Originally Posted by Masked
In some categories it does.
Personally, I find the hypocrisy to be HILARIOUS.
When the quad core was first released, OCN hailed it as innovative, awesome and great...Even though it was "crushed" by the dual cores.
Now that an octo comes out, with actual, "even" scores to it's competition...It's "crushed", "crap" and an epic fail.
I think the vast majority of you need to take a picture because, you'll get a perfect shot of the "rare and elusive" elitist hypocrite.
There's exaggeration going on, sure, but I'd more or less put the CPU where it's being labeled, and that's disappointing. It's got low IPC and high power draw. This is AMD's Netburst. Intel compensated with clock speed, which helped nearly universally. AMD is compensating with more cores, which does not nearly as much.
Sure, it's got decent potential (that being a key word) collective power, but even considering those cases where it all is used (which, remember, are not reflective across the board), an Intel quad core like a Core i5 2500K or Core i7 2600K is a better balance choice for a new buyer. It has better performance in things that aren't threaded beyond belief, still at least comparable performance when they are, much less power consumption, and a cheaper price point (in the case of the Core i5 2500K at least). Time will tell where this goes, but right now, I'd class it as a disappointment.