wbmw,
Briefly, you are wrong in every point you raised, from somewhat to totally. You don't seem to be having a good day or something.
You don't know what you're talking about here. You might argue that San Diego and Venice share a lot of reuse, except for a chopped cache on the 512k part, but Toledo is a different design altogether. Quad cores will require a new design as well, unless AMD does something along the lines of what Intel has done with Presler.
I guess you don't understand a difference between new core, a core revision, and things like halving a cache, and also, you don't seem to understand AMD dual core design.
Overall, it seems that on the subject of dual core, over all smart Intel posters are all of the sudden playing dumb. I wonder why that is...
In this case, Intel's dual core desktop CPUs are lower priced than AMD's, and by a fairly significant margin, too. Not that I would buy one, but the price/performance is there this time.
Thank you for your effort to find a single case of inferior Intel CPU selling for less. Unfortunatelly, the one you found does not hold much water. Intel does not have a comparable dual core CPUs to AMD. Intel ones stop at 3200 rating, and AMD ones start at 3500, so there is no overlap to compare prices.
I don't know where you got this particular piece of FUD (let me guess: Dougie?), but it sounds ridiculous to me. Whitefield as a code name as been leaked for more than a year now, and since the beginning it's been planned as a native quad core based Merom design with integrated memory controller and CSI.
Your own links contradict what you posted. The best information of Whitefield is that it will be 32 bit. So the question remains: If a real Opteron quad is lame in your opinion, what then is Whitefield?
People with a clue ought to be able to change their opinion depending on when Intel is truly ahead or behind competitively. I am most certainly not impressed with Smithfield's performance, but I also recognize that Intel did what they had to, and it ended up being the best tradeoff given what they had. AMD's solution is superior right now, but I can already tell that the 'Droids on this forum are dreaming up new kinds of FUD for Intel's next generation. Things like "32-bit Whitefield" for example. ;-).
I think I go by merit. Again, Whitefield is Yonah derived quad core on a shared bus (apparently, I am not sure), 32 bit only. It is going to have a good power consumption, but otherwise, the application will be very limited, since at the time of the release, the server OSs will be largely 64 bit. My guess is that Intel just whats to have a plan B and C, but I am having hard time believing this is plan A.
Now, I think what you are confusing Whitefield with, a Merom based server (I don't know the code names, but I know it is not Whitefield), possibly with CSI, that to me sounds like a plan A, and has a potential for Intel to finally catch up, or even take the lead.
Joe
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
