The boot time isn't the point-- it's an indicator of the problem. The problem is that Grandma doesn't know how to maintain her computer. It's full of crap (see above post). That crap typically loads at boot time. After it's loaded, it sits around stealing processor cycles and memory.
My core2duo laptop with 2GB of RAM running Windows 7 works great. I'm not compiling a lot of code on it, but it works for basic computer tasks. If I give my laptop to Grandma, after one year I expect it to be painful to use for basic computer tasks. See above re: crap.
So, if we want Grandma to have a computer to use that doesn't run dog slow, we have three options:
For most users, #1 is a lost cause. They just don't get it. If you have lots of free time, fuck it, do #2. Otherwise, it's better to do #3.
TLDR For basic computer uses, "Grandma" needs a significantly more powerful computer than you.
For non-technical parents and other users, I actually like lots of cores and lots of memory-- more so than 'power users.'
Have you ever seen some people boot up their machines? It will take 5 minutes because of the sheer amount of crap installed.
It will be shit like two different anti-virus suites (the first one's subscription expired, and they installed a new one without uninstalling the old). There will be a update checker for every conceivable thing that's been installed. There's the preloader software that loads whatever crappy application it is into memory at boot time so that the application starts faster when you click on it's associated file type. Then, there are all the various helpful toolbars for Internet Explorer that "enhance your internet experience" and delivery dollars to your inbox. Of course, the user will probably go through two or more inkjet printer/scanner/copier all-in-one devices that require the manufacturer's 300 MB "printing experience suite" to enhance user experience by making pop-up windows when the ink is low and will helpfully tell you where you can order more special photo printing paper. There's the two different desktop search tools that got installed when the user downloaded the kitten screensavers pack and accompanying mouse cursors. Then, there is the sidebar app showing the weather outside and what time it is in Fiji.
That's stuff I can think of off the top of my head. I have no idea how average users manage to cruft up their machines so much, but they do. Keep in mind also that they're probably not going to upgrade hardware for a few years, but they'll likely install iTunes 32, Internet Explorer 17, and Office 2016, which will have >1 GB memory footprints.
By having lots of cores, and lots of memory, you can give them a decent user experience even on a machine that they've bogged to shit.
Umm.. 12W difference is for an IDLE system. At load the difference is clearly closer to 80-100W.
No shit, Sherlock. Look at comment subject line.
Maybe for a desktop this doesn't matter. But given the decline of desktops and consumers moving to laptops (and even more mobile devices), these results are downright TERRIBLE for AMD.
If you think desktop chips (AMD or Intel) are used in laptops, you are an idiot.
I agree about multithreaded performance being important thing moving forward.
Regarding power consumption, anandtech review puts total system power consumption for Vishera tested at 12-13W more than Ivy Bridge. Scroll to bottom of page for chart. Bar and line graphs at top of page are misleading-- they put x axis at 50W, not 0W.
If you are concerned about power consumption, find 100W lightbulb in your house. Replace with CFL. You will have greater energy saving.
I have a few computers at home running a variety of operating systems, but the two I use most frequently both run Windows 7. One is my work PC. I need to run Windows on that one because there are a few applications I need for work that are Windows only. The other is my gaming machine. I play a couple of Source mods on it,and I use Windows because it's much easier than trying to run the games on Linux.
If Valve would release Steam on Linux, and make it easy and straightforward to install Source mods on Linux, I will happily switch to Linux on my gaming machine. I'd even put up with Ubuntu if that were the distro they targeted. It would save me having to use a Windows license just to do gaming.
Perhaps Steam/Source on Linux wouldn't appeal to hardcore gamers who buy the latest AAA title every couple of months, but, for me, it's excellent.
Garbage In -- Gospel Out.