Comments with -5 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.

• 
  0 thumbs!

  timberwolf120 | December 26, 2007
  Not too phenominal to me. I'll stick with my Core 2 Duo while I wait to see what Penryn or AMD equivalent will bring in the future.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  JelalTrueshot | December 26, 2007
  I am just wondering what AMD fans are going to buy a triple-core when the quad-core CPUs are very inexpensive as it is?
• 
  0 thumbs!

  VeGiTAX2 | December 26, 2007
  Depends on how the benchmarks come out really, many developers already talk about the benefits to a 3 core design as opposed to 4 cores in a system, that there's a hiccup in the point where the system apparently waits on the 4th core before compiling or something to that regard.
  
  Given that the consumers haven't seen much of a demonstration of this outside of an Xbox 360, it's hard to say if it's better or worse. Personally though, I'm quite interested to see how it pans out and if all the developer hype about 3 being better than 4 is going to hold true in practice on the x86 platform.
• 
  0 thumbs!

  JelalTrueshot | December 26, 2007
  That is interesting, I didn't know that there was a dis-economy of scale regarding the # of cores a CPU has. Thanks, VeGiTAX2!