Originally Posted by noob.deagle
i thought it was 07 ? i got AM2+ in 08, and ive been using it ever since and my board also supports the new x6 chips imo thats a good upgrade path
i will be changing to AM3+ for bulldozer tho i think that is their first forced upgrade for quite a while because bulldozer is a radically different architecture it will require an AM3+ board but am3 chips will also work in it.
Pretty sure it was 2006. That was the year AMD had 3 sockets at the same time (754, 939, AM2). Supposedly, AM2 was only a replacement for 754 and 939 was "safe" for a while but AM2 ended up replacing 939, too. By the way, did AMD get any flack for the 754/939 thing? Because Intel received a ton of criticism on LGA-1156/LGA-1366.
My motherboard actually has a BIOS upgrade available to enable Bulldozer support. I might go for it if BD significantly cuts down on load power consumption while improving performance.
In fairness to Intel, if you got Nehalem back in 2008, your CPU was top dog until Sandy Bridge arrived. AMD didn't have anything to compete with (Thuban is only better in some select applications) and Gulftown was nothing more than a token release. That's amazing longevity for a CPU. Of course, there's the issue of platform cost. Cheapest X58 board was around $250, I think. Add $300 for the i7 and that's already $550 for just MB+CPU. Deneb was around $200-250 when it was first released, but motherboards can be had for ~$100. That leaves you $200-250 which is incidentally, also the launch price of the 1055T. Granted, unless you do video encoding or 3D work (or one of the few other applications that can take advantage of 6 cores), I don't see much sense in upgrading from Deneb to Thuban.
Deneb was awesome and it was released at the right price, at the right time. It was better than Core 2 Quad but it wasn't prohibitively expensive like the Core i7. Unfortunately, this time around Intel released mainstream versions first so it's a bit trickier for AMD. Bulldozer needs to at least match mainstream Sandy Bridge performance if they want the $200-300 market and they can't simply do it by just upping the core count. There's a reason why Thuban has drastically dropped down in price while Intel's Core i5 and i7 maintained their prices - it's because most programs want better per core performance than they do more cores (at least beyond 4).