These quad cores are great, but until they can actually give a clock speed 150% higher than my current, aging AMD64 4400+ (@2.2 Ghz), it's just not worth upgrading. So few apps really use more than one core it's hard to see the benefit over a dual-core. And don't talk to me about "multiple apps": when you run move than one or two apps, your disks, video card and memory usually become the bottlenecks, not just the CPU.

QUAD CORE: the solution to a problem very few home users actually have...but a great marketing win for someone.

Just quickly read the headline and mistook Phenom for Phorm.

Ooooooherrr Missus.

Ouch. Unless they can get that down by a significant amount, I for one won't care about this generation of chips at all.

Looks like once again you'll get far more bang for your buck working on improving your memory or IO performance

I am running CentOS and Windows in VMWare. Oh, the Phenom quad core is a quick processor! And no, Robert, the video card, memory, and disk are not bottlenecks. If they are bottlenecks on your home-use system, then I suggest that you upgrade.

AMD is not staggering its releases! AMD is just staggering!

I've got a phenom 9500 and it is a nice chip.

No great shakes at over clocking, but I don't really care: running with an 8800GT video card it played games well. It scaled on a linear 45 degree angle for my threaded C-language projects.

AMD surely screwed up bring the phenom & barcelona to market on time but wth, it's getting its act together.

I'll buy another phenom at 2.8 or 3.0 GHz.

Screw L3. What AMD really needs to do is to get the L2 cache up. When AMD can offer a 65nm, AM2 (non server), Dual-Core, 2.8Ghz (Only multiples of 400 Mhz allow DDR2-800 to run at full speed), with at least 1 meg of L2 cache per core that runs at 75W or less, I'll bite. But not until then.

Hector is running this company into the ground. He needs to leave.