Having received and tested an early model of AMD’s new top-of-the-line, Bulldozer-based FX-8150 CPU, I wasn’t too taken aback by its mostly lukewarm reception in the tech press. But what did shock me were the reactions from commenters on many of those reviews — and what they revealed about a mindset within the builder and enthusiast community that I consider frankly impenetrable.

Here’s a minute sampling of what some people out there have been saying:

“I have been an avid AMD supporter since 1996. I have spent many thousands of dollars on your CPUs and other hardware that you people make. I’m done. Not another penny! Ever!” – Krieg1337

More quotes are available from wolfman3k5, Nebulis01, Mergatroid, sirmo, and many, many others. On top of all that, there’s even a video on YouTube of one particularly hardcore AMD fan going completely bonkers about the release! People are taking this incredibly seriously.

My question is: Why? AMD released a CPU that couldn’t compare overall to those Intel has been developing incrementally for years. We shouldn’t be hearing the kind of moaning we have been over the last few days, let alone have to endure the suicide watch nature of some of these reactions.

That’s not to say I don’t understand some of it. In the interests of full disclosure, the first PC I ever built from scratch was an AMD one. Why? Well, uh, it was cheaper, and as a college student on a fixed income I had to pick my battles carefully. It ended up being a good choice, and that computer served me well for several years. At that point, after surveying the field, I chose AMD again, and lived happily with that chip for about the same period of time. No matter what happens I’ll always have a soft spot for the company that drove the first PCs I assembled with my own hands.

As I got older, my bank account got flush, and I upgraded more frequently, migrating to the competition seemed the sensible thing to do. Intel got a huge jump on multicore processing, first with two and then with four, and its tick-tock strategy of advancing process technology one year and introducing a new microarchitecture the next has kept its accomplishments fresher and more innovative longer than AMD’s. Sure, AMD had (and, for that matter, still has) superior backward compatibility in its corner, and has trounced Intel time and time again strictly on the question of price. But because raw speed and higher-level multithreading capabilities are what I’ve cared about most, and because I’ve been willing (and able) to pay the necessary premium for them, Intel became and stayed the obvious choice.

None of this should have come as a surprise to anyone who cares enough about following the hardware scene to scour the various websites devoted to product reviews, register for their forums or discussions, and then pontificate on all the various nuances — especially as AMD has been positioning itself as more economical than powerful for several generations now. Yet still all this fidgety hand-wringing on the occasion of the Bulldozer release? It’s heartwarming that people have been holding out so much hope for so long that AMD would triumph this time around. But was there any concrete reason to believe the company actually would?

It isn’t rocket science

We’re not talking about sex symbol stuff here, like the iPhone or the iPad. No one cares how a processor looks, and no one should care about how it makes them feel — how it performs is where it ought to be at. If the FX-8150’s performance is wanting, there’s no reason to get upset about it. Heck, there’s no reason even to post on a forum about it. Either hang on to your older AMD chip or buy a newer one, it’s that simple. This kind of thing happens in the component segment all the time; it’s the nature of the business. Not every product can (or will) be fastest just because we want it to be, and that’s okay. Publicly lamenting about how you have to actually “settle” for the faster, more power-efficient, and more value-conscious chip — even if it costs more — isn’t the mark of an involved enthusiast, it’s the mark of a whiner.

There are even reasons to be glad that things have turned out the way they did. Chances are you don’t have the AM3+ motherboard necessary to use the FX-8150 anyway, so buying a new Intel motherboard to go with your new Intel CPU isn’t a huge sacrifice; imagine if you had bought one in anticipation of Bulldozer and then seen the results. Or, if you love AMD and are determined to stick with it but still think you need an upgrade, the FX-8150 is far from the only game in town. Maybe consider the six-core Phenom II X6 1100T — it costs only $189.99 at Newegg, and it’s not that far behind the FX-8150 in terms of sheer power. (This is one of the newer chip’s demerits, as it turns out.)

The second act

Of course, it’s possible this stumble could convince the folks at AMD to get their act together and produce an amazing processor next time that delivers all the speed, power efficiency, and value that the company claimed this one would; one of the big pluses about this first Bulldozer chip is its multithreading performance, and that could lead to exciting things once the other kinks are worked out. And who’s to say it couldn’t cause Intel to get complacent, keep its own prices too high or turn out something of its own that fails to meet expectations, and thus gives AMD the opening it needs to recapture the hearts and minds of builders everywhere.

Those are the kinds of possibilities worth talking about, dwelling on, and even analyzing to death — not the particular success or failure of a particular chip from a particular company. If you need or want to build a new computer right now, feel free to go with Intel — I sincerely doubt you’ll be disappointed. But that doesn’t mean you can’t keep your eyes and heart open to follow AMD’s next move. The company has put out lots of terrific products before, and a stumble like this isn’t enough to prevent it from doing so again. But you run the risk of missing them if you drink yourself into a stupor because the prospect of patronizing the “enemy” is so distasteful.

Over the course of my computing lifetime, I’ve developed biases for manufacturers of motherboards, video cards, hard drives, memory, sound cards, and even optical drives. Those sorts of patterns can be comfortable, but they’re not always best for you. On my current home computer, half the components — including the motherboard and the video card — use technologies I sniffed at until these new models came around. Whether I’ll change my mind again, or stay on the same course, when I upgrade again, remains to be seen. But I’m going to try to keep an open mind, and go with the best I can get, even if it’s not what I think I want. Hopefully those who feel betrayed by Bulldozer can do the same and discover it’s possible to build computers that, compared with their parts’ favored makers, they’ll enjoy every bit as much –and, who knows, maybe even more.