Originally Posted by arctia
It's not the exact same situation. First of all, Q6600 came out 10 months BEFORE the E8400, Bulldozer came out 9 months after the 2500k. We would have been perfectly okay with Bulldozer if it came out months before the 2500k.
We OCN in general were raving about the Q6600 because many of us were able to get those "good" samples where we got 2.4 -> 3.6 overclock. 3.6 Q6600 vs 4.0 E8400 wasn't that big of a difference even in single threaded applications. Whereas 5.2 bulldozer vs 4.8 sandybridge in single threaded app... the difference is still huge.
Plus the Q6600 wasn't hyped much...Intel didn't release any comic book series of super heroes or have staff make any claims to it having better performance. Intel basically flat out said, "Hey, we are just mashing together two E6600's so don't expect a lot of it that you can't do with a E6600. There is nothing really new here". It's single thread performance was still the same as the E6600, but no one expected more. however it managed to not disappoint (just not amaze) and start a trend of quad core CPUs.
Bulldozer isn't starting a new trend since 8 threads is nothing really new and now additional cores are just sort of expected. However, its single treaded performance left a lot to be desired. No one has any trouble with the extra cores or multithreaded performance...save for the power ussuage. So it ended up not accomplishing anything to the general users view point. I can recognise and respect the step in a semi-new direction, but I am going to wait till it is further developed before I buy any hardware based on AMD new ideas...maybe a couple years down the road.