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.

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.

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.
You might think of it that way, but facts are AMD now and always have counted 1 module = 2 cores and they will in the future. The mentality has always been this way from AMD and you stated in that Sweclockers thread specifically that AMD officially counts 1 module as 1 core which is wrong. The top die on Bulldozer gen.1 will have 4 modules, 8 cores, 8 threads.

But I agree on what you have said that comparing an 8 core AMD vs. 8 core Intel isn't "fair" not cause AMD took the module route. I never compare products like that, I compare it they way you should which provides the best bang for my buck?