Did anyone really think an 8-core would be a good idea for gaming? It's preposterous. Same goes with 6-cores(*cough* Thuban), if you don't plan on having all those cores under 100% load for some duration of time.. there's no point. And honestly, nothing is pushing 8 cores besides encoding, rendering, simulation, etc.
I think the new hack will be running Windows 7 in 128-bit mode. Then it can get close to using all of BD's power
Originally Posted by OC'ing Noob
Are you seriously trying to compare a new gen CPU to a last gen CPU? It is common knowledge that Nehalem was hugely power hungry and an issue Intel succeeded in addressing with Sandy Bridge. Nehalem was also the most powerful processor upon release, so the performance crown justified the higher power consumption from an enthusiast standpoint. BD has not seized any performance crowns, while having a much greater power consumption level. Short of being a blatant AMD fanboy, there is little justification for recommending a BD build unless you are simply upgrading the CPU, of which you may need to upgrade your PSU as well.
An 8150 at 4.6 under load uses 25W more than a 980X at 4.54(Anandtech). Gulftown vs. BD is fair, both are on 32nm, so it's fair to compare power consumption. Of course BD doesn't win on performance, but it's power usage is not that high, considering it has 2B transistors, vs. maybe 1.4ish of the 980X.Edited by jrbroad77 - 10/16/11 at 10:45pm