It is lower power usage per core, but nevermind, at least you weren't a t**t in your corrections.

The Itanic.....maybe they can find a way to layer icebergs in it and vastly improve performance.

dont tell me you didnt see that.

linear scaling with the amount of cores I deploy, but then, I run real applications, not games.

How exactly do you think that going from 4 to 6 cores will give you at least a 50% performance boost?
Do you know nothing about computer architecture?

The Inq is rapidly producing articles to lose all credibility it has with the articles on chrome included and all.

Go and study computers, then write your articles. IT press is sure getting worse.

Will these babies work in my skull trail board?

I Once sat down & calculated where Big Time IPTV/media become Ease. 1.9 Billion Transistors is in Good Seat. Tolerates complexity & 
Serves it Up.
STeWie Drashek

Article quote: "The new range operate in the 65W TDP compared to 50W for the older four-core CPUs, which although higher overall, is a lower power usage per core."

That would be a HIGHER power usage per core. On the other hand, you can get 24 cores on 2, 2-sockets mobos when using 6 core chips, instead of 3, 2-socket mobos when using 4 core chips, saving a bit of northbridge power consumption. Pity the performance doesn't scale, though.

Going from 4 cores to 6 cores does not always improve performance by 50% just because the 6 core model 50% more cores. The performance is purely applications based and being able to enough parallelism to distribute the work between all the available cores.
Don't forget the fact that now there are 6 cores competing for memory/bus attention and cause significant contention and thereby hurt performance. In short, all that i want the author to be aware of is not to conclude the performance based off of number of cores.

and if it is will it work on skull trail? 2x 6 core procs would be cool.