Re: 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.
No one is playing dumb, unless you think that all it took was a single guy on a logic synthesis workstation putting two single core die together and clicking on the "go" button. I meant exactly what I said before, which is that Toledo and other dual core designs needed a fresh layout and synthesis, new validation, etc. This is much more of an R&D prospect than the difference between San Diego and Venice, which is probably nothing more than a cache chop directly from a common layout.
Earlier, you intended to suggest that going to quad core would be another insignificant effort, once the SRQ supported it. This is not the case, Joe. Sorry.
Re: 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.
It's not a single case; it's the most meaningful case. This is where the volumes are, which is the root of our discussion. And while you have a point in terms of Intel's performance levels, you are incorrect to dismiss the price/performance argument. The most commonly benchmarked X2 is the 4800+, which of course has a towering lead over Smithfield in most benchmarks. But to be evaluate price/performance, you should compare AMD's $537 4200+ with Intel's $530 840, or better yet, the $316 830. At these prices, the price/performance curve intersects in quite a few benchmarks. The model number comparison you state is an overly generalized figure that does not apply to everything under the sun. In a number of multimedia benchmarks, an 830 still ought to be able to outperform a 4200+ at a 40% discount.
Re: Again, Whitefield is Yonah derived quad core on a shared bus (apparently, I am not sure), 32 bit only.
I linked to sources that dispute this, but whatever. You have your mind made up that Intel is suddenly going to take a step backward in 2007 with a 32-bit only core in the *most* 64-bit sensitive segment there is. Well, I guess you win no prizes in the independent thought contest, so believe what you want until the time comes when I can show you otherwise.
Re: 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
Or the simple explanation is that this *is* Whitefield, and that your links are wrong. But don't let this perspective get in the way of the most AMD favorable one.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
