and the better amd architecture, will block my pc if i recive a message on yahoo msg, while i render a damn scene. thats what i see in a better architecture, not the plain text benchmarks. i dont know about core2 didnt tryed yet, it must be better, but think abit that u cant go forever with adding cores over cores, thats not a smart choice, coz ul endup with some huge power bills that are unjustified(at least for now).
the truth is in the middle, somewhere, and i dont belive this enthusiasm about core 2, like the entusiasm when netburst arrived.

and about future cpu development. i think, that theyll have to find some other material and other strategy, and maybe it is better to have smarter cores, instead of adding more of the “stupid” ones and sell them for profit, benchmarking them……..that take us nowhere.

imagine that now a cpu is on a die, a plate litle thing, stretched, well, thy should use some other aproach for developing a super cpu, like using a square/ christal like shape(yes like u see in the movyes) that will make things more logic inside and everything on a scale, with a superfast core. what i see now is a dead end by emproving performance through adding distinct cores. is a good thing but they should not forget that this is not much of an inovaton, is just sticking the same old stuff and multiply it over and over, technological is prety sad if they dont research of producing and developing another technology with a complete new philosophy. it seems that this materials and strategy of making cpu`s reached its end. all must be abit rethinked, logical.

1.Dual core philosophy ( at least according to Intel Fan Boys )= both of the above

This being the case , if the Core architecture gives quad cores , you’ll really
need a space age cooling system and chassis.

NetBurst isnt dead yet !

BUT THIS TIME AROUND THEY HAVE DEFEATED THE BETTER AMD ARCHITECTURE with On die memory controller , 64-bit computing and Hyper Transport links that improved the overall performance ( a CPU as an entire major platform advantage instead of the mainboard and chipstes of individual components ) of the system and the other components [ A true system wide architecture that scales and improves performance],compared to Intels,that only boosted rather boasted quicker CPUs.

The concept of entire major platformisation advantages in Intel such as DDR / 2 ; PCIe started with i 915 Chipset while older AMD X2 chips use same motherboards , give major performance gain , cost less.

But I support Intel’s clock speed view because apps run faster on higher clocks.But the way it is shrinking chip geometry,soon it will have to find a new manufacturing material for its CPUs [ death of Moore's Law of circuitry complexity doubling in every 18 months is very near ] / lose market share to AMD who use a 90 nm fab yet and thus will win the battle in the long run because it has a lower shrink rate to Intel.

So how do I manage multiple tasks and provide faster clocks with same size,again Intel wins with Virtualization.Use technology like HyperThread in Core microarchitectures to reduce heat levels,rate of shrinking chip size and give at least same or slightly less performance !