And lots of em!

depending on performance and pricing i may just get myself an X4 920 in the new year. since i already got the board, ram and everything else.

'Bout time they started throwing a bunch of cache on em, if only to make it look bigger.

I would like to know how these will compare to the core i7 in terms of performance. Hopefully the larger cache will increase performance.

Is the die shrink and large cache the only architectural changes to the phenom?

I think from the techincal jargon I read in the article not much has changed, i don't think HT interconnects go to version 3.0 until much later in '09.

But these aren't the really important numbers.

quite right.
these are at least more consumer friendly numbers than the last ones.

I see some initial benchmarks are starting to appear for the Phenom II X4 940.

I can't say I was terribly impressed by what I just saw. It still looks like 2 year old Intel tech is faster clock per clock. Awaits reviews...

I agree, AMD provided a direct compare against a Q9400 @ 2.66GHz with their 940 at 3Ghz.

With these results coming out so close to launch, I still hope this is only a bios optimization issue or driver issue which is responsible for the less than expected difference.

Regarding the names, I find it odd they would use use a 900 series numbering system since intel's I7 also use the same ...920, 940, 965...Nothing like trying to confuse the less than savy consumer.

They've been doing that for a long time. Who wants to buy a processor with a number like 540 when 740 sounds soo much faster.

Under that rational, then why drop Phenom X4 20050 and replace that with a Phenom II X4 900?

20050 sound much more impressive than only 900.

GILETTE MACH FIVE TURBO SUPER EXTREME NITRO

I'm hoping that graph that's going around comparing the 940 to the 9300/9400 indicates it's price point. It might not be half bad then, once Intel finally EOL's the Q6600 that is.