hhhhmmm let see all of deneb's new features

1. HT3.1 3200mhz (like Icore7 i 3200mhz too) helps memopery mostly, maybe a little with GPU.

2. L3 cache speed is linked to HT speed(aka HT can't be higher then NB) (1 and 2 is more for overclocking)

3. agena had 32way L3 cache and deneb will have 48 way (maybe we can get revision with 64 way please wishful thinking lol)

4. deneb 15% faster at same speeds as agena this means nb/L3 cache speeds may have been the same. increasing the nb/L3cache speed helps as much as 2-5%.

5. clocking is better due to removed resistor in the cache. (no idea why that was in there in the first place maybe an engineer over looked it)

6 K10 was already 15% faster then K8. which AMD stated it would be

7. NO TLB buggs actually if you look even intel had one of them too.

8 Penryn was IPC boost and shrink too, it wans't 15% it was only 5-10% and had more cache dual 6mb vs 4mb and Quad 12mb vs 8mb. that's only 25% more cache and came out to be and average 5-7% faster and like maybe 7% less watts.

9. That IPC is L2 cache for penryn to conroe (16 way for conroe and 24 way for penryn) L3 is whole different story on phenom. When you consider phenom is only 15%(rarely is that high it's more 5-7%) with 50% less cache.

10. given all details including the SuperPI score have we needed a 4.0ghz 65nm AGENA beat a 3.2ghz DENEB

11. so yeah it can beat york field in my opinion by at lest 2-5%

12. I can not see why people are comparing Deneb to nehalem. I see it more of a conroe vs york field not nehalem (AGENA v DENEB)

13. the architecture is basically still K10. not all new like Icore7 nehalem is.

( last few are a couple things Iv'e been reading around here)

14. I still think AMD motherboards are getting the screw job in the Power phase area (where our digital PWM ? )

15. Icore7 is looking Hotter then R600, phenom may have been hot but no that hot.

16. at least where not in a TDP OC with phenom.