Oh please don't word it like that! Just kidding. . .they are going 2 run out of mhz for cores.
i'll tell you what i don't get, is the people that buy dual dual core computers, if they haven't even optimized dual core software yet, why the hell do you need two dual cores, or in this case 4 cores, like what are you going to do, play fear, bf2, and encode a dvd, listen to music, virus scan, defrag, and whatever else you might want to do
also, i don't think single core should die, because they can fit more transistors in a single core, and therefore make it fatser than a dual core, so if you don't plan on multitasking, shouldn't you have the option to get an ultra fast single core like the fx-57 or in the future, some other uber cpu?
um... well considering we know the basic arcitecture design they plan on using (that has been announced), and we know about the performance of the processors last time this type of design was used, it doesn't sound pretty... the concerns are because of the bus that connects the processor... if it was too slow for 2 cores with this arcitecture, its gonna be even worse with 4 cores. this IS information we know... I didn't have to go find a crystal ball for it.First and foremost how can ANY anylist make assumptions like these without ANY specs being given out by Intel or without any inside knowledge? This crap is the stuff that feeds the AMD vs Intel threads. This is a stupid article by some guy who knows nothign of the Proc Specs... yet MOST all just eat it up.... s-h-e-e-p.
Promote Free Thinkers Please
"PCWorld says that industry analyst are predicting that Intel’s quad core performance may be less than stellar. I seriously wonder how ANY industry analyst can even make that claim when Intel hasn’t even released a single ounce of information on the upcoming processor. Do these analyst have crystal balls...or just big brass ones?"
And oh yeah, you can throw this review in with the thread of the guy who got the 7900GTX... LOL!