Quote Originally Posted by 2good4you View Post
from the cpu-z shot i posted @ sweclockers, I do not now much about it and comes from imageshack.
Then you need to take it with a grain of salt, and be skeptical of it's legitamacy, as it could be faked. All it takes to fake that is pshopping the screen shot, putting it as the desktop and hiding icons/task bar (or just end task on Explorer). From there, take a pic with the camera and submit to ImageShack :P


Quote Originally Posted by 2good4you View Post
The official information about how we should see the core/module count is still the way I wrote. It is in many ways strange and in many ways not.

It should kick ass anyways because most apps is still singelthread or no more than dual/quad threaded.

I don't like to see a 4 module Bulldozer compared to an 8 core Intel. It's absolutely not a good comparison. AMD may have a 6-core Bulldozer ready, or an MCM for desktop like Interlagos as an anser.
My reading seems to have led us to believe they will show up as two threads per core, but that would mean an 8 core = 16 threads. I don't see AMD going about it that way, so I might be understanding it slightly wrong, and it is 1 core = 1 thread, but each core processes as if it was two threads due to the split architecture. Still, I'm 98% sure ONE module = TWO physical cores, which is why an E350 Bobcat is dual core and only uses one module

I don't like the comparison of AMD to Intel either, but we've just got to look at it on the scale of performance. If it turns out an 8-threaded Intel performs as well as an 8core AMD, then what are we left to say? :\

Your best bet would be Valencia for desktop, as it'd be cheaper since you'd only be going with a C32 board instead of G34. It'd only be a max of 8 cores still, but hopefully the memory performance and HyperTransport can make up for that a bit If you've got the cash though, I suppose you could liken the 12/16core Interlagos like the Extreme i7 chips, and G34 to the x58 since the costs will be close.


Quote Originally Posted by 2good4you View Post
Also like I wrote, one module is in almost all ways more like one core, than two. It shares _all_ except L1 datacache which is quaite impressive. It's very like Intel's Hyperthreading, but in a better way.
Again, I'm pretty sure it's 2 physical cores, sharing only the 64KB of L1 Instruction and 2MB of L2 cache per module. The L3 is shared amongst the whole CPU, same as it has been so far.


I'm very open to being correct though if I'm misunderstanding anything! I only want to spread the facts, not misconceptions (be that my own or read from others insisting they are facts).