1) I think they are waiting to build up some inventory before launching the Phenom X3 parts.

2)They are also waiting to see how the Athlon X4's performance shapes up against a Phenom X3. In my point of view, I think the introduction of L3 Cache on the K10 architecture was a mistake. The L3 cache doesn't offer much more performance than the integrated memory controller. I think they should have concentrated much more on raising the IPC and clock frequency and even the Agena core would have been a much better solution. Raising the L2 Cache memory size from 512 KB to 1024 KB per core in the Shanghai core would have brought a much more impressive raise in performance. Bottom line ... I think Athlon X4 would prove that the addition of L3 Cache didn't bring much performance but brought design problems, heat problems, frequency problems and got the ratio of cores per wafer down.

Surely AMD has some defective cores in this batch. Why do they not sell lower power X3 versions of this (extra L3, 45 NM)? Are they building up a stockpile or worried about cutting into their current X4/X3 profits?

Can't say I didn't see this coming, but I'm still glad to have received my Phenom II 940 black edition yesterday from Scan.co.uk. Working liking a charm after a beta bios update on my DFI 790FX-M2R and just burning it in now before I even attempt overclocking.

To be honest though, I'm not really bothered about benchmarking or the like at present. All I care about is that this gave me a fantastic upgrade route on my board at a cheaper price than the top of the line Intel equivalent, with overclocking space as required. As always, it's cost me less than going Intel and works like a dream. It also fits in well with my general DAAMIT liking, since it matches my Sapphire 4870 1GiB just perfectly.

If you think dual core is great, just wait until you try quad. The amount of things you can do simultaneously without it breaking a sweat is simply mindboggling. If nothing else, you know that supporting AMD helps keep competition around in the chip market, rather than risking the one-horse-show that could result if AMD ever went under.

What's with this "AMD=Yesterday's Tech" talk? AMD was and stil IS much more innovative than Intel. The "Core" architecture is a revamped P6 technology, that's Pentium 3 derived architecture for the inexperienced, with a Pentium 4 derived FSB. That means it is comprised of technologies that are 10 years & 8 years old respectively.

The "i7" architecture has borrowed the CSI BUS ideea from AMD's HyperTransport (or LDT) that's 7 years old and combined it with the integrated memory controler ideea that AMD also introduced 7 years ago.

Yes, AMD made an imperfect design while Intel executed AMD's ideas in a better way and CORE i7 is an architecture more powerful than AMD's Shanghai but AMD's technology is definitely not "Yesterday's technology" . AMD was, for the last 8-7 years on the forefront of CPU technology and this was proved by Intel themselves that have chosen to follow the "AMD HyperTransport + Integrated MC" way even if their own Core 2 Duo architecture was better than AMD's. Thus proving that AMD's take on the future was right from back the K8 days . AMD is now a small step behind Intel but, hopefully for us, they will compete fierce fully with Intel so that we can still have the tick-tock evolution steps from Intel and low prices.

AMD makes Intel cut prices.

Intel makes AMD cut prices.

The Phenom II, the latest offering from AMD do not even compare performance wise to the Core i7. Yes, price cuts may help AMD to shift a few, however what we really need from AMD is a competitor to the Core i7 and not yesterday's tech, the Core 2!!