4 ms·

Thats a shame... I'm looking into a new rig, and he's completely sold on the design. I can imagine a world in, lets say, 2013-2014 where the desktop becomes a

Thats a shame... I'm looking into a new rig, and he's completely sold on the design. I can imagine a world in, lets say, 2013-2014 where the desktop becomes a more multithreaded environment, but that just isn't where were at today, and thats just my guess. He's convinced the overclocking aspect makes all the difference, and Intels don't OC as well, but thats not what i'm reading (nor what you're saying). I do like the conceptual architectural changes made with the bulldozer, but current, and forthcoming, software just doesn't seem like it will make use of it. It definitely seems like more of a server-minded approach to an architecture.

eropple 15y ago
I think you're being optimistic. We're going to see all our desktop applications become pervasively multi-threaded in two years? And Bulldozer is going to be better at this than Sandy Bridge, which is good at both single- and multi-threaded loads? Ehhh. Not likely. The design isn't even that good or interesting; as I mentioned before, it's overly reliant on shared components that aren't conducive to the sort of magical perf improvements that "but you can overclock!" would require.