athlon II X3 450 ………… 94.21
Phenom II X2 565 ……….. 86.93
see… http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2010/test-prozessoren-2010/14/#abschnitt_call_of_duty_black_ops
In both your reviews for these games (COD:BO and MOH) you have the i3-540 essentially tied with a Phenom II X2. At computerbase.de the i3-540 is much faster than the Phenom II X2 in both games, and in fact, the i3-540 has no problem outrunning a Phenom II X3 in both games.
MOH …
Athlon II X4 645 … … 115.04
i3-540 … … … … … 100.84
Phenom II X3 740 … 93.62
Phenom II X2 565 … 83.21
see … http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2010/test-prozessoren-2010/17/#abschnitt_medal_of_honor
Dual core processors simply can't compete with the 4 logical cores (2 real 2 virtual) of the i3's in games that take advantage of more than 2 cores so your i3-540 should be much faster than a Phenom II X2 in both those games. If the X4 645 had the same differential to the i3-540 in your review as this one for MOH, about 14% faster, the i3-540 would come in around 85 (compared to 97 for the X4 645), it would be slightly faster than the Q6600 (84) -- you have it at only 62.