This is yet another thread that we have been bombed. Have you noted there are now 22 posts in the thread and the original author has not bothered to post a second time. Do these people really even care or is it just about raising an issue so we will argue about something between ourselves? Then we find out this author has been dropping a bomb in multiple projects, just to create a disturbance in the force. We can try to ignore them and wait to see if they come back to their thread a second time.

Yeah...I saw him do it at Cosmology too.

And yet up front costs on these top of the line upcoming pieces of hardware would take how long to save money difference on the cost of a GPU? The processor alone you speak of is what a really good GPU would cost. Add the cost of the over priced motherboards to run it, it is still better to go to GPU. Low end GPU's can be found under $40 that will run in most already purchased systems. (Though won't give you quite the 7 to 10 times faster quotes from above when compared to top end processors, but also have a much less power draw. I think the GeForce 210 has a max draw of 30 watts and can be found as low as $20 after a rebate.)

So, cost per watt...CPU is more likely a cheaper loooooong term buy. Realistic cost to most people = what they can afford to buy at the time. Managing a few small $$ per month savings really doesn't translate to most people.

For those limited on tower space, GPU is better as long as their power supplies and motherboards can support the cards and they have good cooling.

Then factor in the approximated 7 to 10 times results estimates for just under double the power consumption still translates into better investment for most crunchers.

Edited for clarification

That is true. Right now the debate should be about whether it is reasonable for them to "waste time and money" or not on development. I think as long as they developed it so that even the low end GPU capable cards worked, then it is worth it. Like I mentioned above....most people can afford a $20 video card for their computer that could outperform many of the single processor systems they are still running. I have 3 sitting here that contribute elsewhere that I would rather have crunching here.

That really depends on the $$$ you want to spend on the upgrade and of course whether or not you care about the electric cost too. Then what project you plan on using it for can also make a difference on whether you go nVidia or ATI.

Edit: For example, the GeForce 8400GS and the 210 are pretty close to the same in price and performance. From what I have read, the 8400GS has a higher theoretical performance (but only slightly) over the 210, but the 210 use approximately 9 watts less of max power. Both of them cost relatively the same. Both of these are also among the lowest of the CUDA capable cards which also means less results compared to more expensive options.

Edit2: Also keep in mind what power supply you have currently and whether your upgrade will require one with a higher rating.