http://translate.google.com/transl [...] h-CN&tl=en

looks like AMD notice that a dual core processor wouldnt even be able to compete Intel's dual core.might as well safe some money and spend on something worth while.a bare minimum for AMD to compete against Intel's dual core is a Tri-core at the moment.

Given that K10 is a "native" quad core to begin with, it doesn't make sense to deliberately disable two functional cores to produce a Kuma. Remember that since dual core is mainstream now, so the quantity demanded for them will be significantly larger than Phenom/Barcelona.

Or create a native dual-core version... simply would drag AMD down... kinda expected...

I think AMD is in a bad spot and faces some tough challenges over the next few years. Nehalem looks like a monster, so I'm thinking AMD is going to try and settle back into the low end CPU market with some decent mid-range choices.

They haven't made a dual core mask for K10.

Jeez Gill your a real n00b ... you should read some of the previous threads before posting ...

well cancelled is cancelled!what else to say or explain.plus consumers wouldnt benefit from it anyway the production cost is going to be the same.and what i said is true also.there is no dual core product that can compete with intel.and the likes of Phenom X3 8750 is competeing againt E7200(dual core) and Q6600(quad core),and the result is it beats E7200 in multi threaded apps(pretty obvious) and facing negative result against the Q6600 in stock form.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/c [...] -8750.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=3293

the result speaks for themself.a dual core product will mean pointless.but it might make sense if its a native dual core and cost will be lower.

so is what i said no true?and my 1400 post is helping people in Overclocking section mostly.unlike you shouting out "AMD4Life" in your sub 1000 post.

I think AMDs mistake was going straight quad core for K10 first before even doing a dual. If they did a dual and quad at the same time maybe they would be in a bit better place since they would have a nice range of low end duals to sell to that could have been cheaper to produce therfore resulting in better profits from it.

The important thing here is the cultural exchange and experience. I would never have known the meaning of Drongo, or would have known about the Aussie version of the Urban Dictionary if it weren't for Reynod. Thanks (and I agree with you).

I agree with jimmy that it would have been nice if AMD had introduced the dual core K10 at the same time they did the quad core, but they didn't have they money to do it. Now they don't have the money to much of anything, and they might have realized that the older AM2 chips were just as fast and cheaper to make as they already have the fabs up and going, so they're staying with them for the time being.

AMD needs faster clocked duals, but the time to take advantage of that is slowly eroding due to software slowly starting to go multi-core.

i think AMD is kinda stuck at the situation if they go forward they will make a lost and going back is not a viable option.the only way to stay alive in stay where they are now and try to make a sale.

if i rememeber correctly Phenom is marginally faster then the old quad core they've got.its nothing in the world of Core to Nehalem architecture that AMD can achieve.but then again Phenom is just the tock part where as Nehalem is tick.but we will all see how it turns out at the end of the year and beginning of next year.

AMD isn't doing a tick-tock approach. They are doing a tick-flop.

K8 - Tick
K10 (Desktop) - Flop

Yes, but I'd see them spend it on a Deneb and etc. I mean quad-core is the way of the future and for a company like AMD it doesn't make sense to go back even though I'd love to see 65nm K10 45W dual-core...

Go pick on someone with a similar post count (not me). Intelligence is not measured in posts...
Jeez, you don't just insult Reynod, he's smart... (Wait why am I supporting him?)

If done natively it will cost less as there is less die and a smaller failure rate etc.

Yeah, he's the one who does proper Australian English... mine is spelt correctly but its condensed and hard to understand let alone read... you need a master's degree in English in English to understand what I'm saying! =)

it looks kinda like it as well.but i guess everyone got no doubt about K10 being a flop when you look at what its originally aim at.

I think K10 was supposed to be the tick to a new future, but it flopped. But it boils down to finances concerning the Kuma chip. Is costs too much to get it into production. So AMD runs as fast as it can with the present dual cores, only to be slowly left behind.

Yes, I think the latest Phenoms are slightly faster than a Q6600 at stock speed, but the Phenom does overclock very much, struggling to approach 3ghz, while the Q6600 often goes all the way to 3.6ghz. The newest Phenoms aren't bad chips, they just are a year and a half late.