It's just as confusing as NVIDIA. First we have 8750 at 2.4GHz, now we will have 8750 at 2.5GHz. But, wait, there will be 8850 also at 2.5GHz! What's the difference between these 2.5GHz CPUs? We all know that the cache size will be all the same, so it's maybe 1800MHz vs 2000MHz HT? Never mind. The point is that if AMD wants to introduce new things, CHOOSE DIFFERENT NAMES.
What confuses me the most is why the final 65nm tri-core still will not be even the same speed as the quad-cores are sold as, and why the Phenom dual-core is even lower.
Undoubtedly, they want to push the quad cores, but it really raises questions about how they're making these things. I know nothing about it yet, but I have to wonder if the first Phenom-based dual-cores are another result of what birthed the tri-cores: a malfunctioning product of some other sort that is castrated and relabeled, with the underlying issue publicly avoided.
I've been reading that the first Phenom dual-core will be labeled X2 6500+. And it's allegedly not faster than even the 6000+, though its name suggests its the successor to the 6400+. You're right chaohsiangchen, it is as confusing as Nvidia.
And yes nezuko, you are correct. I believe it's spelled "Hekka," though, or at least, that's all I've ever seen before. Get ready to see a lot of those. There are already more variations of the 45nm Phenoms than I can count off hand.
So I guess "the market is demanding energy efficient tri-cores" now? Do we really need low end dual cores, low end tri-cores and low end quad cores, black edition versions of a bunch of these and the vanilla versions in 100MHz (
[citation][nom]cheap[/nom]...Do we really need low end dual cores, low end tri-cores and low end quad cores...[/citation]
Low end quad cores are OK IMO, they encourage the global multicore adoption and multithreaded programming practice.