Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared
Heh, I love broad generalized statements like that.
I don't need a faster cpu, but I'll be upgraded to bulldozer because its AMD!
Some people have weaker systems so a weaker cpu seems fine, however others actually have nearly twice as much graphical power at their disposal and because of this they actually require twice the cpu power.
Is it broad and generalized?
"I don't need a faster cpu, but I'll be upgraded to bulldozer because its AMD"
twice as much graphical power at their disposal : For what? So you don't have to upgrade in the near future? You will anyhow.
I have mentioned Intel's superiority so far so I don't understand your defense for intel in your "Yukon's a amd fan boy" comment.
I'll mention it a little clearer and with a more blunt point, people who want to upgrade to bulldozer or Ivy, should do just that, wait. I mean honestly what is your average guy gaining for himself other than useless speed, by that i mean you have a top fuel dragster but only go 1/4 throttle down the track.
The reason I'd like to have bulldozer?
1) Because I can wait.
2) Because I can almost tell you it's going to be cheaper and possibly as fast
I have no beef with Intel other than I can never afford their top chip or their second runner up, with AMD I can. Honeslty I upgraded to the 955 about last Feb or march and in Feb or march of 2012 my intentions are to go with bulldozer..
Why am I not running AMD's newer 6 core? Honeslty I've read reviews and they're best gaming chips seems the be there quad's 955,965,975,980. I didn't think that it was worth the money to upgrade if I could just raise the multi a little to sit mine right there with them. I though that was a weak attempt by AMD myself so....
I'd say if you have anything less than a quadcore processor it might be time to take a little leap up.