Intel says this about it's version of the quad-core processor...
"It doesn't matter how you deliver the quad cores , just as long as you."
In other words, Would you rather have the quad core that Intel is now selling or would you rather wait until next year to have what AMD says, I agree with AMD, is the true quad core.
Intel has taken two dual core processors and put them one one chip. Nothing wrong with that right? Doesn't that make it a quad core processor. Yes but you have to take into account one thing. What do you sacrifice for this? Let me break it down.
Intel's quad core has the two dual processors that must set data back and forth to work right. This is where AMD get true quad core. While the Intel cpu is connected it takes more time to send the data through it and all the way back out of it.
AMD's on the other hand did not join two Athlon 64x2 chips together. They made one whole unit that runs as one. This is the true quad. There is no need for the relay back and forth between the four processors because nothing is separating them. They are actually one chip not two.
So what difference does that make?
Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6800 has a clock speed of 2.66GHz. That is disappointing considering that the Dual Core version, Core 2 Extreme X6800, runs at a clock speed of 2.93GHz. Boo-Hiss.
AMD's quad core is a little more what you would expect. The lowest of the offered quad cores will run at a clock speed of 2.6GHz,FX-70, and from there it is up. The high end which could run at about 1,000(The Athlon 64 FX-74 will have a clock speed of 3 GHz. SO maybe now you can see the difference.