Originally Posted by Fuell
This has been covered a long time ago and was in some of the earliest info I read about BD when the module idea was mentioned as it caused a lot uproar from people asking the same question your asking.
Cores are cores, if they are partially merged thats great, but they are still cores and the OS will see them as such.
This is why everyone keeps saying the traditional idea of a "core" has much less meaning now, and the game is about to change. So worry not, your FX branded Zambezi CPU's will have as many cores as the first number in its model name. Cheers!
PS> Good to see you still keeping up on fact checking people JF, and many thanks. So many threads on so many sites I've witnessed you correct some bad info, and I am grateful.
Correct. When the world was single core each core (of ours) had its own memory controller and had its own I/O connections. Then we went to dual core. Suddenly both of those resources is shared. Did that mean that the cores were "less than cores"? No.
When the world went from dual core to quad core, now even more resources were shared. Suddenly the L3 cache was also shared across multiple cores. Were these "less than cores"? No.
Architectures will continue to evolve to match needs. You'll probably see a modular approach for intel some time in the future as well. Continuing to overprovision cores really doesn't make sense because the benefits just aren't there.