I'd have to agree the loss of clock for clock performance is a bit of a mystery. There are some workloads where bulldozer does do quite well and can almost match a i7 2600K, but it's still going to be doing it with a lot more power consumption. I'd bet my OC'ed 2600K still uses less power and would really blow away bulldozer.
I'm guessing bulldozer will be quick to fade. It's priced higher than an X6 1100T yet performs on par in light workloads. A slight price drop of Sandy Bridge will no doubt make it even less compelling to buy anything AMD.
Pile driver has it's work cut out for it to even get the numbers back on track. The per clock increase will only get it back on track with Phenom II, then they will really need a die shrink to get the power down some. Sadly it seems like AMD is having a "netburst" of their own...
Originally Posted by ViN86
I don't know why that guy in the link in the quote above uses high graphics settings for his CPU benchmarks...
I personally like they use higher graphics settings. It shows the actual effect the processor will have on your workload. The other thing that I've seen mentioned before is the workload between running 640 x 480 low settings and full resolution high settings can change significantly on the CPU side. Even though they are GPU limited some of the settings can require more cpu power to handle the added code. Using AA might be a bit much though.