A little less conversation a little more action, all this bs gives me no satisfaction. So go satisfy Mr. BonBon or turn around and just go home, cause all your bs does not satisfy me, SATISFY ME.

Well, they are doing something more quickly than scheduled.
BUT, I dont think that getting owned ahead of schedule is what they need now...

I still keep wondering if AMD is pinning its hopes and R&D dollars on the 45nm generation. I keep feeling that the Phenom is designed to operate better at 45nm node than at the 65nm node.
Also I understand the need to compete at the quad core level but I can't help feeling that a new dual core based on the new architecture and die shrink coupled with faster and larger cache may be more profitable and probably a hit. I think tri cores will have their place and based on what I have read, the tri core may have a much higher frequency potential than the quads. I seems that one core, namely core 2 aka. the third core is the problem. Without that core on or throttled down the other cores can scale to 2.8GHz without stability problems. AMD might have used the TLB problem to cover a manufacturing process problem.
Hopefully the B3 (which might be the last revision on 65nm silicon) solves all these problems.

AMD does not look so good right now :(

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 (3.00GHz, 12MB) Q3'08
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz, 12MB) Feb-Mar'08
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 (2.66GHz, 12MB) Feb-Mar'08
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.50GHz, 6MB) Feb-Mar'08

AMD Phenom 9950 (2.60GHz) May-June'08
AMD Phenom 9750 (2.40GHz) April'08
AMD Phenom 9650 (2.30GHz) April'08
AMD Phenom 9550 (2.20GHz) April'08

the question is how much faster will a Q9450 be vs. P9950.

So you don't think a Q9300 will be faster than a 9950? The Q9300 will certainly consume less power and have a better performance/watt (AMD's 'key metric these days?)

It's too good to be true. I just can't trust "Hectored" promises.

AMD is a great innovation-driven company doomed by gloomy management.