There is no mention of any CPU in your post. The entire content of your post is a re-post of what some nub over at Toms thought. It sure looks to be mirroring what you've been repeatedly telling us around here about how frame latency doesn't matter.
You'll also notice that that 1100T hangs out right around the Phenom II X4 in all of the graphs, whether it's the almost useless FPS graph, or the poorly constructed Latency graph. Again, it would not be a worthwhile upgrade over your Phenom II X4.
Also too, you'll notice that for their frame latency graphs they cut off at the 95% mark. In effect they are saying "It's perfectly okay to drop 3 frames every single second". Three frames in a row is 1/20th of a second, which is very obvious judder. Three frames spread out is more manageable, but not ideal. Really, you want to drop less than a frame a second. 95% is a bad place to make the cut-off. You'll notice that Tom's competition makes the cut-off at 99%. You'll also notice that the vast majority of difference between CPUs shows up in that last 4%. This is a bad article, through and through.