harry90 All amd Needed to do was to improve the single core performance of their cpu's. who needs more than 8 cores? Just enhance the IPC, single core performance by 40-60% and they could compete with intel!!!

Blue-Knight I was thinking exactly that... LOL!

I will say it again, I still want AMD to move to a unified socket. Use the same LGA socket for servers, for performance desktops, and for mid-range to low end desktops. Of course all their processors will be APUs(Intel's already are), allow us to put anything from dual-cores up to 16-core processors in desktops or even put Opterons in desktops if we wanted to. That to me is a winning idea for AMD. Don't segregate the market by sockets, let someone start with a super cheap processor to get them up and running, and still have the option to upgrade to a high end processor if they want.The thing is, AMD designs their CPUs very differently from Intel. Intel, because they rely on hyper-threading, designs their single core to do the work of two cores. Of course this means when it is only loaded with a single threaded work load, it is extremely fast. This is one of the reasons AMD was reasonably close to Intel in single threaded performance during the early Athlon 64/x2 days when they were competing with Conroe(yes, conroe was still faster, but AMD was a lot closer back then). Intel wasn't designing their processors to use hyper-threading.Honestly, I don't see a need for AMD to increase single threaded performance to meet Intel. The reason is that AMD's single threaded performance is. Yes, they lag behind in benchmarks, but in real world use there really isn't anything that is single threaded that AMD can't handle. Saddly, games are still heavily dependent on single threaded performance, but most modern games still run perfectly well on AMD processors despite this, because AMD's single threaded performance is good enough. There are a few exceptions, StarCraft II comes to mind, because it is extremely CPU heavy and extremely single threaded.