Originally Posted by Rollo
I have literally "seen it all" on the tech forums now. I thought it was sad when people would post "Card X uses less electricity!" when electricity averages around a dime a KWh in the US. I thought it was pathetic when people said "Card Y costs company Z less money to build!"
To see "Well these new cpus are slower than the old ones, much slower than the competition, use more juice, run hotter, cost more, have a cache bug, but guess what? If you run secret patch X it helps a little, and disabling half the cores helps a little more, so then you only have a CPU that is slower than the competition, runs hotter, costs more, uses more juice!" thrown out there as a "logical argument" is beyond comprehension.
The only people on the planet who should buy Bulldozer CPUs have relatives working at AMD. The rest of us should stay far, far away.
I guess I'm not familiar with the server market, but these things wouldn't be my first choice. Businesses need proven tech, not cache bugs, patches, and disabled cores. I don't think the IT dept where I work would even consider something like this.
Maybe Intel made it too easy, buy 2600K, flip the switch on, set the multiplier and it runs perfect as well as fast. AMD one has to tweak tweak tweak, find the hiden magical settings to make those games play etc. Oh what fun Intel folks maybe missing here. I am looking forward to my 8120 arriving while I will probably consume alot of time finding out what works best with it. Now from the looks of it, the Sandy Bridge cpus are for the most part clearly the better cpu for the desktop, at least at this time, maybe in the near future Bulldozer can show it ugly head or bucket for the home user.