AMD X6 was aimed at better than quad core to start with. Easy to tell the public otherwise when it fails. It's like when Nivida says "Direct11 is useless" just because they didn't have a card ready to support it. Hardware manufacturers tell you want they want you to hear, this includes Intel as well.
Running ftp and sql transfers while coding something and listen to some music in the meantime. You assume that the majority of desktop PC's is used for games and other tasks at home? If you want to save your money because you don't need x more performance for some tasks it's fine, but stating that you pay for the brand when daily usage and performance charts show otherwise is a bit off reality.
AMD stopped releasing new processors for quite a while, and also...i would go for an Intel right now because the price/performance ratio is the best i've seen for an i7... Intel does make better processors...while AMD make better videocards...
WTF is the ultra high end? There is no such thing, either you made the fastest CPU on the planet or you didn't. There is no aiming for some levels in between when it comes to the top, which is what both AMD as Intel aim at when releasing a new generation of fast CPU's. It's all about being #1, who cares about anything below when CPU evolutions main factor is performance?
Watch the name calling. There are people here of different skill and knowledge levels and they come here to discuss and learn. Show the respect to other members you want to be shown.
AMD just released Phenom II 1100T last week, what do you mean stopped releasing new processors? deltatux
If that were 100% correct it is still wrong anyway, because AMD has always been cheaper, not just in recent times. I've been with AMD since about 2000, I had a set budget and basically the fastest CPU for that price was an AMD, and its been the same ever since. That is the appeal for me and many people who buy AMD, over time I have probably become a fanbois too, but then being a NZer, I have become accustomed to rooting for the underdog (except in Rugby of course). I've never been disappointed with the performance for my budget and with all the research prior to a purchase, am totally happy in my choice and the associated cost and resulting performance. If I have 95% of the performance for 80% of the price, that's a good buy in my book. Besides, we all need AMD, without it, imagine how stupidly expensive Intel would be? Doesn't bare thinking about.
The use of the term ultra-high end is an abstract term that I used to reflect the currently consumer level process market landscape, if you can't understand that then I feel sorry for you. Ultra-high-end usually represents the absolute highest elite level when it comes to, well, anything. The term is used in many places, go look it up. On the case of aiming at markets, you can aim anywhere you like so long as you think there's a market for it there. Markets aren't pre-determined, they are made.
Not necessarily true, there are different markets you can hit. Not everything is about performance. There's also the case for low-power and efficient processors. As much as you don't like it, the market is segmented into different tiers (by price): Ultra-high-end - $500 - 1000 (Core i7) High-End - ~$300 - 500 (Core i7) High-Mid-Range - ~$250 - 300 (Phenom II X6, Core i7) Mid-Range - ~$150 - 250 (Phenom II X4, Phenom II X6, Core i5, Core i7) Low Mid-Range - $100 - 150 (Athlon II, Phenom II X4, Core i3, Core i5) Low end - $50 - 100 (Athlon II, Pentium Dual Core, Core i3) Dirt Cheap - $30 - 50 (Sempron, Pentium Dual Core) Of course, the names and price ranges differ since they are subjective, but that's essentially how the market is segmented. AMD tends to aim at the bulk of the market which is around low end to high-mid-range. deltatux
