Seems that AMD has been doing a little "CPU Shuffle" with the product mix recently, remember how not long ago they announced they were killing off the 2MB cache X-2's CPU's (1MB per core) on everything other than for the FX series? (And of course the single core 1MB versions are long gone)

Well..there baaaaaack!
(For AM-2 X-2 only)

Ya, I was pleasantly surprised to see a return to the line up, there was no hint that this was going to happen! (Sneaky devils aren't they?)

On another note, EE "Energy Efficient" CPU's still have have yet to show up at retailers in mass quantities
And so far, don't appear to Overclock any better than the regular versions, at least in the reviews I have read so far...the "Jury" on that will still be out until "Regular" people start posting results.



http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...l?redir=CPPR01

I'll start with my top choices in the "Best Bang For The Buck" for Overclockers, and then touch on the other new changes you might want to take a look at in more detail.

The 3800+ X-2 is the "Cheap Charlie" of the Dual core line up, coming in at the same price point of around 150$ where it has sat since the big price cuts not long ago.

The star of the "Dualie" show for most people, coming in at a slightly more potent 2.2GHZ is the 4200+ X-2 for 187$
This will make a much better choice for alot of people with it's 11x multiplier, which means your motherboard and ram won't have to be run at full boil to hit a decent clock speed, like it would have to with the 10x multiplier of the 3800+ X-2

That can allow you to save a few bucks on the motherboard and ram, since 11x250=2750MHZ (A reasonable target for this CPU) versus the 3800+ X-2 that would have only reached 2.5GHZ at the same 250FSB speed with its 10x multiplier.

The required mother board that will reach into the 275+FSB range adds cost (Wich most budget OC boards will have trouble with) and you would also be stuck with buying much more expensive ram to run it at a "1 to1" ratio, or end up using a memory divider, which incurs a slight performance penalty.

To sum that up for you, plunking down another 35$ on that CPU might get you "More go for less dough" when you add up the total costs involved.

In the "Single Core" arena, the 3500+ for 91$ is still my top pick with its 2.2GHZ clock speed and 11x multiplier, for many of the same reasons as above.
The 3200+ has a 10x multiplier, saving you a measly 10$, while the 3800+ has a 12x multiplier, it's not realy needed, and can hardly be justified for the extra 21$

So that leaves the 3500+ as "Just right" in my book.

Unfortunately for single core fans, the 1MB cache processors have been deemed "Unworthy" of a return, so you will have to find a 939 Opteron to fill your needs if you must have one.

As a side not, I just noticed the other night that they have "Large Cache" AM-2 940 pin opterons...so they may be worth taking a closer look at down the road, but as of now, I have not heard a peep on them.

Worth looking at in a bit more detail, is the 5200+
It's using the same clock speed of the 1MB 2.6GHZ 5000+ but with the heavy duty cache (Think FX-60 for AM-2) and is priced around 400$ which could be a good choice for those who may not want to Overclock and like the big cache, but can't stomach the over 800$ price tag of the FX-62.

Hardly worth mentioning is the 4000+ X-2 (2.0GHZ, with 2MB cache and 10x multi) did not return for this round..and is no "Big" loss realy in the grand scheme of things.

Well..I hope this was helpfull for the 2 other people on this site (Just kidding) that aren't going to build a "Killa Conroe" rig, which truly are screamers, but would cost a bit more to build one "Right" IMO
(I won't even get into the lack of a good SLI/Cross-Fire motherboards for them at this time..I may do an article on that and Conroe's soon)

One final note, this applies mostly to AM-2, since I would not recommend building a "New: 939 rig at this time unless you have other hardware you need to carry over due to budget concerns.

Til' the next time my bench racing friends, stay "Tuned"

EDIT: As requested, I will add my 939 "OC" picks and also some links of "Trusted" retailers for both AM-2 and 939's where they can be purchased as of today.

NOTES:
OEM= CPU ONLY!, no HSF, 30 day warranty
Retail= CPU+HSF 3 year AMD warranty!
CPU's in Red=Top Picks!

AM-2 Single Core
Athlon 64 3500+(Retail) 89$ 2.2GHZ (200x11) 512k cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103633

AM-2 Dual Core
X-2 3800+152$(Retail) 2.0GHZ (200x10) 1MB cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103735
X-2 4200+187$(Retail)2.2.GHZ (200x11) 1MB cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103747

939 Single Core
Athlon 64 3500+ 89$ (Retail) 2.2GHZ (200x11) 512K cache http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103533

Opteron 146 2.0GHZ (200x10) 1MB Cache
114$(OEM) http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch...Code=AMDOP9391
154$(Retail)http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103598

939 Dual Core
X-2 3800+ 2.0GHZ 155$ (Retail) (200x10) 1MB cache
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103562

Opteron 165 1.8GHZ (200x9) 2MB cache
219$(OEM)http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch...de=AMDOP9391DC
248$ (Retail)http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch...de=AMDOP9391DC

Attached Thumbnails

 

I caught your last couple of paragraphs, but still wanted to get your honest opinion...

Using today as a snapshot in time, isn't the Conroe the way to go right now? I understand that there are not any true overclocking boards available for the Conroe yet, but even a poorly configured rig using mediocre graphics can surpass some of AMD's finest when it has a Conroe in it. The pricing is also surprisingly accessible to the average user unless you are shooting for a top of the line 6800.

I'm one of those guys who will change allegiance with whomever has the power, which is why I switched to Intel in my main rig and slapped a 7950 in it instead of the 1900XTX that was installed. Rumor has it that AMD has their dominance scheduled for spring 2007, and I will probably go that route at that time.

Currently these Conroe's rock, I just need a better board than the Axe to run mine on. I know you are an AMD enthusiast, but aren't you a bit curious about how it feels to run Intel again?

Quote: Originally Posted by BigAkita I caught your last couple of paragraphs, but still wanted to get your honest opinion... Using today as a snapshot in time, isn't the Conroe the way to go right now? I understand that there are not any true overclocking boards available for the Conroe yet, but even a poorly configured rig using mediocre graphics can surpass some of AMD's finest when it has a Conroe in it. The pricing is also surprisingly accessible to the average user unless you are shooting for a top of the line 6800. I'm one of those guys who will change allegiance with whomever has the power, which is why I switched to Intel in my main rig and slapped a 7950 in it instead of the 1900XTX that was installed. Rumor has it that AMD has their dominance scheduled for spring 2007, and I will probably go that route at that time. Currently these Conroe's rock, I just need a better board than the Axe to run mine on. I know you are an AMD enthusiast, but aren't you a bit curious about how it feels to run Intel again?

Yes BA, I would definitely agree for 99% of people building a new rig today, there is no contest, hands down "Conroe" mops the floor with AM-2, but there are a few "Arguments" for AMD. one of them comes from your "Buddy" "Kyle" at [H]OCP (LMAO sorry bout that, I know you can't stand him)

I don't trust his opinion either, it's kinda "Weak Sauce" but it does bring up a few valid points of contention, so I would like to hear your opinion on the article.

Quote: As for the AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, all of our testing shows that it does trail the two new Intel CPUs in gameplay performance. So, if you wanted to point one out as being a “winner” then for sure it is the new Intel Core 2 X6800 and E6700. But, if you look at the amount of difference between the AMD and Intel CPUs, you will see that it isn’t enough to amount to anything. The only game that we saw any real-world difference in was Oblivion, and even that was tiny. A little overclocking would clear that difference up. Overall, the performance difference isn’t enough to amount to any gameplay experience differences in these games. One thing is certain: these are very fast platforms and they all provided a very enjoyable high-end gaming experience in every game.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...ZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

You can get a bit deeper insight into my reasonings for going AM-2 at this time by checking out my personal, and I hate this term "Blog" (Though I would be building Conroe if I had another 300-1500$ more in my budget, the biggest part of wich would be for new high end video cards)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...b-8fec8394c614


To sum up my feelings for not going Intel at this time, I also see the tables possibly turning in 2007, as you mentioned with "Quad Core" CPU's, and by going AM-2 now, this saves me money in the long haul, cause I am not going to want to have to dump my hardware cheap to "Keep up with the Joneses" in less than six months...I don't think Intel's method of slapping 2 COnroe's on a die is going to be able to keep up with AMD's plans for "Native" quad core...I am betting it will be similar scenario (Though not as bad) as Intel's first stab at Dual Cores.

I'd like to do an article similar to this for Conroe soon, and spend some time with the "Motherboard" problem that overclockers are facing with "Dual GPU's at this time, it looks like they NF-4 SLI boards (Even DFI) are pretty sad in the FSB dept.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=113639


Bottom line, yes, Conroe is still going to be the better choice TODAY for a build, but this article was written for the few of us who are choosing to go the other way

Oh, and BTW, I have never owned and Intel, but I am not opposed to it either, I wrote an article back in January that predicted how this would be the year "The Empire Strikes Back"

Thanks for bringing this excellent point up BA

Is the 5200+ a $400 FX-60? It's says 2MB L2 cache, that sounds pretty good.

Uh-Oh!!!!!

You may have picked up on something I missed, and it's VERY critical to the article I have writen, and may require a TOTAL re-write

AMD looks like they combine the TOTAL cache of the dual core CPU's, not listing them individually!

I realy think that is the case here, so the 3800+ X-2 would end up as a tie for the 4200+ or even go back to the top of the list, depending on what motherboard and ram you have.

UGH...just goes to show ya "Pobodies Nerfect" and I am glad you guys look closely, keeping me honest (So to speak)

That certainly does make the 5200+ ALOT more attractive than before, but I would still have a hard time making it my top pick, a 400$ price tag hardly fits into a "Budget" choice, and the performance gain of larger cache certainly does not justify the extra cost.

+Rep to you for the great find!

Quote: Originally Posted by $SOLID$ Necro +Rep to you for the great find!

Thanks, I have 3 little green squares now.

Good dealio Bro!

You earned your "Bar" with that one!

Luckily for me, it's still early and most people have not had time to read this yet

I did a quick rewrite and edit to reflect the changes this will make, though it realy didn't realy make any difference at the bottom line of my choices...it just kinda leveled things out between the 3800+ and 4200+ X-2's

The better multiplier of the 4200+ makes it a great choice for those with boards and ram limited to 250FSB, where those that have or planing on purchasing boards and ram that can reach 275-300FSB will probably enjoy saving the 35$ by grabbing the 3800+ X-2, since they both seem to top out around the same max CPU speed in general.

Forgive me if I missed it above, but are we talking AM2? Is 939 pretty much dead? What about the Opterons?

Edit: Nevermind I see the sockets, I didn't have my contacts in yet.

Yes, this applies mostly to AM-2 (I will edit the top post to make it more clear in a few) 939 is still "Viable" for people that allready still have some hardware and may be only looking for an upgrade in the CPU dept.

The "Top Picks" apply to both sockets, though the Opteron 939 realy was not mentioned since they are gettting harder to find (Monarch and a few others still stock them) and would be first my choice for that platform.

One reason some people may choose to build a "New" 939 system, would be if they have a "Good" AGP card they may have recently purchased, and plenty of DDR-1they would like to continue using.

There are several good overclocking 939 boards out there still for sale, and this may be a better way to stretch things on a shoestring budget....939 is still plenty powerfull with dual core and SLI options, it has not just dropped off the face of the earth since AM-2 is now the "Bell of the Ball"

That definately makes sense. I am looking for a dual core upgrade, so what would be the major difference between say a 4200+ dual core and an opty 165 with 2MB L2 cache? Would I see any real world difference or would it simply be benchmark? Is this a lot of questions?

Quote: Originally Posted by Sn0wMan That definately makes sense. I am looking for a dual core upgrade, so what would be the major difference between say a 4200+ dual core and an opty 165 with 2MB L2 cache? Would I see any real world difference or would it simply be benchmark? Is this a lot of questions?

Well, it depends on what your "Real World" apps are.

In gaming it will show up as a few more FPS (as much as 5+)in some of them, other it won't make much if any difference.

Here are a few links that may help you decide for yourself:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2747&p=3

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2762&p=7

I have heard when editing movies and Folding, that the large cache can have a good sized impact, but I cannot find any "Specific" test to confirm this without doing alot more digging, I will see what I can come up with.

My bottom line opinion is more cache is always good, and if the cost are nearly the same (Within 10-20$) and you can afford it, why not go for it?

Let me know what you choose to go with, I'd love to hear what and why!

Quote: Originally Posted by Sn0wMan What about the Opterons?

There are going to be AM2 opterons soon (I'm 99% sure that I read that anyway).

*UPDATE*
Tyan AM2 board that for 'Opertons'
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tomcath1000s.html
Prices on a German website
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/story.php?id=4250

Thanks Necro, more than likely I won't be upgrading right away, I will probably wait until tax time. As far as AM2 goes, I will be looking into that again more towards tax time. I would like to be able to sell my 3500+ when I get a dual core chip, but I doubt I will be able to get anything for it in 5-6 months. My current plans are to go dual core on my DFI board, and also build a new rig with either AM2 or conroe (more than likely AM2.) Once tax time gets here, who know what crazy chips they will have released so I guess time will tell. I have never been a fan of the dark side, so loyalty is pretty much what is keeping me with AMD. If Necro says AM2 is good, then no doubt it is, and since there isn't THAT much difference in gaming then that sounds like a plan to me. Does any of that make sense?? It's too early and I am sick of school!

Quote: Originally Posted by Zaltan There are going to be AM2 opterons soon (I'm 99% sure that I read that anyway). *UPDATE* Tyan AM2 board that for 'Opertons' http://www.tyan.com/products/html/tomcath1000s.html Prices on a German website http://www.hardwareluxx.de/story.php?id=4250

I did briefly touch on AM-2 Opterons in my first post, It was just something I caught wind of the other day, up until then, I had heard they were only to be used in socket "F" server platforms...it is so new to me and had caught me completely so off guard, that I have not had time to dig around much on them...thanks for the links!

Quote: Originally Posted by Sn0wMan Thanks Necro, more than likely I won't be upgrading right away, I will probably wait until tax time. As far as AM2 goes, I will be looking into that again more towards tax time. I would like to be able to sell my 3500+ when I get a dual core chip, but I doubt I will be able to get anything for it in 5-6 months. My current plans are to go dual core on my DFI board, and also build a new rig with either AM2 or Conroe (more than likely AM2.) Once tax time gets here, who know what crazy chips they will have released so I guess time will tell. I have never been a fan of the dark side, so loyalty is pretty much what is keeping me with AMD. If Necro says AM2 is good, then no doubt it is, and since there isn't THAT much difference in gaming then that sounds like a plan to me. Does any of that make sense?? It's too early and I am sick of school!

If I were to look in my "Crystal Ball" in six moths time (Assuming Intel and AMD have released Quad cores) I would say that it is going to be a VERY close race!

One BIG problem with "Quad Core" is there are few software apps out today that can benefit from Dual cores, especially games, there are a few, and more showing up all the time..it's a "Chicken or the Egg" situation.
The "Coders" aren't going to make games and apps for hardware that is not very common, and is much much hardware to optimize for, which adds to release time, and more potential "Glitches"

This situation gets even worse when you look at "Quad core" how can you justify there purchase if nothing out there you use now benefits from 2 cores, let alone 4?

Well..there may be one "Killer thing" in the next gen of hardware that may make having lots of cores a "REALY Good" thing.

It's called "Reverse Hyper threading"

Intel used to have regular "Hyper threading" on the P-4's before the days of dual cores, and the benefit to it was it kinda "Tricked" a single CPU into thinking there was two of them.

The catch was, not many apps benefited that greatly (Folding@Home was one of them though) and some apps even ran slower... Catch 22!

Well.."Reverse Hyper threading" was a "Rumor" that started a little bit ago, but was quickly Poo-Poo'd as hogwash by AMD's PR dept. and would never happen..but lately, there is evidence that it is not only possible, but may already have been hard coded into AM-2, and get this..Conroe!

Apparently, there is some option in the Bios of new gen motherboards that are there to turn this on and off! (Though Intel has a new name for it, but it escapes me at the moment)

So what is all this "Reverse Hyper threading" hub-bub all about you ask?

Well, basically, it makes the "Software" see multi-core CPU's as one big fat chunky code eater!

This solves many headaches for software engineers, and brings the benefits of multi-core's to the real world NOW!

*Puts away Crystal Ball"

None of the above is written in stone, and is subject to change at any time, till the hardware hits the pavement, it is all just "Good Guesses" about what may be possible based on rumors and real world road maps.

Oh, and just cause "Necro says AM-2 is good" does not make it so, in games, there IS definitely a performance lead by Conroe at this time, it all depends on the individual configuration.

IF your current video card is low end to midrange, there may be no to little difference because the video card is not hurting for CPU speed.

But throw SLI, Cross-Fire and even QUAD SLI into the mix where CPU horsepower was lacking before Conroe's arrival, it can make a HUGE difference!

Not to mention there are other apps in a PC's normal use such as media encoding where Conroe just makes AM-2 look like a slug! Up to 30% faster clock per clock..that is a difference you can see and feel!

I wrote this guide mainly for people who are considering building an AM-2 rig soon, and don't want Intel for one reason or another!

It was NOT about trying to sway anyones opinion about what "Brand" to go with..

Awesome thread man, my buddys letting me OC his 4200, so ill have some reports on how well his OEM (computer expo) version of the chip does. on a side note ill be getting my 3800, or mayber even higher looking to spend about 300 on the CPU, and playing with a nice microATX board (hopefully DFI by summer next year) this all being into the spring summer of next year.

so ill have a few results to show in the AM-2 socket, i really want to get an opteron, can't wait to see what they can do, and how much cache we can get

Think you'll add an opteron section to your thread there necro?

Thanks for the all the useful info. I used to have the 7900 GTX, but that got fried and now I am running the 7300GT. Big difference between the 2. I know that just because you say it is good then it's not necessarily true, but you have proved it many times in the past!

I will probably never have the need for Quad SLI, but I might put these low end 7300GT's in SLI just for kicks. The main reason I have always been a fan of AMD is because they have been good to me. I have never had one die on me and I have owned 5 of them. I am also loving the ability to upgrade to quad core without buying another motherboard in a few months. My 3500+ is my first 64bit chip, and I am loving the performance increase! I don't do much multimedia editing, but I do encode movies to different formats, so I can see going conroe for that, but since I don't do it that often and I have 3 computers then it's not a big deal if there is a 30% increase.

I am also not liking the price on some of the conroe boards. I am a huge DFI fanboy, and that new AM2 board sure looks sweet!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if "reverse hyperthreading" bluffs the computer into thinking two cores are really one wouldn't that ruin one of the greatest feats of dual cores, the fact that spyware doesn't slow the computer down so much almost to the point of making it impossible to remove it (unless in safe mode)?

Sure, writing code that makes use of two cores at once is hard, or so we've been told, but for the average joe it doesn't really matter. So instead we, the consumers, have had to pay for research and development for something that we don't really need, that is unless Intel and AMD don't pay their R&D teams.

Now some of you may be saying that I'm an ass by saying that it would be cheaper to skip the whole "r h/t" thing and instead software prices would go up. But the thing is, the average consumer shouldn't have to worry about that. For instance, lately more and more games have been incorporating advertisements into gameplay, for example Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Personally I hate the ads on TV, except some good ones, but in that game it didn't bug me. This, along with games being so damn expensive, got me thinking that why not put more ads which don't disturb gameplay but rather "blend in," this would, or at least should, bring in some handy dough for the developers. Games could even come with a handy update tool which gets the latest ads. But enough about games, what about other software?

Well, what other software do most people use? Office is probably the most used software package, and I don't think that using two cores is especially handy for Word, Excel (for the typical user anyway), Frontpage (if anyone uses it anymore) and Power Point. Sure some people use something from the Adobe family but I have a feeling that not alot of people shell out 800 - 2000$ for software which is used mainly for fun, again I'm talking about the average joe. And then there's benchmarking software. Most of them, at least to the best of my knowledge, have a free version or are entirely free.

But anyway enough of my rant

And Necro thanks for another awesome thread

Quote: Originally Posted by BigAkita I caught your last couple of paragraphs, but still wanted to get your honest opinion... Using today as a snapshot in time, isn't the Conroe the way to go right now? I understand that there are not any true overclocking boards available for the Conroe yet, but even a poorly configured rig using mediocre graphics can surpass some of AMD's finest when it has a Conroe in it. The pricing is also surprisingly accessible to the average user unless you are shooting for a top of the line 6800. I'm one of those guys who will change allegiance with whomever has the power, which is why I switched to Intel in my main rig and slapped a 7950 in it instead of the 1900XTX that was installed. Rumor has it that AMD has their dominance scheduled for spring 2007, and I will probably go that route at that time. Currently these Conroe's rock, I just need a better board than the Axe to run mine on. I know you are an AMD enthusiast, but aren't you a bit curious about how it feels to run Intel again?

The bad axe isnt the best beard out there. If your only running 1 card and not looking to run sli you could pickup a Asus P5B Deluxe. It is one of the best overclocking boards but only has one PCI-E 16x slot so no SLI or Crossfire. If youd like to keep your bad axe you should really water cool the chipset. You will see about another 75mhz gain in your FSB.

Quote: Originally Posted by 4x0n Correct me if I'm wrong, but if "reverse hyperthreading" bluffs the computer into thinking two cores are really one wouldn't that ruin one of the greatest feats of dual cores, the fact that spyware doesn't slow the computer down so much almost to the point of making it impossible to remove it (unless in safe mode)? Sure, writing code that makes use of two cores at once is hard, or so we've been told, but for the average joe it doesn't really matter. So instead we, the consumers, have had to pay for research and development for something that we don't really need, that is unless Intel and AMD don't pay their R&D teams. Now some of you may be saying that I'm an ass by saying that it would be cheaper to skip the whole "r h/t" thing and instead software prices would go up. But the thing is, the average consumer shouldn't have to worry about that. Well, what other software do most people use? Office is probably the most used software package, and I don't think that using two cores is especially handy for Word, Excel (for the typical user anyway), Frontpage (if anyone uses it anymore) and Power Point. Sure some people use something from the Adobe family but I have a feeling that not alot of people shell out 800 - 2000$ for software which is used mainly for fun, again I'm talking about the average joe. And then there's benchmarking software. Most of them, at least to the best of my knowledge, have a free version or are entirely free. But anyway enough of my rant And Necro thanks for another awesome thread

First of all, your most welcome..I enjoy writing articles like this, and no, you aren't being an ass if you bring up a valid point/concern, as long as you do it with a valid point, facts to back it up, and wel, don't ACT like an ass when doing it!
Bringiing up such concerns allows them to adressed and discussed...one of the things I realy enjoy most, if no one says anything, other than "Great Job" then I feel like there might have been something missed out on.

Second, I am not going to touch the "Advertising" issue...that will just get me spitting all over myself!

Now to the heart of the question: Reverse Hyperthreading:

I cannot say much about what the effects will be in "The real world" because there is just too little information..and 0 "Empirical" data to base anything from, this is purely hypothetical at this point.

Much press hype surounded the orignal "Hyperthreading" before it hit our PC's, saying it would be the answers to all our prayers, and though there were SOME benefits to it, it was sort of a bust IMO, or we would have seen AMD do it too, and true "Dual Cores" might not have been such a good deal after all.
(Which realy came into being because of CPU speed hitting the "Wall" at under 4GHZ for Intel, forcing them to abandon "Speed at any cost" and go in a different direction)

The last semi-official word on reverse HT is it does not exist! and AMD and Intel have been quiet about it so far.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32885

If it weren't for "Strange" options showing up in a few new motherboards bios, I would tend to beleive it was just someones fantasy.

As to what benefits it will bring to the table, just imagine that this may allow older and current single threaded "Games" to see your 2GHZ dual core CPU as one "Virtual" CPU that would be, and this is a bit of a leap of faith, equivilent to a single 4GHZ core CPU.

Office apps realy don't take much horsepower, so they are kinda pointless to dicuss, you can do just fine with a single core 1GHZ CPU in most cases, anything more is a waste.

What apps will realy benefit from this are unclear..but it is something I'd like to see..if my guess is right..how about that 2GHZ "Quad Core" that makes software thinks it's realy running 8GHZ

OF course that won't mean that software development that is "Multi threaded" will stop being developed, but it would certainly bring a new option to the table...

If they told you it would take another year to finish development of a game that your dying to try, or resulted in 2-4x as many bugs due to it being so complicated (Wich drives up costs, forcing them to charge more, or pump in more"Advertising") then doesn't reverse HT look more apealing?

Valid points, but sure the costs and the amount of bugs would be a hell of a lot more, but in my opinion it wouldn't be permanent. Every time a new technology arises some difficulties are bound to follow, but most of the time some easier solution can be found or the standards must be raised. But of course it's easy for me to say these things, but time will tell what will happen and it will probably be interesting to follow.