I never said it wan't a "core" just not the same type of core you find in all the other CPU's. Quick test will tell you yes or no.
Phenom II Cores:
Is each "core" only an integer core? No.
Is each "core" only an integer core? Yes.
"AMD has re-introduced the "Clustered Integer Core" microarchitecture, an architecture first developed by DEC in 1996 with the RISC microprocessor Alpha 21264. This technology is informally called CMT (Clustered Multithreading) and formally called a "module" by the AMD's marketing service. In terms of hardware complexity and functionality, the module is midway between a true dual-core processor, where each thread has a fully independent core, and a single core processor that has SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading), where two threads share the resources of a single core. "
Note that it is not "exactly the same as a dual core processor" but lies somewhere between a "true" dual core and a single core. To call each bulldozer core a "true" core and then compare it's 4 cores (in a 4100) to a quad core phenom or intel is extremely misleading. The whole point is that a 4100 lies somewhere between a "true" dual core and a "true" quad core cpu.
Edit - It's analogous to comparing a dual core intel cpu with hyperthreading to a quad core and saying "it sux because it's a quad core too and it isn't as fast."
Edit, edit - I think it's interesting that intel released hyperthreading CPU's that made more effecient use of resources and they were applauded. And we compare an i3 dual core with hyperthreading against Athlon x2's, Phenom x2's etc. to show performance differences and if it happens to perform as well as a quad core phenom II we say "wow, it's a great CPU".
Yet, AMD introduces a new architecture that is makes more effecient use of resources and they're flamed because "each core isn't as fast as a phenom II x6 core or intel i3/i5/i7 core". Don't you see the hypocracy in that?
Edited by Bubba Hotepp - 6/6/12 at 10:39pm